[1.4] SpaceY Heavy-Lifter Parts Pack v1.17.1 (2018-04-02)

[E.Nygma]

OK, I decided to try these changes out. It took longer than I planned, but it's still morning here, so I guess it didn't take too long...

Yeah, this looks much much better in my opinion! Eagerly awaiting the update! Which form factors are planned? Btw, for me its early evening

Unfortunately the light doesn't "work". I'd need a plugin for that.

Okay, thought the "light" could maybe made with sth. like the WIP texture looping/switching, ore maybe firespitter for animations?

[NecroBones]

Yeah, this looks much much better in my opinion! Eagerly awaiting the update! Which form factors are planned? Btw, for me its early evening

Okay, thought the "light" could maybe made with sth. like the WIP texture looping/switching, ore maybe firespitter for animations?

Right now I have the SAS pieces sized for 5m and 3.75m.

It's of course possible to make lights that work as "lights" (toggle with "L" etc), but to tie it to a system state would definitely need a plugin. I'm not sure if Firespitter handles that or not.

[E.Nygma]

Thanks for the info, the "light" thing was just a minor point and these form factors should play out nice with those heavy lifters I have in mind Keep up the amazing work!

[NecroBones]

Thanks for the info, the "light" thing was just a minor point and these form factors should play out nice with those heavy lifters I have in mind Keep up the amazing work!

No worries. I expect to have the update out in the next day or two. I'll be away from the computer for most of the week after that, so I want to make sure people can play with it while I'm busy with other things.

I went ahead and took out the tiny stripes from the lower end of the big tank, filled it in with white panels, and extended the pipes on the side down into that area. The flag-decal is now centered in the white area, so it's lower on the tank than it was. Updated screenshots, including some sample rockets:

[SciMan]

The light doesn't need a plugin if you don't want it to. There is an action group for SAS. If the part's light animation can be set to trigger on that action group by default, that would take care of the problem nicely. If it can't, you can always just put the animation in there anyways, and let the player set it to the SAS group if they want to.

Then again, as stated by others, it's a minor point.

Edited November 24, 2014 by SciMan

[NBZ]

No worries. I expect to have the update out in the next day or two. I'll be away from the computer for most of the week after that, so I want to make sure people can play with it while I'm busy with other things.

I went ahead and took out the tiny stripes from the lower end of the big tank, filled it in with white panels, and extended the pipes on the side down into that area. The flag-decal is now centered in the white area, so it's lower on the tank than it was. Updated screenshots, including some sample rockets:

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-23%2020-08-19-05.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-23%2020-07-52-45.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-23%2020-10-33-44.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-23%2020-06-50-54.jpg

Yes! That is great!

Good that you extended the pipes. IRL the pipe begins 6/16 (about 1/3) of the way down, as it feeds the O₂ from the upper tank around the lower H₂ tank.

For an even cleaner look, consider removing the horizontal band on the tallest tank. It would also make it easier to see where the tanks begin and end.

Also, I think you can remove the black panels on the thrust-plates altogether. Either that, or at least extend the F5's black onto its fairing when stacked.

[NecroBones]

The light doesn't need a plugin if you don't want it to. There is an action group for SAS. If the part's light animation can be set to trigger on that action group by default, that would take care of the problem nicely. If it can't, you can always just put the animation in there anyways, and let the player set it to the SAS group if they want to.

Then again, as stated by others, it's a minor point.

I toyed around with it a bit, and the way the spotlights work, it would appear that they're hard-coded to end up in the "lights" action group. That is, the light-module in the part CFG appears to automatically place it into that lights group. For SAS, I tried adding the animation to the SAS module in the same way, and it just gets ignored.

So what I've done is set the light to be switchable, and defaults to "off" so that all you need to do is add it to the SAS action group, and then it'll "work" as expected, as you suggested. The downside of course, is that that anyone who fails to notice it (or read the part description) may not know that they can turn those lights on. But if it defaulted to "on", you'd have an extra step in adding it to the action group, otherwise they'd toggle out of sync with it. I guess either way is fine in the long run.

Yes! That is great!

Good that you extended the pipes. IRL the pipe begins 6/16 (about 1/3) of the way down, as it feeds the O₂ from the upper tank around the lower H₂ tank.

For an even cleaner look, consider removing the horizontal band on the tallest tank. It would also make it easier to see where the tanks begin and end.

Also, I think you can remove the black panels on the thrust-plates altogether. Either that, or at least extend the F5's black onto its fairing when stacked.

Yep, I was thinking about moving that horizontal black stripe. I'm thinking down to the bottom, as part of the tank-edge. A nice clean look, for sure.

I may just turn those thrust plates all white, or mix some grey in there, like the nose cone. I'm pretty much out of space in the texture, so multiple panel colors for the fairing might get tricky. It's probably cleaner to have an all-white design anyway at that point.

[NecroBones]

OK, I have a functional "R1" engine (single engine from the "R5" cluster, on a 2.5m base). I thought I'd share some images.

Compared to the mainsail, it's a lot more thrust (2000 vs 1500), and is a little lighter (5t instead of 6). The disadvantages in comparison, are a much lower ISP (matching the R5), higher cost, and inability to use above a decoupler (for now). For career, I also have it set to the same tech-node as the 3.75m parts. All subject to change, of course.

The "R" series have an ISP in the ballpark of RP-1 engines in the real world. I bumped the ISP up a tiny bit, so it's a hair better than what the Rocketdyne F1 engines on the Saturn V were able to manage at sea level.

The images below are deceptive (mounted at a different vertical height), but the engine has exactly the same dimensions as you'd expect from the R5. That is, the bell is the same size, and the height above the bell to the attachment point is also identical.

Edited November 24, 2014 by NecroBones

[Orbadon]

I love the look & feel or your mods! Any chance you could add CKAN support?

[NecroBones]

Yep, I was thinking about moving that horizontal black stripe. I'm thinking down to the bottom, as part of the tank-edge. A nice clean look, for sure.

OK, here's what the line-up looks like with the black stripe moved to the bottom, and the pipe extended all the way to the top too:

[NBZ]

OK, I have a functional "R1" engine (single engine from the "R5" cluster, on a 2.5m base). I thought I'd share some images.

Compared to the mainsail, it's a lot more thrust (2000 vs 1500), and is a little lighter (5t instead of 6). The disadvantages in comparison, are a much lower ISP (matching the R5), higher cost, and inability to use above a decoupler (for now). For career, I also have it set to the same tech-node as the 3.75m parts. All subject to change, of course.

The "R" series have an ISP in the ballpark of RP-1 engines in the real world. I bumped the ISP up a tiny bit, so it's a hair better than what the Rocketdyne F1 engines on the Saturn V were able to manage at sea level.

The images below are deceptive (mounted at a different vertical height), but the engine has exactly the same dimensions as you'd expect from the R5. That is, the bell is the same size, and the height above the bell to the attachment point is also identical.

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-24%2000-21-36-01.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-24%2000-23-09-48.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-24%2000-23-54-11.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-11-24%2000-24-02-17.jpg

Wow, you are working fast. I am having a hard time keeping up with my comments:

1. Please complement this with an "F1" (similar to Rockedyne's J-2).
   
2. Both both R1 and F1 should appropriately stay in the 3.75m node.
   
3. Make at least the F1 stackable with a 3.75m fairing, but maintaining 2.5m physical width.
   

The idea is that the F1 would be usable below a 2.5m stack, but also as a 3.75m upper stage engine, equivalent to R&S Capsuledyne's Quadroodle. Then your parts could be used to simulate a Saturn-V:

[NecroBones]

I love the look & feel or your mods! Any chance you could add CKAN support?

Hey, that looks pretty cool. I'm looking into it. Theoretically this should be pretty easy, since my mods don't have dependencies at the moment.

[NecroBones]

Wow, you are working fast. I am having a hard time keeping up with my comments:

1. Please complement this with an "F1" (similar to Rockedyne's J-2).
   
2. Both both R1 and F1 should appropriately stay in the 3.75m node.
   
3. Make at least the F1 stackable with a 3.75m fairing, but maintaining 2.5m physical width.
   

The idea is that the F1 would be usable below a 2.5m stack, but also as a 3.75m upper stage engine, equivalent to R&S Capsuledyne's Quadroodle. Then your parts could be used to simulate a Saturn-V:

http://i.imgur.com/tTmgbDP.jpg

Yeah, that's basically what I had in mind. Interesting idea on the fairing though. That will work great for a Saturn-V, though I know some people will be left confused by it... so it would need some good description text explaining that.

I'm also keeping in mind the earlier request for 1.25m engine, similar to KW's Maverick 1D.

These additional engines will probably wait til the next update, since I don't think I'll have time to get them in today/tomorrow. Though the "F1" can probably work from some creative rescaling of the "R1" model.

[NecroBones]

Wow, you are working fast.

Heh, yes. I'm trying to pound out a bunch of changes before I'll be too busy to work on it for the rest of the week.

Anyway, white engine housings done (pretty easy change overall). Some random screenshots.

[NecroBones]

I just pushed out the new version. I managed to squeeze the F1 in there last night, since I had most of the art assets for the R1 to work from.

The clever thing, is I managed to get two fairings onto the F1 engine. It has 2.5m and 3.75m fairings, selected by which attachment node you use underneath of it. So far it seems to work well. Because of these fairings, I didn't add TweakScale support for that part (that really confused things when I tried it).

Like the R1, the F1 size is precise to the clustered counterparts. Also, compared to the skipper (similar to the R1/Mainsail comparison), the F1 also has more thrust, less efficiency, is lighter, but costs more, and unlocks alongside the 3.75m parts. Screenshots below.

0.2 (2014-11-25) - Beta update
 - Added "Community Tech Tree" support. If CTT is installed:
    - Moves tall 2.5m SRB to "Gigantic Rocketry"
    - Moves R5 (SaturnV-like) engine to "Gigantic Rocketry"
 - Changed sort-order in VAB/SPH menus for SRBs and short tank, so short versions are first. 
    - (requires delete before reinstall of mod, or else you'll get double entries)
 - Added "Ejectatron", equivalent to 10x Sepratron.
 - Added intermediate height fuel tank. 
 - Added 5m & 3.75m external-ring ASAS reaction wheel systems.
 - Added "R1" engine (single from the "R5" SaturnV-like cluster). 
    - More thrust than Mainsail, and a little lighter, but much less efficient, costs more, and doesn't stack.
 - Added "F1" engine (single from the "F5"/"F9" engines clusters).
    - Less efficient and pricier, but more powerful and lighter than the Skipper. Accepts stacking in 2.5m and 3.75m.
 - Slightly improved "R5" engine cluster's efficiency.
 - Reduced the price and research costs of all liquid fuel engines.
 - Repainted fuel tanks, conical size adapters, and engines to be less "busy", and more SaturnV-like. 
    - Slightly increased the "gloss" on tanks, so that the paint has more of a satin finish.
 - Updated TweakScale settings and moved them to a file called "SpaceY-TweakScale.cfg" for easy deletion/modification.

Edited November 25, 2014 by NecroBones

[Wahgineer]

At this point, squad should definitely hire you: you figured out how to get an engine to have a faring larger than its width! For me, it's one of the most annoying things aesthetic wise when you attach a 1.25 meter engine to a 2.5 meter decoupler, but have a 1.25 meter fairing that leaves a lot of empty space.

Will definitely update to this version!

[Starman4308]

Hey Necrobones, are you happy with the tank configurations as they are? It shouldn't be much effort for me to write up a RealFuels patch for those. I think Raptor is working on incorporating the engines to his config, but that may take a bit more time (more complex math involved, engines more likely to change in the final version).

I like the concept of the first-stage engines by the way, giant fuel hoses like the Rocketdyne F-1 built with one purpose in mind: lifting colossal rockets off the ground.

[NecroBones]

At this point, squad should definitely hire you: you figured out how to get an engine to have a faring larger than its width! For me, it's one of the most annoying things aesthetic wise when you attach a 1.25 meter engine to a 2.5 meter decoupler, but have a 1.25 meter fairing that leaves a lot of empty space.

Will definitely update to this version!

Yeah, now I'm wishing all the stock engines worked this way. Something I didn't think to do, but could have done, would have been to make the larger fairing cone-shaped, as a built-in size adapter. I'd consider adding a third fairing, but that will definitely break things. I discovered that with 0-Point Inline Fairings-- Have 3+ sets of fairings causes the VAB to glitch out. But having a perfectly vertical 3.75m fairing is probably slightly more robust in the long-run, since it's directly supporting two stack sizes at both ends this way.

Hey Necrobones, are you happy with the tank configurations as they are? It shouldn't be much effort for me to write up a RealFuels patch for those. I think Raptor is working on incorporating the engines to his config, but that may take a bit more time (more complex math involved, engines more likely to change in the final version).

I like the concept of the first-stage engines by the way, giant fuel hoses like the Rocketdyne F-1 built with one purpose in mind: lifting colossal rockets off the ground.

I think so. I've been reworking the textures on them a lot this week, but the size/mass numbers are very unlikely to change.

Yeah, the F-1 is a huge inspiration here, as well as the Falcon-9's cluster of Merlins. Obviously I didn't make them look like those real-world counterparts directly, but I hope the influence shows, at least a little.

[Jodo42]

You seem to mainly be working on engines at the moment, but you mention other "rocketry utilities" under your goals section. Have you considered adding 3.75m and 5.0m docking ports?

Otherwise, this mod is fantastic. I love the look and feel of the parts, it's all very stockalike. A great mod for someone who doesn't want to get a more realistic-looking pack, just for bigger parts.

[NecroBones]

You seem to mainly be working on engines at the moment, but you mention other "rocketry utilities" under your goals section. Have you considered adding 3.75m and 5.0m docking ports?

Otherwise, this mod is fantastic. I love the look and feel of the parts, it's all very stockalike. A great mod for someone who doesn't want to get a more realistic-looking pack, just for bigger parts.

Yep, the engines needed to be fleshed out a bit, but large docking ports are definitely a possibility. That might be a fun project in the near future.

[NBZ]

Yeah, now I'm wishing all the stock engines worked this way. Something I didn't think to do, but could have done, would have been to make the larger fairing cone-shaped, as a built-in size adapter. I'd consider adding a third fairing, but that will definitely break things. I discovered that with 0-Point Inline Fairings-- Have 3+ sets of fairings causes the VAB to glitch out. But having a perfectly vertical 3.75m fairing is probably slightly more robust in the long-run, since it's directly supporting two stack sizes at both ends this way.

I think so. I've been reworking the textures on them a lot this week, but the size/mass numbers are very unlikely to change.

Yeah, the F-1 is a huge inspiration here, as well as the Falcon-9's cluster of Merlins. Obviously I didn't make them look like those real-world counterparts directly, but I hope the influence shows, at least a little.

These things probably have to wait for next week. You have done plenty this week:

1. I would say the quad-adapter should again be styled like the thrust plates, just as it was previously when they all had vertical black stripes.
   
2. I thought cone-shaped fairings was impossible, so I never suggested it. But really, who would stack 3.75m > F1 > 3.75m? Stacking 3.75m > F1 > 5m makes much more sense, just as on the Saturn-V: 6.6m > 1 J-2 > 10.1m. Also, it would be a nice compromise, instead of saying you cannot put anything under the F1 (or R1), your are allowed on condition that you increase the width:
   
   1. 
      
   2. Allow 2.5m > F1 > 3.75m.
      
   3. Allow 3.75m > F1 > 5m (requires longer fairing = lower node).
      
   4. Allow 3.75m > R1 > 5m.
      
      
   5. Why are the center F engines placed lower than the surrounding ones? If you want the thrust plates to be conical below then recess the center engine accordingly.
      
   6. Could you design a 3.75m-to-1.25m quint-coupler (5) and sept-coupler (7) so people can design their own clusters? They would complement the stock-couplers nicely.
      
      
      Keep up your excellent work. I am sure Squad will contact you shortly.

[NecroBones]

These things probably have to wait for next week. You have done plenty this week:

1. I would say the quad-adapter should again be styled like the thrust plates, just as it was previously when they all had vertical black stripes.
   
2. I thought cone-shaped fairings was impossible, so I never suggested it. But really, who would stack 3.75m > F1 > 3.75m? Stacking 3.75m > F1 > 5m makes much more sense, just as on the Saturn-V: 6.6m > 1 J-2 > 10.1m. Also, it would be a nice compromise, instead of saying you cannot put anything under the F1 (or R1), your are allowed on condition that you increase the width:
   
   1. 
      
   2. Allow 2.5m > F1 > 3.75m.
      
   3. Allow 3.75m > F1 > 5m (requires longer fairing = lower node).
      
   4. Allow 3.75m > R1 > 5m.
      
      
   5. Why are the center F engines placed lower than the surrounding ones? If you want the thrust plates to be conical below then recess the center engine accordingly.
      
   6. Could you design a 3.75m-to-1.25m quint-coupler (5) and sept-coupler (7) so people can design their own clusters? They would complement the stock-couplers nicely.
      
      
      Keep up your excellent work. I am sure Squad will contact you shortly.
      Thanks, glad you're liking it, as always.
      #1: Yeah, I just haven't had time to re-evaluate that part yet. I'm not sure I'm happy with its shaping either, so I may do more of a redesign on it.
      #2: Yeah, those are some good points about the F1/R1. I could see 2.5->2.5 still being a solid use case, but really, chances are that's going to happen over a decoupler/adapter combo anyway. You're right, it's probably a viable compromise that they assume there will always be a size change. Food for thought.
      #3: The main reason the center sticks down, is simply because that's what they did on the SpaceX Falcon 9. Why theirs sticks out? No idea. But I put that in as a nod to their design, since I was already copying the engine arrangement. This is the newer Falcon 9 arrangement, that is, after they shifted away from the rectangular 3x3 arrangement.
      #4: The 3.75m 7-way adapter is something I've already done in MRS, and it shares the black/white color scheme. What I didn't do in MRS, but would be cool, would be to do that with a shroud/fairing so you could stack custom clusters... hmm. Idea.

[NecroBones]

Just to get the pain out of the way, and start getting some feedback on it, I resized the fairings on the F1 and pushed an update.

The fairing lengths had to change a little to allow for using wider decouplers in there, and being able to hit the node you want. It's still trickier with the stock 3.75m decoupler going in the middle now, instead of the 2.5m one. But looking at the attachment point side-on makes it pretty easy.

At this point it'll probably be close to a full week before I can do anything else. But that'll give people time to play with things and see what they think.

0.2.1 (2014-11-25) - Quick Fix
 - Fixed logo path for SpaceY agency config (for career mode)
 - Changed "F1" engine to have conical size-adapting fairings instead of cylindrical. 

[Dire_Squid]

I just recently downloaded your mod, NecroBones, and MAN... these heavy lifters store a lot of fuel AND give a serious punch to get a rocket into orbit. The SUper-heavy Stock Lifters I make are NOTHING in comparison to your beauties. Heck, those giant solidfuel boosters significantly help with lifting as well, since they do not consume liquid fuel, and the Radial Decouplers... MUCH better than the stock radial decouplers, which I keep having problems with (the boosters rub up against and DESTORY the back engine upon ejection because they don't separate cleanly/evenly).

[BlackTalos]

Yep, the engines needed to be fleshed out a bit, but large docking ports are definitely a possibility. That might be a fun project in the near future.

If you do add 3.75 and 5.0 docking ports, A) Have a look at the KW Rocketry Docking Ring (3.75 and 2.5m combined) - it has a very nice skin too. I don't know if it is part-related, but can they be "Strong" ports? Rather than the standard KSP ports:

I use your MRS mod, but have held back from SpaceY because KW is pretty much the same parts (Pretty much all you need for a Saturn V rocket). Since R1 and F1 additions, and the amazing Separatron-decoupler node, i am considering simply having both for those parts (I'd use F1, R1 above the KW Griffon Century) and the Decouplers. 5m "strong" docking ports would just make the mod compulsory for the heavy designs i use =P