CobaltWolf

Members
  • Content Count

    6,399
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

24,783 Excellent

About CobaltWolf

  • Rank
    Legalize Ranch

Contact Methods

  • Skype Array
  • Twitter Array

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

31,444 profile views
  1. I think *all* the BDB chutes have that issue - it basically reads the deployed size and not the packed size. I can't figure out why, or how to fix it.
  2. At this point I just refuse to make Delta IV because it's funny. I've even considered adding an RS-68 (so we had more cryo engine variety) but no CBC just to troll Also re: Saturn/Apollo stuff - like with Gemini, absolute priority is recreating the existing functionality. Starting with the historical stuff, then moving on to recreate the alt-history stuff already present in the mod, before moving on to stuff I haven't tackled before. Skylab would have to be redone as well. Exceptions are for "low hanging fruit" ie stuff that I can easily add with minimal effort. I haven't even started work (or even planning) on the Saturn/Apollo update so don't get too excited I doubt I'll hit the ground running in the same way I did for this update cycle, where a great deal of the new rockets were already modeled before the BDB 1.6 release.
  3. I know but I want new stuff toooo... Close but not quite Like you said, the avionics goes on top. I believe I'm planning on adding a 1.875m payload truss like on the Centaur D-1T as a mesh switch. The "generic" 1.875m fairing base goes below that. It's actually intended to be used with the top dome of the tank enabled - not an elegant solution, but the clipping isn't really visible. There were a couple reasons I did it like this: We don't really like having fuel in parts like engine mounts or avionics these days. This way the fuel is kept in one part. It means the Centaur looks... well, correct and we can represent the additional (and significant) fuel volume in that top dome. I'm aware I didn't address the bottom dome, not sure what to do there... The avionics being hollow means they could potentially be used as some sort of interstage when combined with a decoupler. Minimize the overall impact on other parts / keep things as "lego" as possible. It's worth noting that I believe at least one "drop in" alternate fairing base is planned - one that will represent the slightly-expanded MPF fairing used on some of the Atlas I / II launches. (See the leftmost fairing in this image) A small note on the tank, but I don't know how a D-1T is going to be built. I haven't looked into it or spoken with @Jso to determine whether the insulation can merely be switched off - perhaps they can chime in. Otherwise that will need to be a separate part. I believe the interstage should always be used in the "Long Centaur" variant for historical builds - the short one is actually too short, and only that length because it is a legacy part. I believe the extra length is because IRL the Atlas tank dome extends up into the interstage, while normally we recess tank domes to make lego-ing easier. Obviously the Centaur itself (along with I think some of the Titan and Agena tanks) are an exception, and that's due to a combination of wanting to get that extra fuel volume and be able to get a more accurate look. Note that the "Centaur" variants of the interstage are differentiated by having the extra fairing for the Centaur's LH2 Boost Pump. Other than that I think everything you said is right. I'm not sure what you mean about the load supports - are you referring to the ones used in the Atlas V 5xx? In which case, no, unless @Zorg wants to add them to the SAF PLF model. I am planning on taking a look at the Common Centaur parts and making sure they are in line with the more current/consistent artistic standard/style. I believe right now the grime is too intense compared to the rest of BDB, or Restock for that matter (which is the style I generally make an attempt to be consistent with) Like Zorg said, Kerbalism compatibility is handled on their end, not ours. I know at least one of the devs was very actively updating / adding BDB compatibility for a while, but I don't know how much they've kept up with the dev branch. EDIT: Part of why I haven't been getting as much BDB progress done - I helped @linuxgurugamer out with some fresh models for his L-Tech revival! Please feel free to check it out:
  4. If you go into Gamedata/Bluedog_DB/Parts, you can delete any folders (besides "Generic" and "Shared") and it will remove those parts without breaking anything else. So if you didn't want... well, I don't claim it's the best organized thing, but if you don't want the probe parts most of them are in the "ProbesExpansion" folder which can be deleted safely. It's got the whole team on it's back! EDIT: I don't know when 1.7 will be released but I don't anticipate it being soon. I want to apologize to everyone for the continued delay on work for this update - At the pace I normally work at we'd be a lot further ahead, but the lockdown and mental health issues and frankly an uptick in my professional work has made it hard to keep making progress. Simply put - I haven't been able to put a lot of time into modding the last few months. I just want to reassure everyone I'm by no means burnt out on BDB and I'm still trying to get back to work on it.
  5. Try using Janitor's Closet? I think that's how people handle that. There's a standalone version of the Titan 1 engine mount in the structural tab for exactly that use I am not touching anything Saturn related until I get to it, but yes I am planning on adding the 4x mount for the E-1s along with others in an LDC type switching mount.
  6. Right... so the pod *has* to face a certain way. It has to be modeled belly towards the flag, because that is the hard-coded orientation for parts. KSP always assumes the flag side is the "belly". I've had to rotate the models for the parts to get them to line up if I don't pay attention to which axes I'm modeling on (notably, I think all the new Mercury and Gemini parts are rotated 180 in their configs - I still can't get it right!). Now, once you've built the pod, what's easier: Just dropping the rocket parts in the stack, or having to rotate them so they are oriented right relative to the pod? Everything should now be in the correct orientation when you take it out of the part palette.
  7. Everything is referenced to the orientation of the Mercury/Gemini and as much as possible they are aligned so the correct build does not require rotation. The mistake you're making ( ) is assuming I had paid attention to getting the orientations right/consistent originally. Basically, make sure the pods were oriented right so the crew orientation matches the navball (ie vertical axis of the vab / roll axis of the ship when under control - previously there were issues with some pods flying "correctly" while the navball would say they were upside down or in a 90 degree roll), and then parts for the LV were rotated to match that orientation to build them accurately without making the user rotate them in game. Now all craft are basically assumed to make a 90 degree roll program at the beginning of flight, allowing them to pitch (W/S) to orbit (or you could just yaw to orbit like a heathen). If I remember, there's some weirdness with Titan since the orientations are different for the 2 and 3? And I don't know if all the rockets got this treatment - mostly just the important/crewed ones where it was most noticeable. I think the orientations of stuff like the Agena actually change based on LV IRL which didn't help so I think we ignored that. tl;dr unless something went wrong, as far as I know the 'new' orientations of the parts are correct and what they should have been from the start to allow building the rockets correctly. EDIT: @GoldForest I didn't see you+Jso's reply but I bolded the bit where your last question is answered. The belly of the parts needs to consistently face the flag, otherwise the navball doesn't accurately reflect the flight orientation implied by the models of the parts. This was always supposed to be the case but something I was not consistent with. EDIT2: I believe this issue was properly addressed with the new pods, but that in turn made us realize the orientation of the LVs (which predated me trying to pay attention to it) was wrong. We debated whether to ignore it for a while before fixing them.
  8. What? I thought that was the orientation we went with - belly towards the flag, starboard towards the door/pad.
  9. yeah, it's generally broken up the same as the old one. The upper 2.5m tank is a single part, but the lower half of it will be available for stacking ie making the G.
  10. Hey everyone! Doing a relatively short dev stream in a bit over on my Twitch - gonna be working on the Centaur T!
  11. Neat! You probably can scale back the number of polys on it - you don't need that many to define those shapes smoothly and it'll make it much easier to work with
  12. I mean, fair question so have an honest answer - I haven't really touched much past what has been put on Github recently for Centaur. Haven't really started work on anything since then - Have a lot of Centaur stuff to do as well as Vega still. Been busy with work stuff (and will continue to be for the next few weeks) getting ready for big presentations. What time I've had has mostly been going into a small side project I'm doing as a favor for another modder: