DriftNasty
-
Posts
27 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by DriftNasty
-
-
1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:
Yup. The use I was intending it for was turning the MDA from a 4 way node to a 6 way node, but I'm sure people can think of other uses
Yeah that worked, I must have been too tired last night to make sense of it. Thanks!
-
1 minute ago, CobaltWolf said:
it's like the stock radial attachment point, it's for adding additional nodes to the docking adapter
The LDC stuff is unfinished, it's going to depend on the Titan engines once they're remade. We tried to hold off on releasing them but I think they accidentally snuck back into one of the hotfixing.
Does the tube side go into the part like on the stock radial attachment? Maybe that is where I was miffing it up.
-
I've decommissioned my large MOL station (after 300 days in orbit), did the Apollo style Mun and Minmus landings, and now it's time for Skylab stuff.
I guess some parts and mission planning is in the works.
The Hokulani-RAP Radial Attachment Point, what is it used for, and how do I fix it so it has two nodes so it is usable?
P.S. those Titan parts are nice looking.
What is used for the LDC Titan engines?
-
It was a test flight that ended up being mostly right (forgot the M.O.S. control block). It's fun to fly the Bluedog Titan parts, so I figured why not keep it and put it where it needs to be.
-
Here are some shots of my M.O.S.
250km orbit, 89.5 degree inclination, I started with the first section, on the back of a Leo pod, from KSC at 0 inclination and around 250km. A mix of Bluedog and Coatl cameras for reconna...science.
After I undocked and returned the Leo capsule I forgot to add a control a control block segment, so I had to fly one up on the center section, but I had to dock it twice to have it in the right position. It was a challenge.
After that began the arduous resupply mission to change the inclination. I could get close to 11 degrees per Transtage burn, so 11 fuel resupply missions.
Once the inclination was set, I flew up a second M.O.S. stack with antenna dishes for some SIGINT capability. Airlock at the end.
Lastly I sent up the M.W.R. (Morale, Welfare, Recreation) stack with two M.O.S hab modules and a center filled with supplies. Airlock at the end. (Thanks to Jso for helping with some MM configs)
2 science labs are cranking out a whopping couple of science per day, I'll de-orbit once it's all used up.
The M.O.S. rcs blocks don't work right, they seem off.
SpoilerLooking at the back of the first segment. Towards prograde.
Reconna...science!
Center of the station. Has a fuel cell to keep the station powered, emergency RCS, emergency battery, water tank, and LH2/LOX for the fuel cell.
Signal intercepts? MMAYBE!!!!!
M.W.R. it's like a hotel! Disregard the trash module hanging underneath.
BIG G WADDUP!
-
I end up using Smart A.S.S to manage the pitch and roll program of the ascent. I tried a 45 degree launch and it just goes due east. I end up flying it by eyeball and correcting with mechjeb after it's close to orbit.
-
8 hours ago, komodo said:
It does in fact fly... quite well, actually.
These plumes need a round of applause. (You guys know who you are!)
Booster Burnout! Semi-decent cross with bad backlighting!
Upper stage delivering payload with 38 m/s dV to spare. (100% planned, ... Yes...)
On a related note, the new accent computer in MechJeb is disgusting. It managed to fly this monstrosity to a perfectly aligned 150x150 km orbit in one burn, in spite of the shifting thrust output on the boosters. I guess being away for a while has some payoffs!
5 hours ago, Pappystein said:Interesting Delta Monster Komodo!
It even handles asymmetrical thrust and or Asymmetrical mass somewhat good too! I had a Saturn MLV where my fuel transfer from above the AJ-260 broke on one side only.. I forgot to auto-strut the AJ-260s
) Meant I had about 300kg of fuel on one side of the rocket at about 9m off center. Mechjeb handled it like a trooper
Now if only Mechjeb could handle this with an all solid rocket.
Maybe my settings don't work, but my Ascent guidance refuses to launch into plane of target unless the plane is 0 degrees.
-
How do I take a screenshot. I have killer MOL in orbit.
-
On 10/25/2018 at 11:06 AM, CobaltWolf said:
Oh, a slightly unfortunate topic of discussion - I remembered more stuff that has to be finished for the update.
Does anyone have feelings on the design of the small radial decoupler and the Perfectron/Retrotron/Lateraltron separation SRBs? They lived on old texture sheets that have since been replaced. I like the model for the small radial decoupler, will probably redo the little motors but they are simple.
Also, if anyone has designs for a medium (0.9375m to 1.5m) radial decoupler and a large (for thing like Saturn Multibody) radial decoupler, please let me know (heck, post drawings if you like!). Those have been on my list for a while and if I can just make them share a texture sheet that'd be great. I'm trying to move to having things like that live in a sort of 'Generic' folder so they are prune-resistant / not tied into random part families; if I ever get around to doing the Thor/Redstone/Vanguard (those all share texture sheets) I would similarly move the decouplers, fairing bases, etc to a generic format. The only reason I have to redo the small radial decoupler at all is it lived on the old Scout texture sheet... anyways, I don't want these decouplers to be size locked the same way the Titan decoupler is.
I have been using the Castor 4 with the small decoupler on the Atlas. Can you make a Lateraltron similar to the Titan IIIC separation motors for the skirt, where the thrust is linear from the mounting for the small boosters? The way the decoupler is set on the staged fairing puts in low on the booster and sometimes the AOA is less than ideal and there have been some banging after separation.
-
The Agena Docking Port bottom node is magenta/pink and not textured. My apologies if this is intentional.
-
34 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:
Awesome! Glad you're enjoying it, and it's cool to know those parts are being used - I wasn't sure how much interest there actually was. I can't remember exactly what the collider setup for the Burner 2 is, I don't think it's 'solid' but that's no guarantee colliders won't wind up stuck to each other and stuff.
The Star-37 seems to be a bit fatter than the barrel of the Burner 2, after decoupling the spent motor it gets about 1/3rd of the way out and just lingers. It would be cool to discard it but it probably stayed put in real life.
I forgot to add I used an Atlas-Vega with a double Vega tank as the launcher. For the Minmus trip, I used the Castor-4 boosters for some more d-v. I haven't unlocked the Centaur roll control so I staged the LR-101 to fire after booster skirt separation, a Kerbalesque approach to solving a problem. It is really well designed that everything fits and works so well while looking amazing.
-
Awesome!
I love the Burner 2 kit(MSPB-II) upper stage kit, I plugged in a Staara-37(Star-37) motor in the base. Then I tried to sneak in a decoupler to gain some extra d-v by discarding the Star-37, but it just wobbled in there like a loose tooth and I I couldn't shed the dead mass.
It works great to power my Ranger probe with some Mercury parts(Heatshield and Parachute pack) to the Mun and back for re-entry and recovery. I even got one out to Minmus with it. I started using a 2.5 scaled system with the atmosphere out to 85k.
It's like a whole new game!
-
Those new models are exquisite.
The Leo(Gemini) parachute RealChute compatibility config has the wrong name. It needs to be bluedog_Gemini_Parachute_A in the first line, for the Real Chute to work.
-
1 hour ago, TimothyC said:
Yeah me too, more careful mission planning is required now.
-
Does the Aquilae still have restart capability?
-
8 hours ago, Pappystein said:
Ok first I want to express a
coupleopinions here. Ok so I am opinionated jerk... I got a lot of em to share! Some of these I know run counter to what Cobaltwolf has published even in the past few days but I would like to say them for the purpose of sharing a vision.- I am not a fan of any sort of Weapon in a Non-weapon mod for KSP.... BDB isn't a weapon mod so making weapons is just... tacky
- I am not a fan of Multiple Reentry vehicles weather they are independent or a group of debris raining down.
- I DO think that Unitary RVs DO have their place in this game for science purposes but there is not enough Science to justify them.... more on this below.
- I think a small group of unitary RVs would be ideal... I could see 2 or maybe 3 in BDB for SCIENCE purposes.
- I do NOT think an RV should have any sort of control. It is the command unit (so you can have it be the last part of the rocket that KSP recognizes as a craft and not debris) but I do not think it should have any sort of SAS like ability.
- I DO think that beyond the RV there should be a small group of dedicated parts to make the RV function in KSP. (Parachute/Float/Drogue whatever)
- I think that a RV should have a Science recovery module built into it if possible so that the data from external experiments could survive impact.
- Finally I think all RVs should SINK and not float.
Now, Some of you have played with the BDB Extras folder and found my modified MK-4 Titan I RV. I use @DMagic 's Orbital science mod to add some unique science to a probe that has no ability to broadcast it's science it gathers (you HAVE to recover the probe to get the science.) The Probe has been suitably re-enforced so that it could survive many impacts (but not all,) from a nearly orbital flight. I have also (not included in BDB extras's ) added small airbrakes to it so that I can increase it's chance of recovery after a high speed flight. I just wish I had continued to develop it as I was trying to make it work with IMPACT science.
The Problem I see with the MK-2 RV are pretty vast however and so I am NOT a fan of it's addition to the game.
- It is an UPSIDE DOWN Truncated cone... AKA it is like a MK1 Space capsule put on a rocket upside down (the top picture posted is of an UPSIDE down RV.) This greatly increases the cost for the game in parts and confusion on how to build it for people not in the "know"
- The MK-2 RV would require Atlas and Thor specific parts to be accurate looking. It was not designed for nor would ever fly on Titan.
- The Mk-2 was only used on Atlas and Thor (conversely the MK-4 was used on Atlas, Thor[test only IIRC], Titan I and proposed for Titan II.)
- The Diagram and Photo of the MK-2 you have posted appears to be that of the Program 437-AP. It is a Photo survey of space debris when launched on an Anti-Satellite Trajectory just sans a Nuclear warhead. http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/thorh5.html Bottom of the page what you show is described.
- We already have enough Camera equipped parts that the MK-2 in it's Program 437-AP mode is a non starter in my book.
I DO propose a MK-6 RV (The Black Nose of Titan II fame,) be used in Game. It would use the same parts to interface with Atlas OR Titan II. Titan I would need one additional/Different part for full interoperability. It should have room inside the RV envelope for any sort of additional science modules (Aero-Pressure, Temp etc nothing big) and a Drogue or Airbake to slow down decent to a manageable impact speed. It should sink allowing sub-ocean science. And most importantly to me It should not have any sort of built in control. Aerodynamic forces only will keep this sucker flying true.
I was giving an example of a very early RV to bolster the science aspect argument since it showed a diagram of the internals without any sort of physics package for destruction, but it also is a crude implement to solve a problem much like the first launch vehicles. In a historic sense that would be the first sort of science gathering on reentry. I wouldn't expect it to be fitted to a Titan, then again you don't have access to Titan parts in the beginning. I couldn't find a good picture of a MKIV test RV to use as an example, though it also would have been a good one to start with.
The MK-6 would be the best choice for obvious reasons, I think you and I share most of the same opinions on the matter, it isn't a combat game, though the MIRV concept would be for dispersing a gang of small satellites or other probes, not anything weapons related.
I do like the requirement to recover the RV for science after it has landed, of course it has to survive reentry and smashing into Kerbin without exploding for that to be a viable way of gathering suborbital science.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265228332_Modeling_of_ablation_phenomena_in_space_applications as a source for the MK-2 RV. Very early in the first chapter the paper discusses the problem and using a blunt body to solve it, to discover that it isn't the best for the designed (nuclear weapon reentry) application.
I see it as a different path for science gathering that is a challenge, to add a bit of depth to the first parts of the parts pack since the Explorer and Vanguard probes will not survive a reentry.
-
MK-2 RV. Used for Thor Jupiter and Atlas testing for instance.
-
6 minutes ago, Rock3tman_ said:
You'll need to download the latest versions of Kopernicus and Sigma Dimensions, Sigma Dimensions will allow you to customize the scale of your solar system through some easy cfg file adjustments (I think the exact file is settings.cfg). Ones that work really great for BDB are 2.5x resize and 2.5x rescale. Once you go rescaled, you'll never go back.
Thanks, would this work with the Outer Planets Mod?
-
3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:
If you want to get caught up, I made a big post ~2 months ago that is mostly still accurate. I have some mixed feelings on the DLC.
Yeah, the problem with how the station parts shook out was twofold. First, I went into it planning on making sort of a 1.875m SSPX but didn't get full enough coverage for all the different parts that would be useful. Only one kind of solar panel, etc. Second, the development of that update stretched on a long time and I kinda forced it out so that I could start work on the Saturn and Apollo stuff in time for the mod's 1 year anniversary. So that stuff really never felt 'complete' to me. They were meant more to represent baby science stations than any sort of military thing but I'm honestly not sure if they actually are useful in career. I wanted to give players an opportunity to do something in the early-mid game other than send out probes (which is always what I wound up doing to get science for crewed landers).
The only reason I wouldn't include a warhead is, since originally making those parts, I've developed a bit of a dislike for basically just recreating missiles and specifically nukes (blame a traumatizing class on nuclear aftermath I took the following semester). Kind of the same with the MIRV bus, though 'multi satellite deployment' is a cool idea.
Out of curiosity, are you using a rescaled system of some type? Since the LVs are balanced in line with stock they are OP in the stock-scaled system.
I, for one, like the idea of an early manned space station, it slows down the gameplay to avoid the rush to the Mun and Minmus to unlock the whole tech tree. It's fun to use the early launchers to assemble things in orbit and send out probes in addition to the manned exploration of the natural satellites. I agree on the science aspect of your goals and not the military aspect because there isn't a real reason for anything other than science and completing contracts.
As far as your distaste for warheads, I can see why you wouldn't need or want them in KSP. There is a use for a ballistic approach to science gathering on the surface of Kerbin for those early science contracts. If you are interested you could modify the "warhead" into a ballistic re-entry test probe to perform basic science and re-entry testing in the atmosphere/LKO/surface biomes. I don't know how complex it is to do all of that but it could be a good analogue to go with the early launchers for design and test to recreate the early space program from infancy to manned flight. In real life they used test dummy payloads that were filled with ballast to perfect the systems and control for the actual re-entry vehicles and to perfect the telemetry and control of the launch vehicles. I have some ideas for what could work if you wanted to explore that facet of the early launch vehicles and the way it morphed into manned exploration, if not I understand, you have a large workload planned.
I am not using a rescaled system but I do modify the thrust and fuel loads to better approximate the flights. How would I go about rescaling the system to match better? It might be worth it to start a new save using the rescaled system. I'm not that far in.
-
59 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:
Thank you! I can't tell from reading your post - are you looking forward to unlocking the Saturn in your save, or looking forward to us finishing making Saturn? Because it's already in the mod.
The Gemini parts are from a time in development where a lot of stuff was half baked or otherwise unfinished, and I haven't been able to circle back to them to clean them up yet. The "MOL" parts were actually intended as 1.875m station parts for early orbital outposts. I'd like to come back at some point and make proper MOL-based parts that match the real one much closer. The Gemini lander is currently just the can itself, for similar reasons. I'd like to finish that too.
I honestly don't know why the 'warhead' part is even there. I am honestly not planning on including it in the revamp (unless people really want it to stick around).
When did you start the career? The update was released Friday night. It's hard to say, partially because I don't actually know how badly certain things will break saves. The biggest thing is some stuff - likely nothing you've used so far, if I remember - had their tech tree placement redone to make more sense. And then of course a lot of parts got remade but the old versions of those parts should still be in the game so crafts won't break. My advice is to back up your save folder first and then give it a go.
Oh yeah, unlocking it in the save. I played around with the mod in sandbox first to check out all the parts. I was reading the development history of the mod because it is interesting and so I can learn the "why's?" to the process. I recently starting playing KSP with mods installed and I found this one looking for a real Redstone and Atlas launcher, you all knocked those out of the park. The Making History addon added Titan and Saturn launchers but left out the Redstone/Atlas. Your groups' collective parts pack does those better (Saturn/Titan) in my mind while adding the historic "other" launchers.
As far as tech tree stuff, I have Saturn 1 stuff unlocked so far and various tech levels around that point. Basically enough to get to the Mun, Minmus, and send a few probes out to Eve and Duna.
The 1.875 station parts are useful, even though they were half baked real life ideas due to unmanned technology for spying making them obsolete. It's fun to explore the "what if" side of history as well. It definitely makes it easier to play the game with only parts from this mod for an authentic space race feel while gaining science points to unlock the tree.
The 'warhead' is useful because of the science on it, though it doesn't survive reentry without some additions (I added the Hermes RCS pod parachute system, the small heat shield, and the trapezoidal Thor fins clipped in to keep it from flipping. I think it works with the theme you have of early launchers due to the fact that the majority of them were designed as weapon systems first. For me, it added a gameplay role playing way of testing the early rocket designs and gaining science without it seeming like a waste of funds. If it is possible to keep it in for the next update but make it recoverable after re-entry that would be a bonus.
I like the Peacekeeper addition, are there any plans for Minuteman, or a 'MIRV' bus for science boosting that can launch 3 or more small experiments/probes on the solid launch vehicles?
-
This is a splendid mod, I really like the space race launchers and pods. All the work that this team has put in is incredible, having the chance to see the hardware up close and in person as a kid and after a career in aviation, seeing it work in the game brings joy to my inner child. The Redstone, Atlas, and Titan launch vehicles are absolutely killer. I am looking forward to the Saturn for sure.
Is there a guide for the Gemini and MOL parts, the cislunar Gemini, and the Gemini lander? I've read about a quarter of this thread so far(at the development and release of the Saturn/Apollo stuff) so forgive me if I am asking a dumb question.
The Titan "warhead" does not survive a ballistic style flight re-entry. Is this by design?
I started a new career just for this mod and I have only made it to the Gemini Era, will the new update break my save?
-
13 hours ago, DriftNasty said:
Hello RoverDude,
I installed this for 1.6.1 and everything shows up except the Akita rover parts.
11 hours ago, Jammer-TD said:under gamedata/umbraspaceindustries/akita is there in 0.5.0.0, you may want to add the USIcore and USI tools for added parts. I am currently using the akita cab and bed on a small rover I made 2 days ago in 1.6.1.
FYI
Jammer-TD
11 hours ago, DriftNasty said:Ok thanks, I'll try that.
Ok, I figured out I had to install Community Category Kit. Now the parts are there.
-
12 minutes ago, Jammer-TD said:
under gamedata/umbraspaceindustries/akita is there in 0.5.0.0, you may want to add the USIcore and USI tools for added parts. I am currently using the akita cab and bed on a small rover I made 2 days ago in 1.6.1.
FYI
Jammer-TD
Ok thanks, I'll try that.
-
Hello RoverDude,
I installed this for 1.6.1 and everything shows up except the Akita rover parts.
) Meant I had about 300kg of fuel on one side of the rocket at about 9m off center. Mechjeb handled it like a trooper
[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Are these testable? I took a break from KSP for a while and noticed all the new work you've done. Impressive