Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MashAndBangers

  1. In my quest to make a more accurate but not 100% accurate (duh) N1-L3, I added Roll Control Thrusters and Engine Heat Shields.



    I think I found where the roll control thrusters are located.  6 of them on the first stage, 4 on the 2nd, and 4 on the 3rd.


    Images of the first stage bottom suck, but they are 6 little dots on the outer rim of the first stage.  On the last N1, the rim was reduced (which is what we have with Tantares), and the engines have their own covers. 

    2nd Stage:


    and 3rd stage:


    Keep in mind, these stages are huge.  The RCT's didn't need to be huge to control roll.  As far as I know, these are the thrusters and their locations.  Those heat shields didn't just protect the plumbing from rocket exhaust, but also served as a structure to put more stuff on.

    Now for the Fairings around the LOK:  Either the full half fairings at the top go with the LOK during a launch abort (and perhaps helped with aerodynamics to keep the abort stack stable), or there fairings separate like with the Soyuz we know and love.  If it's the latter, one has to wonder about that aerodynamic stability during an abort.  I'm thinking the former as the launch escape tower looks BEEFY and could pull the LOK orbital and descent stages, as well as the fairings.


    I ended up putting fins on the fairings (Procedural Fairings!) to try and keep it straight, but Beale kept with the stock approach of yeeting to one side during an abort xD  I also added MOAR_BOOSTERS


    Correct me if I'm wrong, and list your sources!

  2. The supplied Waterfall configs in TantaresLV are not working the way I thought they should work for the Proton 3rd stage.

    Explanation:  The Proton 3rd stage engine consists of the main engine, and the 4 verniers all in one model.  Beale set the engine up with 2 ModuleEnginesFX, 1 for the main engine and 1 for the verniers.  They both have different engineid's, and the verniers and main engine have different thrust transforms.  The included waterfall configs add a total of four waterfall nodes (2 for engine bell effects and 2 for the plumes).  The configs are set up so that 2 apply to the main engine, and 2 apply to the verniers. 

    Problem:  When you activate the main engine, and the main engine only, the effects all play.  If you only activate the verniers, no effects play. 

    Is this a stock bug where only the first ModuleEnginesFX takes priority, or a Waterfall bug?

  3. Beale, what was the reason you didn't do waterfall for the N1 first stage?

    Anyway, here's waterfall:



    	// Removes the stock effect block, and replace it with one that has no particles
    	!EFFECTS {}
                    channel = Ship
                    transformName = thrustTransform
                    clip = TantaresLV/sounds/sound_rocket_kero
                    volume = 0.0 0.0
                    volume = 0.1 1.0
                    volume = 1.0 1.0
                    pitch = 0.0 0.5
                    pitch = 1.0 1.0
                    loop = true
                    channel = Ship
                    clip = sound_vent_soft
                    volume = 0.5
                    pitch = 1.0
                    loop = false
                    prefabName = fx_exhaustSparks_flameout_2
                    transformName = thrustTransform
                    oneShot = true
                    channel = Ship
                    clip = sound_explosion_low
                    volume = 1.0
                    pitch = 1.0
                    loop = false
    		name = ModuleWaterfallFX
    		// This is a custom name
    		moduleID = Engine
    		// This links the effects to a given ModuleEngines
    		engineID = ClosedCycle
    		// List out all controllers we want available
    			name = atmosphereDepth
    			linkedTo = atmosphere_density
    			name = throttle
    			linkedTo = throttle
    			responseRateUp = 0.005
    			responseRateDown = 0.1
    			name = random
    			linkedTo = random
    			range = 0,1
    			// This is the name of the template to use
    			templateName = waterfall-kerolox-lower-RD170-1
    			// This field allows you to override the parentTransform name in the EFFECTS contained in the template
    			overrideParentTransform = thrustTransform
    			// scale the templated effect
    			position = 0,0,-0.005
    			rotation = 0, 0, 0
    			scale = 1.9, 1.9, 1.9


  4. 34 minutes ago, jefferyharrell said:

    I'm not sure whether this is a Bluedog problem or a Modular Launch Pads problem, so I'm reporting it in both threads.

    Take a Sarnus BR-375-XI SRB and attach a Modular Launch Pads launch base to its bottom node. (Here I've used General Launch Base 3 - Large but it happens with all the launch bases, I think.)


    At first everything is fine, but in short order the BR-375-XI starts to oscillate. The oscillations increase until it's spinning wildly around the pad.




    Weird, huh?

    Same energy:


    Welcome to page 874!

  5. 4 minutes ago, Invaderchaos said:

    Alrighty, couple updates. Mariner seemed like it was close to being finished, but I will have  to redo some stuff. Here's some extra technical details why I will need to redo many of these parts if any of you are interested:

      Reveal hidden contents

    At first glance, Mariner 3-5 seems like it uses the same octagonal bus as Mariner 6-10. However, while I was doing initial research, I learned that Mariner 6 and beyond received a significantly upgraded bus. However, according to some sources (like NSSDC and a few others), Mariner 6-10's bus was about 10% larger than Mariner 3-5's (which made sense to me, considering Mariner 3-5 launched on an Atlas-Agena, and Mariner 6-10 launched on Atlas-Centaur). I assumed this was one of the upgrades for the later Mariner's. It was also hard to compare Mariner 6-10 to Mariner 3-5 through pictures, as it 6-7 used a different engine cap, a different HGA, a different LGA, different solar panels, and a different science payload, while Mariner 8-10 bared even less resemblance to the earlier Mariner's. I assumed that looks deceive, and the Mariners must have a bus size difference. However as I later found out, I turned out to be incorrect about the bus sizes.

    At the time I had started modeling Mariner, I was still fairly new to KSP modding (I modeled the bus and the engine in December of 2020) before moving on to other parts I wanted to make. At the time I was less familiar with using NTRS (which for me has been the best source of references for part-making) and I relied on most images, orthographics/diagrams, and any physical dimensions I could get my hands on. This will be important later. The dimension that was flawed was the 'diameter' of the bus. As it turns out, measuring the diameter/width of an octagon can be annoying, as the distance between two vertices of an octagon is larger than the distance between two edges. I found several references on google listing Mariner 3-5's diameter as 127 cm "across the diagonal" (another word for point to point) and its height as 45.7 cm. Many others referenced Mariner 6-10's diameter as 137-138ish cm across the diagonal, with the same height as Mariner 3-5. If you squint enough at the Mariner's, in my mind I could see how Mariner 3-5 would look skinnier/taller and Mariner 6-10 was thinner and shorter (as I thought Mariner 3-5 was less wide yet the same height as Mariner 6-10).  It didn't help that there are fewer high-res images of Mariner 3-5, since there are no museum models of those Mariner's while there are of Mariner 6-7, and Mariner 10.

    What I did not realize was that for an octagon that is 137 cm (Mariner 6-10) across the diagonal,  the edge to edge distance is 127 cm, which is what I thought was Mariner 3-5's distance across the diagonal. Recently I realized there was a discrepancy with the size of my thermal louvers, and I realized that something wasn't adding up. I checked the documents I had collected from NTRS when I got back to working on Mariner, and I realized that several of them list Mariner 3-5's length across the diagonal to be about 138 cm, not 127 cm. These documents are final reports, design reviews, etc. so a dimensional value that consistently appears across many of these design documents is pretty much irrefutable. Frantically checking to see where I got my initial info from, it turned out NSSDC must have made the mistake of mistaking Mariner 3-5's edge to edge length as its length across the diagonal, thus giving a smaller, incorrect value for its size. The other instances of this incorrect value (notably Wikipedia) seemed to use NSSDC as a source as well. If they had also given Mariner 6-10's size the wrong value, I would've realized that 127 cm is an incorrect dimension, but instead, the Mariner 6-10  sizes were accurate. While I modelled many parts in terms of separate dimensional values I found (like the antennas, the engine, and the solar panels) making their size accurate, many parts were based on the size of the bus, like most of the experiments, the decoupler, the antenna support structure, and all bus endcap variants between Mariner 3-5, and will need to be resized along with the bus.

    To make matters worse, the bus wasn't simply underscaled because the height was accurate. This means that I couldn't just scale up the model, I would have to manually edit it, requiring me to re-unwrap and retexture the bus. While a small part of me wanted to just say screw it and leave it underscaled (although I am somewhat of a perfectionist so I probably wouldn't do that), correctly scaling Mariner 3-5 now would save me the trouble of working with Mariner 6-9 later, as either Mariner 6 would be underscaled (which would impact the size of the experiments and more) and not line up with the size of Mariner 10, or I would have to model a whole new accurately sized bus, taking up a lot of extra texture space. While this doesn't seem too bad, all of Mariner's parts need to be very specifically made so they all fit together. The solar panels are a very tight fit in the Lunar Orbiter Agena fairing, Mariner 3-4 have dampeners that connect to solar panels (which were modelled around the size of the bus), Mariner 5 has a solar shade that needs to fit under the decoupler, Mariner 5's HGA and Mariner 3-5's LGA have struts that connect to specific points on the bus, etc. Additionally, I have already unwrapped many parts, and I try my best to pack my texture maps as tight as possible, so increasing the size of the parts would likely mean I would need to rethink my UV's. On the bright side, it would be nice to have the experiments be a little larger, as they were already quite small.

    To summarize, Mariner 3-5's bus' diameter will need to be larger, and many other parts need to be upscaled by this same factor. I probably was on track to get the Mariner parts in game in a week or two(depending on how much spare time I have to work on modding), but it might take longer now. 

    In better news, a blast from the past: the 0.625 m Klaw that Cobalt made a while ago is being brought in game! I am having some troubles getting it to cooperate but it will be on github soon.
    A little Pioneer 6 based probe I made with it:

    How to beat the game with 1 probe.

  6. 25 minutes ago, Araym said:

    As always, I'm having a blast "testing" the new parts (my applause to @CobaltWolf and the entire BDB's "team" working on it)...

    ... now a couple of question, just  out of curiosity:

    1. If I remember correctly, the old LEM descent stage worked as a "decoupler", for the munar take-off of the Ascent stage. It seems that it has lost this ability, in the new one: is there a planned, specifi, decouple for it (maybe I didn't find it around), will it gain back the "decoupler ability" or will it be paired to use any, generic, BDB decoupler??? (missinging to have found a specific part, I'm playing it with the generic BDB 0.625m decoupler)
    2. Wheeeere is the "camera/scientific payload" doors on the descent stage, near the ladder (from where the hystorical "one small step" was filmed), as seen here ??? Am I the usual, dumb, myself not finding the option to have it active (I just only found the switch between the H and J type model) or are we still in an early model available, and that will come "soon™" in later development??? ... please do not tell me that, for simplicity, it was scrapped...

    3. Weird "visual bug" on the VAB (as noticed on the version I downloaded around 10 hours ago... dunno if, in meantime, "new" versions were placed on the github) :
      ... when happened to me to switch between the various SM option for the payload bay (... shielded/not shielded... automatic deplyment or not... various type of storage set-ups), putting the door back generated this, untextured, "pink" version of the shield.
      I'm not sure about it, but it seems to happens only if the "autodeployment" option was turned on, the shield removed (as, for example, to set something in the payload) and then the shield turned on.
      It's just a glitch in the VAB (at launch it return textured...  and also return textured if exiting/reentering the VAB), but it's worth a mention. (I tried various "random set of clicks", and it seems to me that it happens only in the case that the shield was removed meanwhile the "autodeployment" was turned on)
      Worth mentioning that I have, among a lot of other mods, "Universal Storage 2": if the additional option is triggered by an MM patch, could it be maybe a weird interaction after patching (if it went unnoticed in other mod set-ups)???
      Drop me here, eventually, a PM, if it could be useful to have extra infos about it (... KSP log files or anything) if that could be useful to point out the error (my HUGE modded instal could have some involvement, eventually, but it could be worth to study if it is a direct behaviour of the part itself, or any interaction with other mods)


    1 and 2.  Type LEM in the search bar in the VAB to find all LEM parts.

  • Create New...