Razorcane

I suppose I'll just share my progress here. I redid the service module, but used the same dimensions(well, as close as I can get) and just used the same config since I still don't know how to set those up. But I remodeled and retextured it. However, it's still not done. I'm going to add a tiny bit more detail on the inside, like on the real service module. I wish we could use normals and specular maps... Anyway, I'm going to finish this up, and have a go at the command module next. I dread doing the command module because of how complicated the real one is. I'm afraid my OCD will kick in.

1. Yea, that picture shows the barebone command module without protective plating over it. I wasn't expecting detail like that. I was trying to draw your attention to the crew tunnel connected to the docking port and how the parachutes set in there. I think that given enough time the models could be detailed enough to include something like that. 2. I'm actually working on the service module right now. I'm trying a completely new design for it because for some reason, when I exported it from blender to maya, there were a lot of stray vertices. It was probably caused by the export. So there's no need to convert them for me. I designed a few elder scrolls mods a couple years back and I had to do similar things. 3. That's fair enough. Perhaps I can detail it a bit more? The wiki says that polycounts should be low, but to be honest, in this game, the biggest frame killer is the physics. I think the models themselves could handle 10/15% more polygons. I have an old dual core processor(crappy computer) that I use to test mods on, to make sure that they run on low end computers fairly well, so I'll try and test that before I get the updates to you. 4. You did it in one morning? That's even more impressive. It took me an hour just to make my mockup! 5. Well obviously so. But what I mean is, people throw down .64 a lot for sizes, and I figure that works for rockets as well. The truth is, for a rocket to have that much thrust, it would need enormous amounts of fuel to be used for more than a few seconds, and I think the combination of the weight and thrust would even things out. The thing is, and these values are completely off compared to KSP standards, the first stage got the craft to about 64km, the second stage got the apigee to 184k, and the third stage put it in a parking orbit, and was used for TLI. Now, obviously those are dead wrong in KSP, because Kerbin's field of gravity is barely 1/5th of the Earths, but I think with the right tweaking we could get it fairly accurate. Again, over the beta, I'm sure this stuff will be tweaked. I'll probably do my own tests to see if it's possible to launch a shuttle like that.

Ah, well that'll do it then. I actually already have a few suggestions from what I've seen so far, if you don't mind me suggesting them. 1. The command module is a very complex piece. You can see the detail here. I know that that level of detail is pointless, but I was wondering if you were going to add a detachable "cap" with the parachutes hidden underneath? I figured if you want to replicate t he Saturn V, you should get as close as possible. 2. I was going to try and retexture the service module to the gunmetal blue that the actual one has, but I noticed that the unwrap is very, odd. If you want me to texture it, could you possibly send me a copy of the mesh? I would need to rearrange the unwrap so it that it would be easier to texture. 3. I think the SPS engine should be directly attached to the craft. One reason is because it is built attached when the rocket is put together at the VAB. 4. The Lunar Module Adapter turned out pretty well. I still think you need a way to jettison the fairings, but since this is just beta and it's not really that important of a feature, it can be held off. I know that BobCat has a few "Jettison" functions on some of the things in his soviet pack, perhaps you could do something like that. 5. I'm a bit OCD, so the values on the saturn rocket itself really bugged me. They were nowhere near as powerful as the other rocket. The first stage has 33,851 megagrams of thrust, and weighs 2267.9616 tons(with the engines attached I believe). This is very, very low priority but it would be cool to see accurate weights and thrusts later down the line. Again, I'm being really OCD here. Sorry about the suggestions. I studied the Saturn V and Apollo Program for 20+ years, it's a bit of a hobby of mine. I just want this to be as good as I know it can be. I would have done it myself, but unfortunately I don't have the time to undertake a project like this alone.

Hm. I definitely think the models themselves could use some improvements, particularly the command and service modules. My offer to help is still up in the air, if you want it. EDIT: Also, the .craft files don't work with my version(.20) for some reason. Parts show up fine though.

Actually you can get it into orbit with HyperEdit if you use the launch stabilizers.

I still stand by the whole decouple twice idea, simply because it's more realistic, and you let physics do the animating, which takes strain off of you. You obviously know how to set up part configs so doing that shouldn't be a big deal. Also, if you need help texturing, I'm always available. The guys at work don't like me texturing but I'm not that bad at it.

Well they are meant to be placed seperately, as each fairing looks slightly different from the others(at least on the real craft). And are you sure they stopped using the flower petal fairings? I could have sworn I saw footage of it used on Apollo 8, 11, and 13. EDIT: Also, I think using an animation and not having them detach is kind of a bad idea. I'd rather them just disappear if they aren't going to detach. Just a suggestion.

Did you flesh out the edge smoothing problems and the textures?

Knowing them, they probably move it around as it's needed. They can do that after all.

Apologies for the external link, but I made a quick model/animation of what I was talking about earlier. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/41300233/scene_preview.avi Should clear up any confusion.

Well I've been thinking about it all day(in fact, I got very little work done because of it! But, no worries.) and I think the flower petal idea might work. You make the fairings decouple from the service module, and then the other part of the adapter has a decouple effect on it, to disconnect those. It makes a sort of sense, since the adapter stays attached to the third stage, so it really has no use. That's really the only compromise I can think of. EDIT: Is it possible to have 4 decouplers on one piece? Hm.

That picture you posted is solid proof that KSP needs Anisotropic Filtering.

Since we're on the subject of interiors, I found a really nice cutaway for the ESA Columbus module, for future reference. http://old.mfb-geo.com/pic/pic_news/20060425_esa_columbus-lab-iss_model.jpg

Yes that's a much better version. Perhaps instead of attaching the lunar module below the full adapter, both the bottom part of the adapter and the lunar module can be attached to the bottom of the fairings. Perhaps make one of the fairings have a centralized snap point or something. EDIT: Actually, after thinking about it, how would the fairings decouple? For stability purposes it makes sense to attach them directly to the service module, and then the rest of the adapter underneath, but how would it decouple? It would be attached to the ship at two points.

I actually have a few ideas for those fairings. If you look at renditions of the apollo spacecraft(including the fairings), you can see that the fairings do not take up the entirety of the Lunar Module Adapter. I actually modeled the Apollo Spacecraft and Saturn V launcher for a project in school, so let me get a picture for you. http://i.imgur.com/krBQknm.jpg As you can see, part of the lunar module adapter is attached to the third stage. So perhaps it is possible to attach the fairings directly to the service module? I've never done mods for KSP, so I'm unsure how possible this is, but if you attach the fairings to the Apollo craft, and then attach the rest of the adapter to that, perhaps it could work? Then of course the Lunar Module itself would go somewhere in there, possibly have a snap point below the adapter, though I'm not sure how that will work. Again, I'm not a mod developer.

That's strange. Hopefully they'll get it fixed soon. Just out of curiosity, why did you split the .craft files from the actual KerbX release?

Hey guys, maybe I'm just inept, but on the SpacePort, it says the craft files are part of a separate download, yet no link is provided. I tried searching for them, but they weren't there.

First of all, good luck! Secondly, I'm trying to be as constructive as I can here; your textures are very bright, and very inaccurate. There are many pictures of the apollo spacecraft all other the internet, and I think you should utilize the power of google to find them. You might also want to make your own adapter for the lunar module(aka, the fairings), as the stability of that part of the craft is greatly reduced when using fairing factory, because the top of the fairings are not attached to the service module. Again, I wish you great luck!

Yes, but the Svezda and Zarya also came from that pack, and I was wondering if he'd migrate the Soyuz as well.

I was wondering, just out of curiosity, if anyone was working on the SPP and the UDM modules. If not, I could take a look. I'm not one of the "big modders" but I do have a Bachelor's of Science in Computer Animation. Also, BobCat, are you planning to include the Soyuz with this? I know it's not technically part of the station but it would be nice to have a launch vehicle on-hand.