Jump to content

[1.12.3] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.10.4 "Луна" 19/July/2022)


CobaltWolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Jack Wolfe said:

That illustration seems a bit incomplete. Where is the photon torpedo launcher?

Didn't you realize? It's the docking node on the side of the station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jall said:

Didn't you realize? It's the docking node on the side of the station.

Ah, the old "secondary docking port that's really a torpedo tube" trick. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NeoFatalis said:

Is this me or it actually has a cover around it's engine?

It is. The idea was to keep the command module at the same height as the Standard Lunar Saturn V, but they didn't have the space in the SLA for the SPS's bell, so they had to use a short service module, and place the entire engine with bell in the volume of the standard service module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TimothyC said:

It is. The idea was to keep the command module at the same height as the Standard Lunar Saturn V, but they didn't have the space in the SLA for the SPS's bell, so they had to use a short service module, and place the entire engine with bell in the volume of the standard service module.

No, they actually changed engines. Instead on one SPS, it has 2 LEM Ascent stage engines (for safety, and size). I assume the shroud is for further protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of y'all fans going to step up and start baking RO configs? You can 'steal' the majority of the necessary config from existing RO configs for the same parts, which is why RO is handy. Module Manager isn't nearly as hard to learn and deal with as actually making all these awesome parts. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, stratochief66 said:

None of y'all fans going to step up and start baking RO configs? You can 'steal' the majority of the necessary config from existing RO configs for the same parts, which is why RO is handy. Module Manager isn't nearly as hard to learn and deal with as actually making all these awesome parts. :) 

I think that not only is RO not updated to 1.2.2, but it's one of the threads that got ate. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JediRangerkendor said:

I am surprised that the Apollo and Lunar modules still don't have internal views. Is it on the list of things to do? 

Short answer, no. Longer answer, if you want to make one yourself, yes. Longer answer some members of the BDB community are already working on them.

Edited by Foxxonius Augustus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

I think that not only is RO not updated to 1.2.2, but it's one of the threads that got ate. :P

A forum thread isn't really important from a mod development side, all the content and real discussion is on Github or the RO IRC. Anybody could get a pretty much complete RO install going now, we keep track of our mod prereq's and they are all either done or in beta/testing states. That is the way we actually go about identifying and fixing problems with updating RO itself through KSP & prereq updates.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/issues/1436

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, stratochief66 said:

A forum thread isn't really important from a mod development side, all the content and real discussion is on Github or the RO IRC. Anybody could get a pretty much complete RO install going now, we keep track of our mod prereq's and they are all either done or in beta/testing states. That is the way we actually go about identifying and fixing problems with updating RO itself through KSP & prereq updates.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/issues/1436

And a person pestering isn't really important either. If it is that important to you, I know @CobaltWolfwould be more than happy to include any cfgs you make.

TL;DR: BDB operates under a "you want it, you make it" policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, minepagan said:

And a person pestering isn't really important either. If it is that important to you, I know @CobaltWolfwould be more than happy to include any cfgs you make.

TL;DR: BDB operates under a "you want it, you make it" policy.

I know CobaltWolf has asked his fans to make RO configs before, I was just providing information to let them know how easy it is to get started and that the RO community is available and happy to help/provide guidance. Also, RO configs get rolled into the RO repo, not included with the distributed mods. That -might- work, but then the configs would generally not get updated and quickly fall out of date or sync with other RO patches, or at least that is my observation of mods that have tried to go that way.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, stratochief66 said:

*snip*

Cheers

Fair enough, guess I'm just used to people begging for things on here without offering to help :P.

(See 2 posts above your 1st one for exhibit A)

Edited by minepagan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/10/2017 at 11:12 PM, Foxxonius Augustus said:

Longer answer some members of the BDB community are already working on them.

I'm really good at procrastinating. I said I would make RO configs over winter break. I should at LEAST get something done, I know how to use MMsigh, I wish I could get stuff done. Then I might take the time to get better at modelling and learn to texture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I flew the Titan 1 Guidance probe core today.  I made a simple Modulemanager file to increase it's impact speed to beyond Quad-sonic and added the DMagic Seismic Impact hammer science device.   I thought it was a great use for a re-purposed.. guid..err warhead.

Two issues popped up.  One related to my poor MM file creation ability (I have learned I have a LOT to learn yet.) The second, the one I am posting here about, is completely aerodynamic....   The Titan 1 Core with nothing attached ends up tail first like a space capsule instead of nose first like the Nuclear Warhead it...was.  I then tried putting Airbrakes or fins on the tail end and they did not modify this tail first attitude one iota.   Is this as designed? 

I assume the COM would have to be moved further toward the "nose" of this thing to change that?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Is this as designed? 

I assume the COM would have to be moved further toward the "nose" of this thing to change that?

No, it's not as designed. The model's not centered. Use CoMOffset = 0, 1, 0. I'm going to add that change to the repository.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a request to improve one of the Rockets already in the game, the Delta/Daleth

Is there any possibility of making the Delta-K BDS-0120 - Daleth-K Interstage Decoupler, attach to a new node on the bottom of the Delta-K fairing, instead of to the bottom of the engine? 

Doing so would allow fitment of other engines, LMAE or earlier AJ10-118A (Alpha-star) engines. as used by Delta-D/Delta-E and Delta-P upper-stages.  I know the Delta-P is the only one of the three mentioned that is compatible with the Delta-K setup (Delta-K swapping the AJ10-118K for the earlier TRW-TR-201 aka the LMAE.)   However this could bring about further flexibility to the Mod.

Further, is this rocket being looked at in your CTT/StockTT re-balance?   My only concern is the -118K engine can be hard to get when you already have the other parts.   This what brought me to ask about the above since I was using the already unlocked LMAE engine from the Apollo Lander, I decided to make the Delta-P upper stage to get a satellite launched before I had unlocked the -118K engine....  DISASTER struck due to the inter-stage clipping into the upper-stage fairing.   if you need any facts RE the Delta family of upper stages, I have a small but detailed collection that was not easy to gather.

Lastly,  Will the RS-27/H-1 family see upgrades applied to them?   Late game the Delta becomes rather anemic due to the lack of thrust from the original-tech RS-27.  The same is true for the MB-3/LR-79 for the Thor.  

 

<FOLLOWUP>

Is there a reason the Thor/Fennris alternate between NASA and USAF text/designations?   Most of the To follow deals with the un-supported BDB-rename.cfg.   But the issue can cause in-correct data to be used in building the CFGs so I ask. 

NASA flew Thor-Deltas, which were similar but not the same to Thor-Able/Thor-Baker(Able-II)./Thor-Charlie(Ablestar.)

<Sniped a bunch of information that was hard to follow in this format.>

Edited by Pappystein
Followup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...