Jump to content

[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)

CobaltWolf

By CobaltWolf
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

GoldForest

GoldForest

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, donnager fan said:

I cant get to oribt with the BDB Gemini Titan II GLV 

If you're using mechjeb, switch it to PVG mode at the bottom. Don't use default or stock-a-like gravity turn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldForest

GoldForest

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, zakkpaz said:

Can we get a very short centaur interstage?  There's a lot of empty space with the one in game now.

What you mean a lot of empty space? The short variant leaves a tiny amount of room with the RL-10-A3 and just barely enough room with the A4. Unless you're talking about a shorter one for Centaur Jr./ Baby Centaur. 

Edited by GoldForest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zorg

Zorg

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, donnager fan said:

Extra monoporp on the gemini service module

The Titan II GLV has been tested extensively with the standard Gemini spacecraft and configuration. If you're packing extra monoprop to get more performance from your Gemini, then you need an upgraded launch vehicle most likely.

11 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

So... there are still some gremlins with the LM IVA, the RotateInternal module seems to fix it but I had it revert to backwards orientation on crew transfer. Switching vessels or saving/loading fixes it again. It could be the Reviva mod interfering though, will check without it.

There seems to be some bugs with the rotation module, cause is uncertain (could be root part related) and solution even less so. In the long run remade IVAs with the correct orientation would be a permanent solution but thats not happening immediately.

4 hours ago, 1124max said:

@Zorg, regarding the drag issues with the SLA would it be possible to solve it by making the panels part of a fairing via simple adjustable fairings and just have it staged with the decoupler?

The problem with SAF is that the staging events for the fairing sides and the top node are not necessarily coupled together, and we have the problem of the second decoupler for the LM which is handled correctly by the current SLA module which hides it until after petal staging. Maybe something could be worked out but I dont want to add a 3rd SLA type and it would be better if the existing SLA could be fixed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldForest

GoldForest

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Zorg said:

The Titan II GLV has been tested extensively with the standard Gemini spacecraft and configuration. If you're packing extra monoprop to get more performance from your Gemini, then you need an upgraded launch vehicle most likely.

There seems to be some bugs with the rotation module, cause is uncertain (could be root part related) and solution even less so. In the long run remade IVAs with the correct orientation would be a permanent solution but thats not happening immediately.

The problem with SAF is that the staging events for the fairing sides and the top node are not necessarily coupled together, and we have the problem of the second decoupler for the LM which is handled correctly by the current SLA module which hides it until after petal staging. Maybe something could be worked out but I dont want to add a 3rd SLA type and it would be better if the existing SLA could be fixed.

Are you sure it isn't because of the undersized collider? Would KSP physics not see that the collider has a hole in it and allow aero through the petal? I don't know much if anything about KSP modding or how the underlining physics works, but it seems to me like since the collider doesn't meet with the bottom of the Apollo, its telling KSP that it's an "Open" space and to allow wind/drag through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zorg

Zorg

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Are you sure it isn't because of the undersized collider? Would KSP physics not see that the collider has a hole in it and allow aero through the petal? I don't know much if anything about KSP modding or how the underlining physics works, but it seems to me like since the collider doesn't meet with the bottom of the Apollo, its telling KSP that it's an "Open" space and to allow wind/drag through.

afaik in the stock aero system drag is calculated based on drag cubes only. The colliders only come into it for shielded parts and act as a bounds for the shielding radius. I believe in FAR the drag is calculated based on the visual mesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldForest

GoldForest

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Zorg said:

afaik in the stock aero system drag is calculated based on drag cubes only. The colliders only come into it for shielded parts and act as a bounds for the shielding radius. I believe in FAR the drag is calculated based on the visual mesh.

Maybe the drag cubes are created on the collider? Therefore, same problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zorg

Zorg

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Maybe the drag cubes are created on the collider? Therefore, same problem?

I am testing with custom defined drag cubes that override generated ones. 

Please dont take this the wrong way, I know you're trying to help but I've spent ages making little progress on this and am quite tired and frustrated with this problem. I am not inclined to go on further wild goose chases unless someone has considerable knowledge on aero issues and can present me with solutions that are highly likely to work.

Edited by Zorg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pappystein

Pappystein

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, GoldForest said:

If you're using mechjeb, switch it to PVG mode at the bottom. Don't use default or stock-a-like gravity turn. 

Unless you are me and PVG ALWAYS crashes your rocket and Stock-A-Like works great :D   You just have to know how to adjust Stock-A-Like to work well, and sadly that is an ART not a Science so I can't just write up how to do it because I do each rocket differently!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zakkpaz

zakkpaz

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, GoldForest said:

What you mean a lot of empty space? The short variant leaves a tiny amount of room with the RL-10-A3 and just barely enough room with the A4. Unless you're talking about a shorter one for Centaur Jr./ Baby Centaur. 

I was, sorry I thought i said Baby Centaur

typo

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldForest

GoldForest

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, zakkpaz said:

I was, sorry I thought i said Baby Centaur

typo

Then, yeah, I agree. 

@Invaderchaos Could we also get a Saturn S-V apadter? The Atlas V Centaur adapter works, yes, but it's too long. We could use a shorter version that blends well with the taper of the S-IV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
donnager fan

donnager fan

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, SpaceFace545 said:

Try mechjeb PVG. Margins for that vehicle are also very tight already, I often finish my orbit insertion with the Gemini OMS.

 

9 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Hmmmm. Are you packing extra weight on the Gemini?

Problem fixed, I used the extended tanks instead of the normal ones

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldForest

GoldForest

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, bigyihsuan said:

I've been playing too much KSP lately, I dreamt last night a stage and a half Thor/Delta. 

Next time I can play I will try to recreate it. help

How would that even work? Would you just dump the vernier motors? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stolas

Stolas

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, Entr8899 said:

I don't think you uploaded the white version of the tank or the SAF version of the new fairing. There is a "SOFI" B9PS module on the tank, but the only option is orange.

EDIT: The RL10B2 doesn't fit on the single engine mounting plate, the nozzle extension clips into the tanks slightly.

what are the golden fuel tanks? in the last screenshot

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MashAndBangers

MashAndBangers

Posted
Posted

Has anyone made an Infernal Robotics config for the Skylab Truss? 

The issue I'm having is after putting the Truss into the up position, going to warp causes the stuff on the truss to appear on the opposite side, and coming out of warp then causes the stuff to go back onto the truss as normal, and then the truss violently swings from one position to the other till it loses momentum, like it's spring loaded or something.

I want to try Infernal Robotics out, but if someone has already made configs for the truss, that can expedite the process.

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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...