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

[OrbitalManeuvers]

57 minutes ago, rnyboy said:

Btw, was that 15s game seconds or real seconds?

idk prolly not really 15 - the video shows real time not game time. I realized after I posted it you maybe can't tell that the eventual staging was not me hitting the spacebar, and was indeed MJ finally staging. It's not MLP because a rocket that autostages normally will still autostage normally on the Saturn mobile launcher, and a Saturn V launched using the stock launch clamps still takes several seconds to lift off, even if you tell MJ to stage after 1 second. The last variable (that I can think of) is MJ + BDB engines that ramp up.

[Gordon Dry]

How to avoid TestFlight showing the default part names when the Bluedog_DB_Extras\BDB_RealNames\RealNames.cfg is used?

Would it be enough to change all instances of

:FOR[zzzBluedog_DB]

to

:FIRST[Bluedog_DB]

or would that not change anything because the TestFlight code already parsed all the part's names on game load?

[Razgriz1]

1 hour ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

idk prolly not really 15 - the video shows real time not game time. I realized after I posted it you maybe can't tell that the eventual staging was not me hitting the spacebar, and was indeed MJ finally staging. It's not MLP because a rocket that autostages normally will still autostage normally on the Saturn mobile launcher, and a Saturn V launched using the stock launch clamps still takes several seconds to lift off, even if you tell MJ to stage after 1 second. The last variable (that I can think of) is MJ + BDB engines that ramp up.

If you look at the mission time, you start the engines at 1:35, and MJ lifts off at 1:44. This, as you mentioned, is due to MJ waiting for the engines to reach 99% rated thrust before liftoff. BDB does simulate engine spool-up time, and this is pretty darn consistent with the actual F-1 engines. On a Saturn V launch, the engine ignition command was given at t-10 seconds before liftoff.

[SpaceGuy21]

guys, im dumb, which parts of the MRV do i put in the MLEM? (and how do i build the deployment stuffs?)

Edited October 31, 2022 by SpaceGuy21

[Friznit]

14 minutes ago, SpaceGuy21 said:

guys, im dumb, which parts of the MRV do i put in the MLEM? (and how do i build the deployment stuffs?)

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki/Rovers

[Pappystein]

11 hours ago, AlphaMensae said:

There only should be one green node in the center of the base. so something is wrong there.

I think the PVG variant of Mechjeb that RO uses has autostaging that works.

I found the issue late last night after my initial post.   Auto-Stage TO STAGE X was set to an invalid number

*FACEPALM*

Sorry I didn't get back here to post a correction...  Things went sideways in my launches after that... I had 3 exploded Space stations to deal with (Probe and droge docking ports don't work well when you are using them backwards....)

 

5 hours ago, Friznit said:

https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki/Rovers

I will say that building the LM first and then building Saturn arround it seem to be the only way to do this.  And if you use something like Editor extensions for your autostruts you have to go in and manually remove it from each part of the rover after you do that.

I have not launched one yet but I used this guide to try to build on the other day (I am doing some testing of some parts in BDB right now and Wanted to see how the rover worked... to complicated given what else I was doing so I temproarly scrapped making it... but have thought about it a lot since reading the wiki yesterday

7 hours ago, Gordon Dry said:

How to avoid TestFlight showing the default part names when the Bluedog_DB_Extras\BDB_RealNames\RealNames.cfg is used?

Would it be enough to change all instances of

:FOR[zzzBluedog_DB]

to

:FIRST[Bluedog_DB]

or would that not change anything because the TestFlight code already parsed all the part's names on game load?

That may work   ***I THINK***.   But doing it to all the patches will absolutely BREAK BDB.  The only issue with doing this to the real-name patch that I see is any iterative parts (where the same model is used for two different parts... Like the J-2T-400K vs the J-2T, then you have the wrong real-name on the J-2T-400K because you said FIRST and the part copy is AFTER first.     And I FREELY admit I may be wrong on that!

 

  The whole reason for zzzBluedog_DB, and it's itterations (eg xxx_1, xxx_2) is to sort the order different patches are applied to the parts, and to apply the patches after the core game runs things...    

 

PS very good catch Gordon Dry!

 

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Pappystein

[msp307]

Hello, all my RCS always have half the thrust than I entered in RO. the ISP values are always correct.

I checked all the mods it's only at BDB. Is there a RO config somewhere that does this?

thanks in advance

[AstroKerbal1B]

20 hours ago, 610yesnolovely said:

Yes. Install Reviva (by myself) and then get MOARdV Avionics System and also MOARdVPlus - the latter covers two variants of the Apollo CM: Retro and Future. Reviva provides support for switching IVA and configuration for the BDB Apollo (instead of FASA) and also adds support for various other IVA packs. For the LEM I'd recommend Max-KSP IVA which is MAS based.

For other BDB check the Reviva README.md (link at bottom of OP below), there's a huge table of supported IVA in Reviva and links on where to get the IVA pack. Reviva currently provides support for RPM/MAS for the BDB Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and LEM with a bunch of different IVA mods (including configs for IVA usually for Stock pods remapped onto BDB, eg. RPM ASET Mk1-3 in the BDB Apollo is quite nice).

Apollo with MOARdVPlus Glass:

  Reveal hidden contents

LEM (Max-KSP)

  Reveal hidden contents

 

What a great Add-on, thanks you!

Is there a way to configure a specific IVA profile for a specific vessel so you will not need to select every time which IVA to use?

 

 

[610yesnolovely]

31 minutes ago, AstroKerbal1B said:

Is there a way to configure a specific IVA profile for a specific vessel so you will not need to select every time which IVA to use?

Set the IVA in the editor in the VAB/SPH, each launch will use that IVA by default. You can switch in-flight but that's always temporary for just that craft instance (ie. it should be the same if you switch away and back).

Post over in the Reviva forum if you have any more issues :-)

[rnyboy]

13 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Check this out:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

(spoiler: it goes by itself after like 15 seconds)

edit: for comparison, a titan works with the expected timing:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 Well sho enough...  It took quite a while, maybe 10 - 15 s, but the ascent guidance staged and she took off by herself.  Now I'm wondering if CobaltWolf designed his Regors to take about 10s to ramp up to full power since main engine start sequence for the Saturn F-1s was just after T -10s before lift off.  If so, kind of cool, otherwise I don't have a clue as to why it taks so long to stage.

Of course, I now need to retweak my SI and SII stages since that extra burn time of the Regors before actual lift off makes me use more of the SIV dV and that currently doesn't leave me with enough SIV  dV for the TMI.

Thanks so much OrbitalManeuvers for that key bit of info. 

[KeaKaka]

1 hour ago, msp307 said:

Hello, all my RCS always have half the thrust than I entered in RO. the ISP values are always correct.

I checked all the mods it's only at BDB. Is there a RO config somewhere that does this?

thanks in advance

RO configs aren't managed by the BDB team.

It's better to ask in the RO thread

[Beccab]

Would it be possible to add a variant to the S-IVB docking port where the engine side port doesn't have that gray structure? If it's used with more than 1 engine most times the ports can actually dock with each other, but the structure is clipping with some of the engines

[Gordon Dry]

7 hours ago, rnyboy said:

take about 10s to ramp up to full power

Default for GameData\Bluedog_DB\Parts\Saturn\Engines\bluedog_Saturn_Engine_F1.cfg:
 

...

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleEnginesFX
		engineID = BDBF1
		thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform
		exhaustDamage = True
		ignitionThreshold = 0.1
		minThrust = 0
		maxThrust = 1944
		heatProduction = 160
		EngineType = LiquidFuel
		powerEffectName = running_engine

		useEngineResponseTime = true
		engineAccelerationSpeed = 0.67
		engineDecelerationSpeed = 0.9


...

0.67 in "inverse seconds" would mean 1.5s - when the physics delta time is in real time. If KSP is slower, than it needs longer. Depends your rig.

[Blufor878]

Reinstalled TUFX for a bit to take some artsy shots of a rocket based on an old painting my older brother made when he was a little kid. I made two versions. The first is visually closer to the painting. The second was adjusted a bit to maintain the spirit of the original while giving it better flight characteristics, which is a long way of saying that I put an F1 on that Mother Hubbard.
First version, the CY Block I





Second version, CY Block II






Pretty happy with the results. Sadly I can't disclose what CY means (personal stuff, I hope you guys understand). I will say it's relevant to the origin of the rocket.

Now on KerbalX:
https://kerbalx.com/ManateeAerospace/CY-Block-I
https://kerbalx.com/ManateeAerospace/CY-Block-II

Edit: Bonus shot of the first rocket I ever uploaded to KerbalX, the Titan SRB-X (again, I regret nothing).

Edited November 2, 2022 by Blufor878

[SpaceGuy21]

its hard to land the MLEM with the MRV inside, its very wobbly, any workarounds or fixes?

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, SpaceGuy21 said:

its hard to land the MLEM with the MRV inside, its very wobbly, any workarounds or fixes?

How are you organizing the lander? There is an extra storage section that gets added to the LM, opposite the side of the LRV. Putting all the non-folding LRV parts in there (I think it's short one slot, so the last part should go in the descent stage cargo I guess) SHOULD balance the CoM. As far as wobbles, I'm not sure... @Rodger it's bad juju to toggle autostruts on/off on these, right?

But with that said, we've honestly had so many issues with the LRV, that are the result of stock issues we cannot fix. If you're ready to give up, the easiest thing is to land a LM, then build the rover separately (there is a welded version of the frame parts, so that there's no robotics whatsoever to cause issues). Once you have the rover built, you can cheat it to the surface next to your lander and go from there. Not ideal at all, but there's nothing left we can do to make the rover (and its robotics...) behave more consistently.

 

 

Another new radiator part, this one is meant for helping control boiloff on S-II derived stages

Edited November 1, 2022 by CobaltWolf

[Gordon Dry]

Has anybody else issues attaching the bluedog_Gemini_1p875mLongAdapter_PF ("GMSS-LSA 1.875m Structural Adapter")?

When I try, it gets a hick-up, moves away and the top node is sunken down inside the part.
This is logged:

[ProceduralFairings] bluedog.Gemini.1p875mLongAdapter.PF (Part) has not been updated for PF v6!  Trying Mode: Adapter, but unexpected results are likely! 
(Filename: C:\buildslave\unity\build\Runtime/Export/Debug/Debug.bindings.h Line: 35)

[PF]: No 'top1' node in part bluedog.Gemini.1p875mLongAdapter.PF (Part)! 
(Filename: C:\buildslave\unity\build\Runtime/Export/Debug/Debug.bindings.h Line: 35)

[PF]: No 'top1' node in part bluedog.Gemini.1p875mLongAdapter.PF (Part)! 
(Filename: C:\buildslave\unity\build\Runtime/Export/Debug/Debug.bindings.h Line: 35)

bluedog.Gemini.1p875mLongAdapter.PF added to ship - part count: 20 
(Filename: C:\buildslave\unity\build\Runtime/Export/Debug/Debug.bindings.h Line: 35)

NullReferenceException
  at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.Behaviour.set_enabled(UnityEngine.Behaviour,bool)
  at EditorLogic.attachPart (Part part, Attachment attach) [0x00145] in <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0 
  at EditorLogic.<SetupFSM>b__189_29 () [0x000ea] in <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0 
  at KerbalFSM.RunEvent (KFSMEvent evt) [0x0007b] in <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0 
  at KerbalFSM.updateFSM (KFSMUpdateMode mode) [0x00080] in <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0 
  at KerbalFSM.UpdateFSM () [0x00057] in <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0 
  at EditorLogic.Update () [0x00025] in <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d>:0 
UnityEngine.DebugLogHandler:Internal_LogException(Exception, Object)
UnityEngine.DebugLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object)
ModuleManager.UnityLogHandle.InterceptLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object)
UnityEngine.Logger:LogException(Exception, Object)
UnityEngine.Debug:CallOverridenDebugHandler(Exception, Object)
 
(Filename: <39c0323fb6b449a4aaf3465c00ed3c8d> Line: 0)

[FAR v0.16.1.1]: Overall bounds error in GMSS-LSA 1.875m Structural Adapter 0 meshes 
(Filename: C:\buildslave\unity\build\Runtime/Export/Debug/Debug.bindings.h Line: 35)

[PF]: No 'top1' node in part bluedog.Gemini.1p875mLongAdapter.PF (Part)! 
(Filename: C:\buildslave\unity\build\Runtime/Export/Debug/Debug.bindings.h Line: 35)

deleting part bluedog.Gemini.1p875mLongAdapter.PF 
(Filename: C:\buildslave\unity\build\Runtime/Export/Debug/Debug.bindings.h Line: 35)

 

[Queen Ultima]

5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Another new radiator part, this one is meant for helping control boiloff on S-II derived stages

Aww yes, we finally get to launch graphics cards into space! 

All seriousness, is this based off a real concept or just to solve the problem of boiloff in-game?

Edited November 1, 2022 by Queen Ultima

[Rodger]

6 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

How are you organizing the lander? There is an extra storage section that gets added to the LM, opposite the side of the LRV. Putting all the non-folding LRV parts in there (I think it's short one slot, so the last part should go in the descent stage cargo I guess) SHOULD balance the CoM. As far as wobbles, I'm not sure... @Rodger it's bad juju to toggle autostruts on/off on these, right?

8 hours ago, SpaceGuy21 said:

its hard to land the MLEM with the MRV inside, its very wobbly, any workarounds or fixes?

You’ll want to avoid autostruts, though the ‘rigid attachment’ option might help. Or if you don’t have it yet, Kerbal Joint Reinforcement: Next should be safe to use.

[GoldForest]

@CobaltWolf @Rodger Would it be possible to get the Pegasus micrometeorite detector turned into a giant radiator? Possibly a part switch or another new part using the same model?

[Rodger]

22 hours ago, Beccab said:

Would it be possible to add a variant to the S-IVB docking port where the engine side port doesn't have that gray structure? If it's used with more than 1 engine most times the ports can actually dock with each other, but the structure is clipping with some of the engines

Not simply - the mesh is all in one object, so that'd be up to @CobaltWolf splitting it up. And personally, I like the idea.

[Rodger]

16 hours ago, Gordon Dry said:

Has anybody else issues attaching the bluedog_Gemini_1p875mLongAdapter_PF ("GMSS-LSA 1.875m Structural Adapter")?

When I try, it gets a hick-up, moves away and the top node is sunken down inside the part.

Should be fixed in dev now.

[OrbitalManeuvers]

Is this a "maybe in the future" sort of nit? (couldn't locate a previous ask, but I'm sure someone's mentioned this before?)

[Taki117]

Just a heads up:

Updated to the latest version via CKAN and MM is saying there's 4 errors related to one of the configs. I don't know enough about MM to go and fix them myself, so if someone could take a look it would be greatly appreciated.

[CobaltWolf]

18 hours ago, Queen Ultima said:

Aww yes, we finally get to launch graphics cards into space! 

All seriousness, is this based off a real concept or just to solve the problem of boiloff in-game?

The latter - I'm not sure about nuclear stages, but the chemical OLVs were supposedly ok with just improved insulation and accepting some amount of boiloff. System Heat (as well as our old boiloff) don't model a lot of the tricks that they'd use to keep things cool, and I wanted to provide players with a straightforward + understandable solution to boiloff management.

 

1 hour ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Is this a "maybe in the future" sort of nit? (couldn't locate a previous ask, but I'm sure someone's mentioned this before?)

The Atlas V was due to be revamped by Invader but... yeah that's not happening now. At least, at the moment.