CobaltWolf

[1.6.X] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.5.2 "Бруно" 8/Feb/2019)

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

The engine mount for the Titan heavy/wide body. You have a inline 3 engine mount. I was wondering if you could make a inline 4 engine mount like the Direct Jupiter. 

Oh, I get you. Uhm, sadly no - I ran out of texture space for that texture sheet. I wasn't planning on adding any more LDC mounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CobaltWolf said:

Oh, I get you. Uhm, sadly no - I ran out of texture space for that texture sheet. I wasn't planning on adding any more LDC mounts.

Ah, okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I thought of last night, hopefully my attempt to explain it makes sense. So, I hated how the new stations wound up peppered with portholes that got in the way.

Now the basic modules will have mesh switches - 6 different window configurations!

Left to right: Four windows (current), no windows, 3 windows, two windows, two windows (alt), one window.

For UV reasons the two room module likely will have the same combinations, none where there's an upper window but no lower window etc. The other modules can't have this at all.

EE6xqnIW4AA3Dqm?format=jpg&name=large

 

EDIT: Oh, also, I added a fairing module to some of the adapters and endcaps for the Gemini station stuff. Let me know if its useful or just annoying.

Edited by CobaltWolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm lukewarm about this. I don't mind windows, plus if it's set up like that, it can't get an IVA even if someone was interested in making them. I really don't think it's such a good idea.

I did take a look at the MOL parts, but without IVAs they just feel... empty. So to speak. :) The telescope, at least, has a cool mirror assembly, but for station modules like these, a detailed interior makes them stand out. I could even help you add those details if you made a base mesh of some sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

I'm lukewarm about this. I don't mind windows, plus if it's set up like that, it can't get an IVA even if someone was interested in making them. I really don't think it's such a good idea.

I did take a look at the MOL parts, but without IVAs they just feel... empty. So to speak. :) The telescope, at least, has a cool mirror assembly, but for station modules like these, a detailed interior makes them stand out. I could even help you add those details if you made a base mesh of some sort.

This is your chance to fire up blender and get some IVA action going. 

Honestly with those MOL windows I don't think it's a big deal missing an IVA experience. I was thinking about these windows and how honestly there really isn't anything worth having an IVA for these _BUT_ if there was a plugin that existed where you could right click and pick "view from window" it will just load up dockingcam kurs plugin and just open up a window from that view would be enough in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sirkut said:

This is your chance to fire up blender and get some IVA action going. 

Except that would be pointless, now that it's impossible to match up the windows, because an IVA can't be switched. Besides, I'm no good at texturing (and besides Blender is an obtuse piece of junk. I did play around with Wings3D, once, and it was better). I do prop layouts, but for that there needs to be a base IVA to put props into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Something I thought of last night, hopefully my attempt to explain it makes sense. So, I hated how the new stations wound up peppered with portholes that got in the way.

 

I went to upvote this.....   Thumbs up!

6 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Oh, I get you. Uhm, sadly no - I ran out of texture space for that texture sheet. I wasn't planning on adding any more LDC mounts.

 

DRAT!  There goes my Idea for X and P....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Don't know, I have IRL stuff going on at the moment and will for the next few days at least. :)

8 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Okay, thanks for the answer.

  Part of what's keeping me busy...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn’t you just model the IVA with all of the windows open, and if the mesh is switched the windows disappear on the outside but not the inside? If your going to switch the mesh it will probably be because something is covering the windows anyway so won’t that problem take care of itself? And we know from parts like the MK-1 pod that you can switch the mesh of an object but keep the IVA the same, so I don’t see the problem there either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BillKerman1234 said:

Couldn’t you just model the IVA with all of the windows open, and if the mesh is switched the windows disappear on the outside but not the inside?

Think for a moment just how ridiculous would that look, even if KSP could handle this case properly. Go ahead and model it, if you don't believe me. This will result in a window always being transparent from the inside, except at some angles, where you'll see the mesh instead. No. This application of mesh switch makes it impossible to make an IVA for those parts, unless a custom plugin is written to handle that specific case. If you want to write that, go right ahead. 

In fact, you don't even need to make a new IVA. The new Mk2 Lander Can has this same problem. Just load it up and see how dumb it looks to have a window looking out onto a wall. It doesn't have clipping plane issues because the hull covering it is thick, but it's an annoying flaw is an otherwise decent design. In any case, mesh switching on windows is a mistake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What's the best way for Cobalt to make IVAs" probably isn't an argument worth having, fellas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

  Part of what's keeping me busy...

 

Congrats on Apollo! May his voyages be better than the Russian space geckos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know what altitude I wanted my new station to be at and I had a super OP rocket so i decided to find out through trial and error.

screenshot1116.png

All other frames from the launch of COSO were damaged beyond repair by thermal and aerodynamic forces. In the meantime, there are some images from the maiden flight of the LDCV Mk2, code-named ""Dante". It's mission was to rendezvous with and repair a damaged Geostationary Relay. In addition, it was the second flight of the Pandora 2026 lifter. screenshot1085.pngscreenshot1099.pngscreenshot1098.png

Oh and I

 did a direct reentry, for heatshield and parachute verification purposes.

screenshot1105.pngscreenshot1106.png

Only 1 of the parachutes failed to open, making it a first for this space exploration guild.

screenshot1107.pngscreenshot1109.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heads Up

As discussed earlier. BDB is moving to 25% thrust scaling for all engines. BDB dev branch now has this change committed as of today. (The old balance was 25% of IRL thrust for lower, 50% for upper and 37.5% for engine which have both a vac and sl version like the J2). 

A couple of exceptions: Apollo engines are unchanged since they have special handling to give them IRL TWR (Gemini lander is also left alone). Also very very low thrust engines like the Athena/Peacekeeper OAM/PBV which had over 100% scaling are left alone. Engines like J2 and LR87 LH2 which used 37.5% are also at 25% now

For people who don't like this change, what used to be Blowfish's thrust nerf patch in BDB Extras is now a thrust buff patch that brings you back to stock balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you outline for those who don't do maths what the reasoning and implications are for this change, and how the engines now compare to stock/other mods?

As I understand it, the 25% scaling is more balanced to real life engine instead of stock KSP (which tends to be overpowered).  The impact is that upper stage engines will be significantly less powerful, so you will need more engines for a given payload and/or aim for a higher final orbits, given that low thrust will make circularising in low orbit more challenging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Think for a moment just how ridiculous would that look, even if KSP could handle this case properly. Go ahead and model it, if you don't believe me. This will result in a window always being transparent from the inside, except at some angles, where you'll see the mesh instead. No. This application of mesh switch makes it impossible to make an IVA for those parts, unless a custom plugin is written to handle that specific case. If you want to write that, go right ahead. 

In fact, you don't even need to make a new IVA. The new Mk2 Lander Can has this same problem. Just load it up and see how dumb it looks to have a window looking out onto a wall. It doesn't have clipping plane issues because the hull covering it is thick, but it's an annoying flaw is an otherwise decent design. In any case, mesh switching on windows is a mistake. 

That's where prop switching comes into play. Don't want a window? Have a prop cover it up. Or a plane mesh that just covers the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, sirkut said:

That's where prop switching comes into play. Don't want a window? Have a prop cover it up. Or a plane mesh that just covers the window.

Is that possible with the latest B9? I certainly haven't seen anything of that sort. If it is, it would be handy for far more than just windows (for instance, mid-life upgrades for pod avionics).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, DylanSemrau said:

PTcRAgx.jpg

Is this LV supposed to be based on something, or is it just a mash-up thing? It looks really cool regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mudwig said:

Is this LV supposed to be based on something, or is it just a mash-up thing? It looks really cool regardless.

This is actually the original proposal for the Delta 3

:P haha I'm so funny good joke this is just a dumb mashup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 1:23 AM, Dragon01 said:

Think for a moment just how ridiculous would that look, even if KSP could handle this case properly. 

*Snip*

The new Mk2 Lander Can has this same problem. Just load it up and see how dumb it looks to have a window looking out onto a wall. It doesn't have clipping plane issues because the hull covering it is thick, but it's an annoying flaw is an otherwise decent design. 

Am I the only one who actually liked that part of the Mk-2 Lander Can? I thought the blocked window looked like some sort of structural member embedded in the wall. And in any case it proves that such a thing can be done. 

Edited by BillKerman1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BillKerman1234 said:

And in any case it proves that such a thing can be done. 

Of course it can be done. It just looks stupid. Done on portholes it will looks stupider. Also, do keep in mind that the Lander Can is quite thick in those areas. If you try to cover a window with a thin mesh, you'll have clipping plane trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

Of course it can be done. It just looks stupid. Done on portholes it will looks stupider. Also, do keep in mind that the Lander Can is quite thick in those areas. If you try to cover a window with a thin mesh, you'll have clipping plane trouble.

In my opinion it doesn’t look that bad, but I understand if you don’t share that opinion. Nevertheless though, it’s still better than having no IVA at all. As for the problems with thin meshes, well, don’t have thin meshes! I can’t think of any reason why we couldn’t just make the walls thick, unless it would be harder to model or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The exterior mesh is what matters, so you're out of luck here, too. Internal walls don't enter the equation at all, it doesn't matter if those are made thick. The windows would have to be very inset for that to work, and the switcher would have to cover them with thick plugs. The actual solution is simple: don't have window switching, just settle for a single configuration. Even better, make a basic IVA instead of wasting time on cosmetic variants. 

Another solution is not to have windows in the IVA at all, and instead model a compartment where they would be. Some portholes on Mir and ISS are like this, hidden under a panel that can be opened, for instance to take photos. That's a rather cheap trick, though, and it leaves you with a windowless IVA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

F-1A main engine and LR101 inline vernier firing full bore lifting the Nagase airlock module to the ISS

s7ZYifo.png

Share this post


Link to post
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.