Zorg 4,904 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 Some more previews Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zorg 4,904 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 Waterfall is now a soft dependency for BDB and is the default handler for liquid engine plumes. It is now bundled together in the github master branch and an initial implementation is available for testing and feedback. Most liquid engines except for a couple like the peacekeeper kick stages and probe engines now have configs. Those plus vacuum SRB plumes, rcs are forthcoming. In theory these plumes should perform better than stock and realplume as well. RealPlume can still be installed alongside for better looking sea level SRB plumes over stock. Spoiler If for some reason you dont like waterfall you can still uninstall it though support for stock style plumes is being dropped slowly. Realplume will continue to be supported for future liquid engines to the extend they dont need custom plumes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
biohazard15 854 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Zorg said: Realplume will continue to be supported for future liquid engines to the extend they dont need custom plumes. I'd like some clarification on that. Future Saturn update, for example - will these get RealPlume support, or will I be forced to use Waterfall? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Starhelperdude 775 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 Just now, biohazard15 said: I'd like some clarification on that. Future Saturn update, for example - will these get RealPlume support, or will I be forced to use Waterfall? realplume will still have support, though I think waterfall will be the ''main thing'' in manners of plumes Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Spaceman.Spiff 1,129 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 1 hour ago, Zorg said: Waterfall These look great Zorg. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zorg 4,904 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 16 minutes ago, biohazard15 said: I'd like some clarification on that. Future Saturn update, for example - will these get RealPlume support, or will I be forced to use Waterfall? 15 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said: realplume will still have support, though I think waterfall will be the ''main thing'' in manners of plumes Yes I can apply configs to any new engines that can make use of existing prefabs. However I am unlikely to have the motivation to expend the (considerable) effort it takes to make custom plume prefabs should something require it. Of course if anyone else were to do, we would be happy to accept a PR. Having said that there arent a whole lot of new engines due as the primary saturn engines were already remade. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
biohazard15 854 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 32 minutes ago, Zorg said: Yes I can apply configs to any new engines that can make use of existing prefabs. However I am unlikely to have the motivation to expend the (considerable) effort it takes to make custom plume prefabs should something require it. Of course if anyone else were to do, we would be happy to accept a PR. Having said that there arent a whole lot of new engines due as the primary saturn engines were already remade. So at least the main stuff will be able to use existing RP effects? That's very nice. Because I can't force myself to see this: Especially this: Sounds are nice, though. For comparison, RealPlumes - which truly bring me joy: RealPlumes look and feel real - unlike WaterfallFX plumes, which look and feel like swirling cones with flames painted on them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pTrevTrevs 2,731 Posted February 13 Share Posted February 13 Gemini 5 stationkeeping with the Rendevous Evaluation Pod Mariner spacecraft visiting Eve Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltWolf 26,219 Posted February 14 Author Share Posted February 14 Hmm, there appears to be something missing from the Saturn/Apollo revamp. Better fix that... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dave1904 279 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 The new effects are something else. Just wow. Feels so next gen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Minmus Taster 308 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said: Hmm, there appears to be something missing from the Saturn/Apollo revamp. Better fix that... The great error shall soon be corrected. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Starhelperdude 775 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 1 minute ago, Minmus Taster said: The great error shall soon be corrected. lol would the fictional hab LEM fit inside a Saturn 5 Clam Fairing? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Starhelperdude 775 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 I like the legs too Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pappystein 1,173 Posted February 14 Share Posted February 14 6 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: Hmm, there appears to be something missing from the Saturn/Apollo revamp. Better fix that... really? REALLY???? Two weeks in a row... WHILE I AM WORKING! Darn you Cobaltwolf! I keep trying to respond to the text chat in the now archived stream! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BenyB873 10 Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 On 2/12/2021 at 6:07 PM, Zorg said: Should be fixed on the github master as of yesterday. Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Juno is usable again!!! I had to stay on 1.10 with my new playthrough because of the mass bug. Really is odd when for all intents and purposes I have a TWR of 2.7 yet the corresponding true velocity change suggest something just over a TWR of 1.1? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BenyB873 10 Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 (edited) 5 hours ago, BenyB873 said: Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Juno is usable again!!! I had to stay on 1.10 with my new playthrough because of the mass bug. Really is odd when for all intents and purposes I have a TWR of 2.7 yet the corresponding true velocity change suggest something just over a TWR of 1.1? I semi take it back . It's mostly resolved, at least on BDBs end of the woods. Long time lurker and veteran KSP user here that hasn't bothered posting in a long long time A fascinating issue really, one that I believe combines the previously recorded mass bug and how FAR & Modular Flight Integrator handle drag. Public service announcement! Latest BDB Github master works fine with 1.11.1 providing you stay BELOW version 1.2.8.0 of MFI (KSP ver 1.10), assuming of course you are running it. Using a recent version of MFI reintroduces our funky mass issue BUT only in atmosphere where there is appreciable aerodynamic drag. Launching an LV-3 Atlas with MFI 1.2.9.0 and 1.2.8.0 I observed that calculated surface TWR would proceed as expected, however upon a velocity of greater then 60ms-1 things start getting weird. Upon a 3.3 TWR which is usually where the skirt will jettison with the given payload, the vessel is only under 1.6gs of thrust. Testing in vacuum however shows all expected values. Also an interesting issue is a pseudo dynamic pressure spike at around 7,700m, almost as if the expected mach 1.0 speed hump is twice as large as its supposed to be, this is despite calculated Q being at a mere 8000 kPA. I personally run Atlas on a max q of 25k and don't come anywhere close to that with this bug. The exact same craft and scenario using MFI 1.2.7.0 yielded consistent TWR with respect to g force across the board. All expected q values were met on timeline. I should also add I conducted this testing across various versions of Kopernicus and established that the latest build as of this post (v1.11.1-34) works fine with BDB providing MFI is 1.2.7.0. I'll double post this to the MFI thread. I hope this helps lads! Edited February 15 by BenyB873 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltWolf 26,219 Posted February 15 Author Share Posted February 15 19 hours ago, Starhelperdude said: I like the legs too ye Quote Link to post Share on other sites
StarStreak2109 773 Posted February 15 Share Posted February 15 Those legs are juicy! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pTrevTrevs 2,731 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 8 hours ago, CobaltWolf said: ye Maybe it's just me, since I trust you've got good resources for the LEM, but is the descent stage really that small compared to the ascent stage? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cheesecake 524 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 12 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said: Maybe it's just me, since I trust you've got good resources for the LEM, but is the descent stage really that small compared to the ascent stage? Yes it is. Here are pics from Wikipedia. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Starhelperdude 775 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 1 hour ago, Cheesecake said: Yes it is. Here are pics from Wikipedia. lol I saw this replica in speyer xD Quote Link to post Share on other sites
CobaltWolf 26,219 Posted February 16 Author Share Posted February 16 15 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said: Maybe it's just me, since I trust you've got good resources for the LEM, but is the descent stage really that small compared to the ascent stage? Yeah, the LM (by the time it flew it was simply the Lunar Module, LEM would be a useful distinction for referring to the developmental models but not enough people would make that distinction) is modeled off of some really good orthographics I found from NASA. With that said, pretty much the entire ascent stage needs some serious work getting the topology of those silly panels to be right. The windows probably also need to be redone, the geometry is disgusting right now I did start on the dishes though, and I modeled the plume deflectors in. They won't be baked into the AO this time, and will be a simple toggle. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Cheesecake 524 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 3 hours ago, Starhelperdude said: lol I saw this replica in speyer xD Oh, habe ich gar nicht gesehen dass das Foto aus Speyer stammt. Didn`t know that this are from Speyer. I wanted to go there after I was in Sinsheim Technikmuseum some years ago. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Starhelperdude 775 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 6 minutes ago, Cheesecake said: Oh, habe ich gar nicht gesehen dass das Foto aus Speyer stammt. Didn`t know that this are from Speyer. I wanted to go there after I was in Sinsheim Technikmuseum some years ago. yay, another german Space interested kerbal! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JoeSheridan 46 Posted February 16 Share Posted February 16 (edited) 5 hours ago, Starhelperdude said: lol I saw this replica in speyer xD me too, 4 times yet. the first thing i thought when i saw the photo: just a second.. i know that thing. The museum in speyer could be a gold mine for every ksp mod author... lot´s of tech from nearly every space program. 1 hour ago, Starhelperdude said: yay, another german Space interested kerbal! make that two Edited February 16 by JoeSheridan Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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.