Jump to content

[1.8.1-1.11.2] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.7.3 "Огромный" 19/Apr/2021)


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Carni35 said:

Hi ! 

So for ignitions what is the most up to date and accurate config ? The one from ''Stock Real Fuel'' Config (Include in extras)  or the one from Engine Ignitor ? 

I have Stock Real Fuel for BDB engines, but also ''Engine Ignitor Re-ignited'' for Tantares and Knes. I didn't known about BDB native Engine ignitor config si I might have to fear a compatibility issue I guess...

 

 

 

I've never used RealFuels but my understanding is that it comes with its own ignitions limits within the ModuleEnginesRF? (I assume this is the case as thats how it works in RO). As such I wouldnt expect it to be compatible with EngineIgnitor reignited which is a standalone limited ingitions mod.

The RealFuels configs in BDB extras are quite out of date, none of the mod authors use it so it needs someone who uses it to make a pull request to update it. For instance none of the new engines (and there were many) added in BDB 1.6 would have configs.

If all you are interested in is ignitions limits, then Engine Ignitor is well supported. Rock3tman did a great job researching and updating those configs for BDB 1.6 and both Cobaltwolf and myself both use it too so we have been updating the EI configs in the dev branch as new engines are added too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zorg said:

I've never used RealFuels but my understanding is that it comes with its own ignitions limits within the ModuleEnginesRF? (I assume this is the case as thats how it works in RO). As such I wouldnt expect it to be compatible with EngineIgnitor reignited which is a standalone limited ingitions mod.

The RealFuels configs in BDB extras are quite out of date, none of the mod authors use it so it needs someone who uses it to make a pull request to update it. For instance none of the new engines (and there were many) added in BDB 1.6 would have configs.

If all you are interested in is ignitions limits, then Engine Ignitor is well supported. Rock3tman did a great job researching and updating those configs for BDB 1.6 and both Cobaltwolf and myself both use it too so we have been updating the EI configs in the dev branch as new engines are added too.

Ok @Zorg thank you  for your fast answer !

I guess I now have to do some tests to find a way to disable real fuel ignition limit and  use only those from Engine Ignitor ^^

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Carni35 said:

Ok @Zorg thank you  for your fast answer !

I guess I now have to do some tests to find a way to disable real fuel ignition limit and  use only those from Engine Ignitor ^^

Not entirely sure if that would work. It would be fairly straightforward to write a module manager patch that would remove the key for ignitions limits in the realfuels patches. However engineIgnitor itself inserts its own ModuleEngineIgnitor and the plugin is meant to interact with the stock ModuleEnginesFX. RealFuels on the other hand deletes the entire stock engines module and replaces it with ModuleEnginesRF.

While it may work, I doubt it. If Engine Ignitor can handle ModuleEnginesRF that would be a fairly major unadvertised feature. 

Edited by Zorg
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zorg said:

Not entirely sure if that would work. It would be fairly straightforward to write a module manager patch that would remove the key for ignitions limits in the realfuels patches. However engineIgnitor itself inserts its own ModuleEngineIgnitor and the plugin is meant to interact with the stock ModuleEnginesFX. RealFuels deletes the entire stock engines module and replaces it with ModuleEnginesRF.

While it may work, I doubt it.

Well, maybe the most easy way for me to keep Real fuel is to update his config with ''Engine Ignitor'' stats.

I never did this kind of thing, but I'll try ^^

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Carni35 said:

Well, maybe the most easy way for me to keep Real fuel is to update his config with ''Engine Ignitor'' stats.

I never did this kind of thing, but I'll try ^^

 

I would suggest looking at the Realism overhaul repository for data. It’s well researched and has a lot of primary sources in the engine configs. I don’t know the balancing rules for stockalike real fuels configs though as far as thrust and mass are concerned but you can compare the existing configs with their RO equivalents. 
 

Compatibility patches are not that hard once you get the hang of it :) You just need the right data and a good sample config to go off of plus the enthusiasm to do it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Zorg said:

I assume you are talking about inside the VAB and not in flight? I suspect some kind of mod conflict because the animation button should read "Toggle Doors" in the VAB, not Toggle Animation.

Could you please provide your

1) modulemanager.configcache inside Kerbal Space Program/Gamedata (in the same level as the modulemanager.dll)

2) Your KSP.log inside Kerbal Space Program/  

3) Your output log (output_log.txt or player.log) after trying this in the VAB 

If you dont know where this is you can look here

 

I looked up the verion and downgraded to mod  version 1.5.2. It still says "toggle animation", but the animation itself works. updated MM while at it, no idea if this made any difference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Pappystein said:

This is a VERY real to life issue.   It is why most satellites are NOT in a circular orbit.  They are NEAR Circular.  Here is what I do...    I don't worry about it and go on to the next launch, the next stage, the next flight, whatever....

Well, it's not that bad of an issue, a satellite can fulfill its mission even if it is in a slightly different orbit. Also, orbital perturbations will make really circular orbits not possible, unless if you have and attitude and orbit control system (yaaaay! electric electric propulsion ftw!). You only need a very precise upper stage in for interplanetary trajectories (this is why deep space maneuvers exist) and ICBM launches.

TL,DR: too much TWR makes your final trajectory slightly unpredictable, use RCS to fine tune your orbit

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Zorg said:

Vikram and Beresheet were the Indian and Isreali moon landers both of which er lithobraked on the Moon. Perhaps they should have built them out of balsawood like the Ranger hard lander probe :P

Thanks for the Help File!

:)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zorg said:

I've never used RealFuels but my understanding is that it comes with its own ignitions limits within the ModuleEnginesRF? (I assume this is the case as thats how it works in RO).

I installed RealFuels several years ago so my info is out of date.   I found it to be too limiting because it was too... REAL.    Now, that is not saying I am not running some fun fuel mods of my own on-top of BDB's already massive fuel overhaul (Hypergolic x5, LFO Boiloff [Days not hours like LH2] etc....)   But in my book, things like Engine Igniter dump us back in the too complex category... But TETO   Besides, how would I keep my PotassiumPermagnate HTP or CalciumPermagnate HTP engines running.  The by-products are solid and clog the engine nozzle!   

FWIW I think RealFuels uses kg mass at Standard Atmospheric conditions for burn ratios instead of liters/units like stock KSP.  [eh I might have that backwards... I know KSP does!]

 

 

*PS JOKE ON The T-Stoff/Z-Stoff references...   Just finished re-reading about the Ju-248/Me-163D/Me-263 Komit!

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick Atlas thing update

I made some progress on the the atlas delta v thing. At this point I think it is an absolute overkill doing that for KSP, but i kinda like it :). The final results will be available with new dv maps and a new atlas launch manual next month. So far it is looking quite promissing.

jWM3cnB.png

Some configurations match quite well KSP

Spoiler

1NnYvFl.png

The final orbit is about 11 900 km by 65.4 km, it might even get to the Mun in a single burn!!! For me, this means that Atlas is WAAAAAY overpowered for this 2t payload.

And some trajectories are... well... not as promising :0.0:

5JupYZI.png

this floppy trajectory has a much longer sustainer phase. It WOULD have a higher delta v if the rocket didn't crash into the ground.

 

You can see much more clearly the trajectory angle's influence on the losses and the final orbit. Keep in mid that this is valid for an Atlas SLV3 (BMT tanks, LR79-7 engine staging the booster skirt when it has 20% of the propellant left)

tRvWG59.png

With heavier payload it gets better

lXKKzTV.gif

Same rocket, but with a 6t payload.

PF2v5lg.png

 

It might look very complicated for now, but it will be much easier to understand and use that information when everything (the dv maps and new manual) is done.

 

Edited by Marcelo Silveira
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wallum61 said:

May I ask how you're going about producing these data? If so, have you got a repository etc.?

I'm using matlab, so I have to write my own code to crunch the numbers. 

Spoiler

the dV maps were calculated using the effective Isp method. While the new one (with the trajectory, losses and such) is done by solving the ordinary motion equation equation. Matlab has a VERY POWERFUL function called ode45 which can solve the trajectory in less than a second in a normal (not gaming or high capacity) computer. However  to extract more information from ode45, well... you have to torture yourself because boi o boi it is annoying.

So i went for linearizing the equations and integrating over the burn time. It sounds more difficult than it actually is. It doesn't even need calculus to calculate the trajectory despite the "integrating over the burn time".  Is is more labor intensive than a simple ode45, but not much more.

The final trajectory is calculated by orbital mechanics

I will try to remember to write a more in depth manual with the code, this could be useful for some engineering student (or to inspiring someone into engineering)

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

I'm using matlab, so I have to write my own code to crunch the numbers. 

I hope that if the LR105 thrust adjustment is permanent, it will be a simple matter for you to adjust on your end 0_0

As an aside, in addition to the thrust adjustment, there will be a B9 switcheable upgrade, LR105-NA5 for the early Atlases and LR105-NA7 for SLV3 onwards. The RS56-OSA seems to a rebranding of the NA7 with identical stats so there will be no separate subtype for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Marcelo Silveira said:

it won't.

but I'm working on a way to simplify that, I just hope it works the way I intend to :/

tbh we're leaning towards making the change permanent, so far we havent seen any issues and no one has complained so far. I'll try to do some testing with various Atlas models and see how it does but it seems like the change from 37% to 25% doesnt make a huge change to playability. 

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

I will try to remember to write a more in depth manual with the code, this could be useful for some engineering student (or to inspiring someone into engineering)

Seeing the code would be useful as I am interested in using python to number crunch :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Amilianus said:

Any plans on adding alternate history stuff, like from For All Mankind? (3 person LEM *cough*)

Also Jamestown base.

For All Mankind is an ongoing series (which hasn’t even finished its first season yet), and there is a lack of concrete documentation on the vehicles used, with the 3 Person LEM only being seen in passing so far. I guess you could make an approximation of Jamestown base with a stock Mk2 Lander can or a hitchhiker, and propulsion provided by 4 LMDEs (that’s what they look like to me at least). If anything from this series gets added to BDB, it at the very soonest would be when the season ends (which would require all of the parts currently in development to be shelved for these For All Mankind parts). Even under this scenario, these new parts would likely be released sometime late next year (the Titan update was started this February, and was only released a couple of weeks ago). These parts are also arguably outside the scope of BDB as well. BDB already has alternate history stuff, in the form of Eyes Turned Skyward.

Edited by hieywiey
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Amilianus said:

Any plans on adding alternate history stuff, like from For All Mankind? (3 person LEM *cough*)

Also Jamestown base.

Well someone would have to buy me a subscription and hold me down long enough to watch it instead of spending all my free time on BDB. :P

In any case, there IS already some alternate history Apollo stuff but nothing for landers / surface bases. I have several... Hundred reference images not to mention dozens and dozens of documents saved for alternate history Apollo and Saturn stuff. However, Apollo/Saturn expansions are on hold until the historical Apollo/LM/Saturn are revamped. Both to bring them up to current standards, and to be made with expansion in mind. And before I get to any of THAT, the early game stuff (being the oldest/worst looking stuff in the mod) needs to finish getting revamped and expanded. I'm honestly not planning on getting to them until KSP 2 comes out, unfortunately.

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

Any plans on adding alternate history stuff, like from For All Mankind? (3 person LEM *cough*)

Also Jamestown base.

For Jamestown I would recommend the 3.75m Stockalike Station Parts Expansion redux parts (SSPXr) with the optional metal variants.

Spoiler

ImtOfghl.jpg

Not a very accurate recreation, its more inspired by it rather than a replica. Im also using the Near Future Launch Vehicles Eagle engine which is a real world proposal to convert the LMAE to methalox since this is part of my methalox mun architecture. But if you use a BDB LMDE instead the proportions of the engine would look better.

Spoiler

w916.png

 

 

Edited by Zorg
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.

×
×
  • Create New...