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

1 minute ago, Doc Shaftoe said:

football fields

which are approximately 100m ( both football (soccer) pitch 'football' (handegg) field)

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Clamp-o-Tron said:

:D

Unless, of course, you live literally anywhere else than good ol’ Merica.

A Merican myself, I actually had to condition myself into using the metric system instead of Imperial so that I can work easily with work and etc. with Europeans and such. It’s been 4 years now, and I (like OrdinaryKerman) am a little confused every time someone gives a measurement in feet or pounds.

All true.   And My previous statement you quoted was all satire.   Just because the world, for COMMON use measurements only, decided on a standard that was invented by a group of map makers that wanted nice round numbers for mapping earth as a whole instead of those unsightly decimal points....   It make only a tiny bit more sense than a King declaring the unit of measurement as based upon the length of his foot (walking device).   Well neither standard really works when you start thinking about leaving the planet which we are talking about doing.    Both have an Arbitrary measurement standard based upon earth only.   It is very Planet-ist :D

If, for example you look up any Shipping measurement scale it is almost always Nautical Miles.   I think the Eastern Block tried to push for KM in the 1960s, but it isn't used by 80+% of the sea going world (I am going from memory on this. )   I know that once you get into Riverine and possibly inland sea/lake shipping it is either Statue Miles (or standard 'Merican miles if you will) or kilometers.   

Per ICAO altitude is in Feet or Meters depending on the country of radio contact, and international aircraft MUST have a readout in BOTH measurements for altitude.  Distance covered is always Nautical miles.   But I think, based on voice transcripts from actual flight incidences in Europe, that most of the world uses Feet for altitude....   That is excepting the un-educated Press reporting on such incidents "help" their viewers/listeners/readers by "helpfully" converting from the ft measurement in the actual cockpit-ground communications to Meters... sometimes with funny results!    I remember an e-mail conversation about such an incident in the early 1990s where the conversion wasn't done and the reporter stated that the Airliner was flying at 38km of Altitude...  Well over the altitude where a HBPR Turbofan engine can even operate.  FTR it is about 15km altitude where you will start needing a full pressure suit even in a pressurized aircraft to avoid many issues :D

The point of the original satire as well as this post is simple.    Just because your area's common form of measurement is what you are used to... That does not make it the RIGHT form of measurement for the subject matter.    United States of America uses the foot and inches to measure the rocket.   Therefor we will use the foot and inches to describe the rocket when talking actual rockets (not KSP tom-foolery.)     Cringe, groan and complain all you want.   It is ALWAYS more accurate and precise (two key things when flying rockets or even attempting to do so.) to use the standards of measurements they were designed for.     That being said, if I am describing a rocket designed using the IS/SI standards, you better believe I will be talking in Meters/Millimeters, and kilograms or liters as pertinant!  

and no, these statements are not a judgement of what measuring standard is superior.   IF anything I think all 4 standards I mentioned suck!  (two basic standard sets and two derived standard sets are covered above!)  I am just saying stick with the measuring standard used to design what you are talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another flavor text dump. This time for orbital mapping, mun and minmus.

Quote

//Mun, random
        MunInSpaceLowLowlands. The surface is dotted with craters, but otherwise seems flat. It's also slightly darker here, seemingly proving the hypothesis that these midlands were formed by early volcanic activity, possibly due to tidal forces from Kerbin.
        MunInSpaceLow = The gray, cratered surface in this image can make one philosophical about the uniqueness of their existence.
        MunInSpaceLow = The darker volcanic plains, the mountains, hills, and valleys all remind you of Kerbin. You can see why the astronomers of the Proot Era thought the Mun was another world, with people not unlike our own. //@Proot, creator of the KSP Renaissance Compilation
        MunInSpaceLow = You see some rocks. Or were those rovers? or bases? At this distance, it's hard to tell. But you can tell that they were big.

//Minmus, biome-specific
        MinmusInSpaceLowFlats = The wide flats seem impossibly smooth, even up close. What are they? Craters filled with volcanic material, like the Mun's lowlands? Salt flats formed from lakes once kept warm by the heat of celestial formation? Or mint ice cream, left there for hungry kerbals?
        MinmusInSpaceLowGreaterFlats = The biggest flats on Minmus conjure up images of mint ice cream or shaved ice, with the shiny, icy surface glinting in the sunlight. You close the aperture before the bright light overwhelms the camera.
        MinmusInSpaceLowHighlands = The highlands and the surrounding midlands are so obviously rock, but what is the sparkly blue-green surface made of? Salt? Copper oxide ore? Blue ice? We'll never know unless we look beyond the visible, which this instrument is unfortunately incapable of doing.
        MinmusInSpaceLowHighlands = The flatness of the highland plateaus is remarkable, especially since they aren't at Minmus mean 'sea' level. Maybe these were the original surface of Minmus, before the lower flats formed?
        MinmusInSpaceLowGreatFlats = These somewhat resemble the ice caps of Kerbin, either that or salt flats. The dessert theory seems to be less credible now, not that it was ever a serious consideration.
        MinmusInSpaceLowLesserFlats = These look like ice lakes shrouded in the mountains, reminding everyone of such things on Kerbin, and the fact that even this far away, you are still in the (gravitational) influence of home.
        MinmusInSpaceLowSlopes = The slopes are reminiscent of mountainsides on Kerbin, the perfect place to put an observatory. We can't spot any of those, though.
        MinmusInSpaceLowLowlands = The lowlands are like Kerbin's grasslands, with the small hills and gentle slope up to the midlands. They seem like an good spot to set up a long-term base if the flats are proven to be ice sheets over subsurface oceans. Future missions should beware of boulders though.
        MinmusInSpaceLow = You see in detail its large flats, light greenish-blue color and almost sparkly look. Apparent cracks on the surface may land credence to the theory that Minmus is covered in ice, and that the flats are, or were, the surface of internal oceans. The cause of the color is as yet unknown.

Again, will post more when I come up with more.

Edited by OrdinaryKerman
added some for Mun
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ollz said:

Is there any reason why the Delta II and Delta I core Parts aren’t Appearing?

I Have Delta IV, DCSS, the Delta III adaptor, and the Delta P/K parts, but no delta I core or Delta II Parts

They don’t even appear in the R&D building!

i think the delta II and delta I tanks are now part variants of the thor rocket

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ollz said:

Is there any reason why the Delta II and Delta I core Parts aren’t Appearing?

I Have Delta IV, DCSS, the Delta III adaptor, and the Delta P/K parts, but no delta I core or Delta II Parts

They don’t even appear in the R&D building!

You mean the THOR parts?   Look for Thor that after all is what Delta is just a bad rename of (Delta is the upper stage not the whole rocket)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pappystein said:

You mean the THOR parts?   Look for Thor that after all is what Delta is just a bad rename of (Delta is the upper stage not the whole rocket)

 

and the thor-delta was basically I think just a Thor-Able

and also there was once a fight with a Delta-P upper stage but with the Delta-F engine

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

Is there any reason why the Delta II and Delta I core Parts aren’t Appearing?

I Have Delta IV, DCSS, the Delta III adaptor, and the Delta P/K parts, but no delta I core or Delta II Parts

They don’t even appear in the R&D building!

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

Delta tanks are just Thor tanks now. You just need to pick the correct length and colour. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Starhelperdude said:

and the thor-delta was basically I think just a Thor-Able

and also there was once a fight with a Delta-P upper stage but with the Delta-F engine

The Delta stage was an improved Able, being a little longer and with RCS among the notable changes, but otherwise visually very much an Able.

It was NASA who started calling their Thor-Deltas "Delta" for the whole thing. :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Emilius73 said:

Is there a way to only install the Neptune Camera parts from this?

I don't want to download all this, can you split up the mod?

I wish it was that easy! At this point, splitting up the mod would be a good deal of work, as well as additional overhead to maintain. Additionally, despite the frequency this gets asked, nobody seems to agree on how the mod should be split up! However, the mod is easily prunable. Deleting folders inside Gamedata/Bluedog_DB/Parts/ will delete that part family without breaking other parts of the mod. For finer pruning, mods like Janitor's Closet can be used to remove parts from within the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Emilius73 said:

Is there a way to only install the Neptune Camera parts from this?

Depends what you want. As Kreiger linked above, its not so easy to delete individual parts but you can delete entire rocket families by deleting a whole folder within Bluedog_DB/Parts/. Most cameras are in the ProbeExpansion folder and the Keyhole stuff are in Agena and Hexagon, some of the older cameras will be in Science. If you deleted the other folders and kept those you would get most of the cameras (plus a bunch of probe and agena parts).

If you decide to do this, please make sure not to delete the Bluedog_DB/Parts/Shared folder or Bluedog_DB/Parts/Upgrades.cfg

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Starhelperdude said:

Can someone build a Thor-burner 2 and show the pictures here? Idk how to build one

Burner 2 cant be done accurately. The Star 37 and burner kit are too large. (overscaled slightly). We might investigate some possibilities later but for now there is no canonical build for it. You can probably work out something close-ish using stock or procedural fairings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@CobaltWolf

Just figured I'd pop in after updating my KSP install recently and just noticed Corona parts. Yay I can finally put to rest that old Sample Return Capsule from 1.2.2 I've kept hobbling along on a wing and prayer since 1.4.

 

Don't let anyone tell you different, you're the best. Love all the new parts even though I gotta rebuild everything. :D

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

Depends what you want. As Kreiger linked above, its not so easy to delete individual parts but you can delete entire rocket families by deleting a whole folder within Bluedog_DB/Parts/. Most cameras are in the ProbeExpansion folder and the Keyhole stuff are in Agena and Hexagon, some of the older cameras will be in Science. If you deleted the other folders and kept those you would get most of the cameras (plus a bunch of probe and agena parts).

If you decide to do this, please make sure not to delete the Bluedog_DB/Parts/Shared folder or Bluedog_DB/Parts/Upgrades.cfg

Thanks for the advice, I'll try it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Starhelperdude said:

Can someone build a Thor-burner 2 and show the pictures here? Idk how to build one

 

12 hours ago, Zorg said:

Burner 2 cant be done accurately. The Star 37 and burner kit are too large. (overscaled slightly). We might investigate some possibilities later but for now there is no canonical build for it. You can probably work out something close-ish using stock or procedural fairings.

Yeah, the Burner 2 kit could use a TLC remake as it was made for STAR48 instead of 37.   Now that B9PS has well learned "part switching" it would be nice.    Of course it would be nice if the existing model could get a Scale switch (is that even possible in B9PS?)   

Of course it would be nice if there was a burner I kit as well.  But IIRC that was just a spin-table with a small SRM.  

And I will apologize because I think the size was based on my request for a Burner II type RCS system to work with the PAM (Star 48).

Of course now I want a STAR 63 :D (aka Giant PAM or PAM II!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Zorg I've done a balance pass on my RT configs now that I've had a chance to play a little with them. Mostly I've improved energy draw since the craft from BDB are designed with the vanilla CommNet in mind which doesn't have running costs for its antennas, but I've also tweaked some of the ranges as well and included configs for the as yet unreleased antennas found in the master branch for when they are released. The one issue I've still got with these configs is that many of the omni antennas feel somewhat overpowered, so I may yet do another balance pass on them, but at the same time, each is expected to fill a certain roll within a limited power budget, so I'm not sure how much wiggle room there really is. With that all said, if anyone other than me is actually using these, I'd really love some feedback for future balancing decisions.

The files

EDIT: I've also given quite a few of the antennas an unpowered mode to give greater flexibility for on-pad control.

Edited by SpacedInvader
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, SpacedInvader said:

@Zorg I've done a balance pass on my RT configs now that I've had a chance to play a little with them. Mostly I've improved energy draw since the craft from BDB are designed with the vanilla CommNet in mind which doesn't have running costs for its antennas, but I've also tweaked some of the ranges as well and included configs for the as yet unreleased antennas found in the master branch for when they are released. The one issue I've still got with these configs is that many of the omni antennas feel somewhat overpowered, so I may yet do another balance pass on them, but at the same time, each is expected to fill a certain roll within a limited power budget, so I'm not sure how much wiggle room there really is. With that all said, if anyone other than me is actually using these, I'd really love some feedback for future balancing decisions.

The files

EDIT: I've also given quite a few of the antennas an unpowered mode to give greater flexibility for on-pad control.

 

On 2/27/2021 at 10:45 AM, OrdinaryKerman said:

Another flavor text dump. This time for orbital mapping, mun and minmus.

Again, will post more when I come up with more.

Thanks again for these contributions. Both have been committed to github.

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

Of course it would be nice if there was a burner I kit as well.  But IIRC that was just a spin-table with a small SRM.  

AFAIK, yes the Burner I was a dumb FW-4S with a spin table. However, I am planning to do Atlas MSD components (including the fairing) for the partial Atlas revamp. The MSD "mother satellite" was an FW-4D with a maneuvering kit (and avionics I guess). Only just started digging into this but it would be a cool addition to the Altair capabilities. 

noss_parcae__1.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 4:47 PM, Zorg said:

BDB atlas is configured with a special balloon tank type. Like the real thing these tanks are much lighter. As a balancing factor they do not allow surface attach. 

If you really needed to allow surface attach you need a patch. You can save the below into a text file with the extension .cfg and place anywhere in your game data. I might put this into BDB extras for anyone who might want it. (For me personally for most atlas builds I havent needed to do this. I usually attach the decal to where the vernier goes and then drag up. ButI understand this might not work for 2.5m or 3.125m atlas builds.

@PART[bluedog*,Bluedog*]:HAS[#bdbTankType[bdbBalloon]]:AFTER[Bluedog_DB]
{
	@attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0
}

 

Even after doing as you said with that cfg file in my gamedata folder, I still cannot get decals to attach to the balloon tank. Even attaching them to another part and sliding them down does not work, the decals just disappear when they're over the tank. Any thoughts?

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...