Jump to content

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


CobaltWolf

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Zorg said:

Er BDB is absolutely covered under realplume, custom ones infact. The compatibility files are within BDB itself though. In fact these days most new plume designs that go into realplume are developed for BDB before I upstream into RealPlume.

If you have RealPlume, RealPlume-Stock and Smokescreen all installed correctly all BDB engines should have RealPlumes.

Bangs head against desk

I've been a dunderhead. I've been developing my own Service Module Part - an Apollo-ish version of the Orion SM for a what if scenario where the shuttle was never developed and instead moved right on to Orion - and I'd forgotten I was testing the new part last night. Most of the engine configs were copy and pasted over from the Cordelle since I used that model for the engine part of the SM. I'm creating it through welding by hand. Then this morning I loaded up the game forgetting that I was testing and thought it was subassembly prototype.

Of course it wouldn't look right It wasn't the same engine!!! Despit it looking like it!

Moral of this. Wait till I'm fully awake before testing or playing KSP! Thank goodness I'm not a real astronaut!!!!

Bangs head against desk!!!

Edited by adm-frb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, MashAndBangers said:

What parts are you using for the docking port?

(Technically,) I am not actually docking the Mercury to itself, because for one I am unsure if you can dock a vessel to itself, and two, I did not want a part to block the hatch on the Mercury, as they would not be able to exit the vehicle on the ground. I used breaking ground hinges to turn the hatch to face the lab, and then I used a tweakscaled extendable docking port from Feline Utility Rovers to appear as if a flexible tube latched on to the Mercury hatch to allow crew transfer.

But all of this is more of an aesthetic thing, unfortunately. I'm sure with a lot of finesse, one could actually work out a way to dock the mercury to itself off of a hinge, but I didn't want to have too many parts, nor did I want to stray from the Mercury one-man station design too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LORDPrometheus said:

I've noticed that only a handful of the antennas here seem to work with remote tech are there configs available anywhere or do I just have to write my own MMPatch? 

None of the BDB authors use remote tech so we depend on users to make and submit them.

In general we only have time to do compatibility configs for the mods we use, a lot of the compat patches are user submitted and we always appreciate pull requests. If you do decide to make a PR make sure to target the v1.7 dev branch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zorg said:

None of the BDB authors use remote tech so we depend on users to make and submit them.

In general we only have time to do compatibility configs for the mods we use, a lot of the compat patches are user submitted and we always appreciate pull requests. If you do decide to make a PR make sure to target the v1.7 dev branch.

I figured that was the case I'll look into adding functionality when I have some time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, dave1904 said:

Then we would not have bdb or ksp :(

We are very lucky in how it all turned out. They were build to deliver nukes to space yet only ever delivered science. Its poetic. Hope it stays like that. 

I mean I basically wanted an R-7 with H-1 engines, and thought the GE Apollo was a great fit since it has a similar layout to Soyuz, the AU is basically just an excuse

Although the AU I imagined was one in which Cordell Hull dies in the late 1930s and is replaced by someone with a rather different temperament, which results in a massive rise of tensions almost leading to a nuclear conflict with the USSR in the 1940s and a joint space program emerges as not only a way to step back from the brink but also keep an eye on each other's critical strategic capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, noxeeternal said:

The CADS 0.9375 Active Docking Port doesn't dock with it's Passive counterpart. Am I the only one having this issue?

you have to have them exactly lined up.   The 3 Petals on those docking ports actually have colliders.   So if the Petals don't line up with each other you can't dock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

you have to have them exactly lined up.   The 3 Petals on those docking ports actually have colliders.   So if the Petals don't line up with each other you can't dock.

How exact should they be? In this picture I have the docking port extended, and when I retract it they seem to stick, but still cant dock. Thanks!89542322_614255532764345_614306263365530

Edited by noxeeternal
replaced picture with highlighted docking port
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2020 at 2:45 AM, Zorg said:

You're looking at the old Mercury capsule not the new one (the textures got overwritten).

 

If none of the parts are showing up that sounds like an installation error. If you are installing manually from spacedock make sure your folder structure is correct:

Gamedata/Bluedog_DB

not

Gamedata/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/Gamedata/Bluedog_DB

Screenshot_2020-03-09_10.43.39.png?width

Did I do it right?

unknown.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheBritishEmpire said:

Did I do it right?

unknown.png

Nope... Delete BD_Extras (you really shouldn't install any extras if you don't know what they do) and Craft Files and take everything out of that second Gamedata, it should look like the screenshot @Zorg posted; B9PartSwitch, Bluedog_DB, CommunityResourcePack, DMagicScienceAnimate and Module Manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

Nope... Delete BD_Extras (you really shouldn't install any extras if you don't know what they do) and Craft Files and take everything out of that second Gamedata, it should look like the screenshot @Zorg posted; B9PartSwitch, Bluedog_DB, CommunityResourcePack, DMagicScienceAnimate and Module Manager.

It worked! Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, noxeeternal said:

How exact should they be? In this picture I have the docking port extended, and when I retract it they seem to stick, but still cant dock. Thanks!89542322_614255532764345_614306263365530

This is a total guess but if I had to say, I think you have OTHER PARTS hitting.   Try docking with an Apollo capsule instead of the SpaceX one and see if you can dock.   Only thing I can suggest sadly.      To me it looks like the nosecone (which I assume still has colliders like it did last time I flew Tundra 3 years ago) will impact the edge of the station ring.    After all IRL the Dragonrider (or-whatever name you want it to have today) will dock to the offset port (PMA) to prevent just such a colision.  And that is something you don't have setup on this station.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Pappystein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, noxeeternal said:

How exact should they be? In this picture I have the docking port extended, and when I retract it they seem to stick, but still cant dock. Thanks!

I found it tricky to get them to dock as well.  Like @Pappystein said, it's probably a collider on the Dragon pod that's interfering.  I used a BDB 1.25 to 0.9375 structural adapter on the space station to move the passive docking port away from the surface, and that helps.  There was also one occasion where I rolled the Dragon slightly (just tapped roll) after retracting the docking ring, and that helped as well.  But, if you're using Dragon, I'd suggest using a narrow structural adapter on the space station so the passive dock doesn't have anything from the space station near it.

FWIW, with any other spacecraft, I have no trouble with the CADS docking ports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pappystein said:

I think you have OTHER PARTS hitting.

1 hour ago, MOARdV said:

I found it tricky to get them to dock as well.  Like @Pappystein said, it's probably a collider on the Dragon pod that's interfering.

Yeah I think this is it. Tried it with the regular Mk1-3 Pod, lined them up and it docked. Kinda sad though because this docking port looks amazing and will make it my primary for all my spacecrafts and stations, and it won't work for Tundra Exp spacecrafts. Anyway thanks for the help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't been at my Unity PC much lately (and will continue to be busy - I'm taking a hiatus for a couple days due to IRL plans) but here's a progress update on the Mercury lab stuff...

General plan is to include these parts when I finally get a chance to sit down and finish my task list for Mercury. (there's a lot of rough spots and things to fix still)

7Q8G2FK.png
r2E0koT.png
81xEksr.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another day, another fairing :)

This time its the Standard Agena Clamshell which was also used on various Deltas as seen here (Delta 900 for Nimbus 5)

screenshot878.png?width=1499&height=844

screenshot882.png?width=1499&height=844

screenshot909.png?width=1499&height=844

screenshot911.png?width=1499&height=844

Due to new features added to Simple Adjustable Fairings, we are able to do a cap on one fairing side like the GATV/ATDA fairing.

screenshot913c.png?width=1321&height=844

screenshot914.png?width=1499&height=844

Nimbus is a tight fit but it does fit :)

screenshot916.png?width=1499&height=844

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think I might have encountered a minor bug

In the editor and in flight, the Lights On/Off toggle for the Kane 11-3 and Kane 11-5 Apollo-like capsules, the toggle says 'Lights On' regardless of whether the lights are on or off. Is this supposed to be the case?

KXfxAj4.pngt9xTsbs.png

Edited by adm-frb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, adm-frb said:

Think I might have encountered a minor bug

In the editor and in flight, the Lights On/Off toggle for the Kane 11-3 and Kane 11-5 Apollo-like capsules, the toggle says 'Lights On' regardless of whether the lights are on or off. Is this supposed to be the case?

KXfxAj4.png

Given some of the patches you seem to have (Life support etc) that might be a patching bug from a variety of sources.   I am not currently in game so I can't verify *YET*     Will update this post after I verify

*UPDATED*   It is one of the other patches that is applying to the Kane capsule that is causing this.  I have re-verified with both Release and Dev versions.    When I click the light button it properly switches from ON to OFF and vise-versa

Edited by Pappystein
Confirm Error is OUTSIDE of BDB proper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

Given some of the patches you seem to have (Life support etc) that might be a patching bug from a variety of sources.   I am not currently in game so I can't verify *YET*     Will update this post after I verify

Cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, adm-frb said:

Near Future Electrical and TAC Life Support

Your next step is to follow the link in my signature, While the information is dated it is still accurate.  I only suggest you also include your modulemanager.txt log in addition to the log files requested.   And post it to the Near Future Electrical and TAC-LS Forums.   Use a site like googledrive / Dropbox / Onedrive where you have control of the content to post the logs.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two new fairings just uploaded to github. This time both the Lunar Orbiter and Ranger historical fairings for Agena D and Agena B respectively.

Interestingly both of these were fixed single piece nose cones that were jettisoned forward but we made them bisector for ease of use and flexibility for adjustable lengths via the SAF plugin.

Lunar Orbiter

screenshot917.png?width=1480&height=833

screenshot920.png?width=1480&height=833

screenshot926c.png?width=924&height=833

Ranger

screenshot930c.png?width=885&height=833

screenshot932.png?width=1480&height=833

screenshot938.png?width=1480&height=833

screenshot941.png?width=1480&height=833

 

screenshot946.png?width=1480&height=833

For the none historical lengths, the configurable extra segment will be inserted beneath the Ranger cone and between the main body and cone of the the Lunar Orbiter fairing.

Screenshot_2020-03-12_20.36.01.png?width=750&height=833

Edited by Zorg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Zorg said:

Interestingly both of these were fixed single piece nose cones that were jettisoned forward but we made them bisector for ease of use and flexibility for adjustable lengths via the SAF plugin.

Actually this is the reason the Modern Bungee cord came into existence (please note Wikipeida does a poor job on this one,  Most sources are referring to the solid rubber predecessor of the modern braided Bungee, essentially retconing the name onto other products that are not the same.)

The Bungee cord was used to secure the first multi piece PLFs.     Why?   Because they were worried about using explosives to separate the fairings.  And it is easier to cut and release tension on a Bungee cord than calculate the explosive potential(with a slide rule) of an unstable explosive!   The Invention of C-4 and Detonation Cord solved most of those problems.

Early PLFs were spring loaded and the Bungee cord was used to hold against the spring/torsional forces.   When it was time to separate the Bungee would be cut in several locations releasing tension.    Of course it is a failure to cut said bungees that leads to things like the Angry Alligator!

 

The_Angry_Alligator_-_GPN-2000-001354.jp

PS yes I know the metal strap around the outside of the ADTA's nosecone is in fact the cause of IT's failure.  I am using the imagery to illustrate why Bungees are no longer used in even small fairings.  As this is the best image I can find of a failed to deploy SPRING LOADED (see the giant Cylinder in the open mouth) PLF.

Link to comment
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...