CobaltWolf

[1.8.1][1.7.3] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.6.2 "титан" 24/Nov/2019)

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, plausse said:

That's a thing of beauty. Fasas was pretty, your old one utilitarian (and the one I stuck with). This is magnificent.

Old one was one of the first things I made, I'm glad to finally be rid of it.

13 hours ago, Bottle Rocketeer 500 said:

@CobaltWolf How do you make that nice metal?

Idk? Bumped specular shader, white color, 0.16 specularity. The alpha map is mostly white with some grunge on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First test uploads of the new Atlas parts are now on Github. The textures aren't finalized, but I sat down and got the yucky work of getting it working in game out of the way. All the configs are still based on the old parts, so there will likely be some tweaking of everything to reflect the differences between the new parts and the old (the fuel tank lengths don't quite match, for example)

GwbZtLL.pngAzhpfEn.pngz8ZyuBR.pngAWsP8pv.pngtGZyMZ3.pngeXm0Kmr.pngZYdgAdK.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bismarck2013 said:

Hi any news of apollo Subsatelitte CobaltWolf?

It's up on the Github if you want to use it, just replace your current Apollo folder with the one from there.

Share this post


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

First test uploads of the new Atlas parts are now on Github. The textures aren't finalized, but I sat down and got the yucky work of getting it working in game out of the way. All the configs are still based on the old parts, so there will likely be some tweaking of everything to reflect the differences between the new parts and the old (the fuel tank lengths don't quite match, for example)

That is one sexy beast.  Nice work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 4:32 PM, Nittany Tiger said:

I came up with an idea for a BDB-centered tech tree based on the BDB universe and real progression of rocket tech in the US space program. 

Great idea,  But this could leave you stranded on the home planet for a long time in alternative solar systems... Galileo for example where planetary exploration has a much higher science potential than Kerbin (or-whatever home planet you are on.)  I mention this because my main career is in the Galileo system  

I have some ideas to flesh out further before discussing but I too am not happy with the current tech tree layout.   I think I have tried all of the Techtrees out there and found that each one had a purpose but each one would fall apart at a certain point with my play style.

May I suggest you prototype your Tech tree for BDB as a MM file to alter the placement of the BDB parts in either a Stock or Community Tech Tree.   Even just do it for the early tech levels to get a "feel" for how your own Tree is going to evolve.  

 

 

 

Edited by Pappystein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello @CobaltWolf,

does the figure represent the current state of the Atlas main tank?

If so, it would be nice if the bumpmap effect on the weld seams of the stainless steel plates would be a bit more subtle so less deeply designed.
Otherwise it can only be said that the work of the textures are excellent. Keep it up!

Share this post


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

Hello @CobaltWolf,

does the figure represent the current state of the Atlas main tank?

If so, it would be nice if the bumpmap effect on the weld seams of the stainless steel plates would be a bit more subtle so less deeply designed.
Otherwise it can only be said that the work of the textures are excellent. Keep it up!

The main tanks are very much not final; right now I'd say the only parts that are would be the verniers and possibly the sustainer engine. The only real detail I can put on those tanks are those horizontal seams, but they make the rocket less smooth than it should be. I'm still experimenting with solutions for it.

And, of course, I need to get the Centaur and Vega parts updated still as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been thoroughly enjoying the mod, namely because its grown into an excellent replacement for FASA but also because now I don't have to make such an exhaustive effort to recreate most of the American spacecraft from Eyes Turned Skyward. (Spent more time designing my FASA based replicas than I did flying them lol). I also thoroughly enjoy that I can maintain the pack in a stock game and transition into more direct stockalike parts (like going Shuttle II or SLS or something, which is something I plan on doing in my current game) without much jolt. No longer have to make that distinction in my installs which is baller.

Now that being said, do you ever plan on making the Advanced Crew Vehicle from ETS? Its a lovely yet overlooked part of ETS thats actually one of my favorite parts of the timeline, even though it was only ever a "what if" in the timeline itself.  It was essentially a marriage of elements from the OTL Shuttle, OTL Orion and Dragon, and of course parts of ETS' Apollo derived spacecraft. For landing purposes, it actually draws a bit on Winged Gemini of all things. 7 Seats for LEO and the normal 4 seats for Lunar activity, it was basically a larger, reusable version of the Apollo capsule, complete with its own super high thrust engines (for on orbit maneuverability and abort purposes) and propellant capacity. Used a modified Block IV (IIRC) mission module for utility purposes in LEO missions and a larger Apollo esque service module similar to Dragon's trunk (From what I can tell anyway) for Lunar missions. When landing it comes in much like the shuttle but lands like Winged Gemini, using a paraglider system to bring it in for landing at Edwards or White Sands. 

fetch.php?w=750&tok=07dcd3&media=timelin

 

fetch.php?w=750&tok=a9b628&media=timelin

 

I of course made my own once upon a time and once I got it working it was a lovely system even though I really couldn't replicate the paraglider concept and the IVA was, jarring to say the least, as at the time there weren't any reliable 7 seat IVA's that looked the part and were usable in flight. (Something I still look for) I eventually settled for a hackjob, using the HL cockpit from B9 as the flight deck and I believe one of PBS' early IVA's as the other deck, by clipping the PBS' part into the capsule. (Which wasn't hard, the thing is rather huge. 5.5m in real life scale, approximately 3.125m in Kerbal scale)

https://imgur.com/gallery/3F6uQ

 

While I'm unsure of what it'd take to recreate the glider system (arguably the only part of this that wouldn't be relatively easy to get working properly) I would think an interesting idea would be a deployable wing (in the shape of the parachute obviously) that would allow the ACV to glide like the shuttle for as long as you keep up speed. Again unsure if thats even a posibility, but it would work. Given that the ACV is an all-in-one spacecraft theres room there to force COG's and COL's to make it fly while still allowing people to modify it and put their own spin on it. 

 

Also, I know I'm shoving a lot in the post, but I do have a bit of a bug report to provide.  I was messing around trying to get the stock parachute spread to work with the Apollo chutes, and to my dismay I found that in order to be able to tweak the spread, I had to disable not only Realchute itself, but also the compatibility config this mod provides for it, as the compatibility config, for some reason, seems to still make realchute work, despite the mod itself being deleted. With RC deleted, I'm still able to pull up the toggle info screens on all parachutes just like with RC being installed, though I'm unable to modify any of the parameters. The chutes still work, just prevent me from using the spread (which is an RC problem from my understanding, which is fine. I'm fairly confident that will get resolved at some point if it hasn't already and I just missed it)

However, upon disabling the compatability config, I found that the parachutes were essentially broken and provided no ability to slow down either of the Apollo capsules. Looked great, but the capsule dropped like a rock out of the sky even when deploying the parachutes at 9km up (which is when I typically hit safe deployment speeds).  I ended up being too frustrated at this point to continue to troubleshoot it (as I'm sure I could narrow down what exactly is causing this problem from all angles if I tried) and just reverted back to keeping RealChute installed. When I feel up to cutting through the nonsense I'll give a more detailed bug report.  

Either something in my install (which is massive admittedly) is talking to the RC config and causing problems, or the RC config itself is causing problems. Obviously unclear without poking through the config and doing some clean runs, but its still an interesting issue to note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, G'th said:

~snippy snip~

You'll have to forgive me, that was a very long well written post but I'm afraid I don't have nearly as many words in response. :)

1) The ACV, while completely awesome, will likely not be featured in BDB. For one, I have slowly transitioned this year from constantly adding new things to the roadmap, to trying to (slowly) take care of the things I've already promised to make. Additionally, I'd like any more spacecraft development, especially post-Apollo stuff, to focus on expanding the available options and configurations of the Apollo system, rather than creating (essentially) another suite of parts (or a single very complicated part...) for the ACV. Or, perhaps another way to put it - I can't work on ACV until I at least finish the Spacelab and missing Apollo variants from Eyes! Let alone the handful of parts I want to make the Ares buildable (I'd just be focusing on the interplanetary bits to transform the Skylab / Saturn V parts into Ares; the MEM will likely be filled by @TiktaalikDreaming's awesome revamp).. I also promised myself I'd finish the Gemini Lander and Big G before tackling new stuff.

2) Realchute issues. I have indeed heard issues about it (don't blame me, I didn't make it :P ) but I'm not sure what causes it. You're saying that even with the whole Bluedog_DB/Compatiblity/Realchute folder *deleted* it still causes issues? Or did you just try to disable the config by editing the patch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

 Let alone the handful of parts I want to make the Ares buildable (I'd just be focusing on the interplanetary bits to transform the Skylab / Saturn V parts into Ares; the MEM will likely be filled by @TiktaalikDreaming's awesome revamp)..

Is the Ares vehicle the one from Baxter's Voyage? 

Share this post


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

You'll have to forgive me, that was a very long well written post but I'm afraid I don't have nearly as many words in response. :)

1) The ACV, while completely awesome, will likely not be featured in BDB. For one, I have slowly transitioned this year from constantly adding new things to the roadmap, to trying to (slowly) take care of the things I've already promised to make. Additionally, I'd like any more spacecraft development, especially post-Apollo stuff, to focus on expanding the available options and configurations of the Apollo system, rather than creating (essentially) another suite of parts (or a single very complicated part...) for the ACV. Or, perhaps another way to put it - I can't work on ACV until I at least finish the Spacelab and missing Apollo variants from Eyes! Let alone the handful of parts I want to make the Ares buildable (I'd just be focusing on the interplanetary bits to transform the Skylab / Saturn V parts into Ares; the MEM will likely be filled by @TiktaalikDreaming's awesome revamp).. I also promised myself I'd finish the Gemini Lander and Big G before tackling new stuff.

2) Realchute issues. I have indeed heard issues about it (don't blame me, I didn't make it :P ) but I'm not sure what causes it. You're saying that even with the whole Bluedog_DB/Compatiblity/Realchute folder *deleted* it still causes issues? Or did you just try to disable the config by editing the patch?

1) Fair enough. I remember talking to e-of pi once upon a time to gather some technical data on the ACV for my replication purposes and even then I really had to pry to just get info on it so its always been a bit of a longshot for me.  But thats alright. And its excellent to hear that you're working on Spacelab. I'm currently using Skylab-but-not-broken for my Spacelab combined with some re-scaled CX Aerospace parts so it'll be nice to see the actual thing down the line.

This also reminds me that I need to find or hope that someone makes the rectangular, non-pointy bits trusses of Freedom.  The ones from CX work as a stand-in but its difficult to use them in the same way as Freedom's was, what with CX's version being more derived from the real life ISS rather than ETS' Freedom. I'm planning on assembling my version of the station (the latest iteration of which is the closest 1-1 visual replica to nixonhead's renders I've accomplished thus far) and do indeed plan on showcasing the entire assembly process.  The game's much improved stability not only made making a Mun base possible but also construction of large complicated stations like Freedom without a crazy amount of lag or compromise in what I could it put on it, so I'm rather excited for that. 

Also, to read between the lines a bit, should I read this as you intending to create Artemis and Orion/Armstrong parts as well? Cause that'd make me glee like a little schoolgirl. Currently using linuxgamers Altair as a stand in, which works after much tweaking (the thing is rather huge compared to your parts for instance, so I scaled down all the relevant parts to ~85% the original size and it fits just right in the fairings*. I'm one to take the fairing diameter's seriously even when using procedural ones) and while the crew lander works pretty much as it should, the Habitats have been a pain, to say the least, though my hackjob of an Artemis habitat is rather clever and still looks the part, just sans the inflatable hab section. Have yet to find any inflatable habs that work well for the ETS landers that #1 actually fit with the parts I'm using aesthetically, but #2 are also functional and don't come with a ton of baggage. (I thoroughly appreciate what Roverdude put out with his MKS, but the art style is not something I ever liked and the baggage I'd never use is rather obscene. That and, while this may not be true anymore, the lack of IVA's also makes it not worth the effort to try and mod them for my purposes)

And because I just can't resist, heres my Artemis Cargo/Hab lander hackjob.

YpRWl7z.png

Due to the lack of inflatable habs making Orion/Armstrong more or less moot to try and do properly, for my purposes I'm going to combine all three programs. This Hab/Lander is now rated for a month long stay on the Moon in SSRSS, and will be supported by a reusable rover I've yet to put together, that will utilize any remaining propellant in the descent stages of any landers as fuel to fly around to the different landing sites of the Moon. I also intend on this rover having enough dV to serve as a handy Lunar Escape vehicle. 

You'll also notice that I'm utilizing heavily upscaled landing legs from PBS. This is because the landing legs from Altair are...less than stellar and are put together rather strangely, so when trying to scale them they just come out weird and don't look right. Same with a lot of different landing legs that I tried. Eventually settled on these because they scaled up right without looking weird. 

 

2) I did both actually. Left it as a .txt to disable it and then deleted the folder altogether after trying to troubleshoot the problems I was having just in case.

 

 

And yes it should be noted that I do tend to get rather long-winded, especially when it comes to something I'm passionate about. 

Edited by G'th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, G'th said:

~moar snips~

Re: getting details from e of pi, you really have to remember they don't do the math for anything they don't need to :P

Unfortunately, I was getting @cxg2827 to work on extra parts to make Freedom (he had a Challenger module and the rectangular center truss modeled and I believe textured, I was also going to get him to make the CGL), along with texturing touchups to make it all match BDB a bit better, but he has be very busy with real life stuff for some time.

And, apologies to get your hopes up, but I did not intend my comment to mean we'd be getting Artemis or Orion parts in BDB. As far as I'm concerned, those are separate enough to be fair game for anyone that wants to come in and make them. BDB's future expansion will be around expanding on existing architectures and creating variants of the stuff already in the mod, for the most part. Think less Artemis, more AAP lunar base proposals and Venus flybys. Or just AAP in general if we're talking Apollo stuff.

That Altair is VERY impressive though!

And after that the chutes still don't work at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wallum61 said:

Is the Ares vehicle the one from Baxter's Voyage? 

No.  It's the 1967 North American Rockwell Mars Excursion Module.  Which formed the basis of most studies post discovery that Mars' atmosphere was 0.01BAR, rather than the previous ideas it would be higher.  As such, it's very close to the one in Baxter's Voyage I'm told. I had never heard of the book until people started asking about it in relation to the mod.  There's one added part that's a concession to the book.  The book aparently didn't use chutes of any sort.  And, if you use just lifting body aerobraking and rockets you tend to intersect the ground level with a higher than optimal speed.  So, there's an (as yet, not revamped) aerobrake piece you can use instead of the disposable two piece conical aeroshell.  They handily double as ramps once landed too.  And have less chance of being ripped free due to being deployed at hypersonic speeds.

But, TL;DR answer; No, but almost anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@G'th

I had a brief aside conversation with E of Pi where we were talking about McD's Big Gemini proposals.   Inferring a lot from my memory as there were several of us in the conversation at the same time..  but in the conversation the ACV was described as a prettied up version of Big-G to get Big-G without it being a Gemini derived part.   

So in effect, when @CobaltWolf finishes Big-G (or if I ever follow through and finish learning how to make parts.. so I can make my own Big-G) you will have ACV.   In a more usable and cost efficient manor....  

 

Share this post


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

@G'th

I had a brief aside conversation with E of Pi where we were talking about McD's Big Gemini proposals.   Inferring a lot from my memory as there were several of us in the conversation at the same time..  but in the conversation the ACV was described as a prettied up version of Big-G to get Big-G without it being a Gemini derived part.   

So in effect, when @CobaltWolf finishes Big-G (or if I ever follow through and finish learning how to make parts.. so I can make my own Big-G) you will have ACV.   In a more usable and cost efficient manor....  

 

Indeed. Me and Cobalt were actually talking to him last night and thats not a bad description either. He opted to basically call it the Shuttle minus the cargo bay and wings, which is also accurate going by the description of how the interior of the craft was laid out.

But of course, just using Big Gemini is no fun :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, G'th said:

 

But of course, just using Big Gemini is no fun :P

BLASPHEMER!

:P

 

Number of Rocket Launched Cargo and crew transport modular options to space stations better than Big-G < 1

An Orion with an Apollo Blk IV module MIGHT be almost equivalent :)  hence I didn't say zero

Ok so the above is 100% opinion...  But I love Big-G.   Why?   Docking backwards seems to make the most sense to me.   If I need to go I don't have to back up to start....   Just like I try to never pull into a parking spot.  I either drive through or back into my spot when possible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this mod!  Thank you for all your heard work, it's phenomenal!

 

I just have one question; I've built the Saturn V stack pretty much to the specs of the bdb manual, but it wiggles like crazy with SAS during launch.  Did I screw up somewhere, or do I need to add internal strutting somewhere to compensate?

Share this post


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

I love this mod!  Thank you for all your heard work, it's phenomenal!

 

I just have one question; I've built the Saturn V stack pretty much to the specs of the bdb manual, but it wiggles like crazy with SAS during launch.  Did I screw up somewhere, or do I need to add internal strutting somewhere to compensate?

Yup, auto struts or KJR

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.