Jump to content

[0.23] [Horizon Aeronautics] Zenit-3SLB [v1.2] updated 3/9/14


Recommended Posts


horizon.png

Brightening the future for all Kerbalkind


development thread: HERE

currently planned projects:

- Zenit Expansion (SRB, Fairings)

- Energia Rocket System

- Vostok-1

- Buran (maybe)

COMPLETED PROJECTS:

[ZENIT-3SLB Land Launch]

horizon62.jpg

Spaceport Download

-= ZENIT-3SLB LAND LAUNCH [v1.2] =-

Mirror 1

-= ZENIT-3SLB LAND LAUNCH [v1.2] =-

requires 7zip to open archive

Mirror 2

-= ZENIT-3SLB LAND LAUNCH [v1.2] =-

regular winzip archive

Notes on the Zenit: It's been configured for heavier loads, between 10-15 tons (maybe a smidge heavier as well) and delivering them to high geo-synchronous orbit. The included VAB file has a basic Mk2 pod in the payload bay. The entire system is VASTLY overpowered if you're lifting simply small things like satellites or pods, however. So bear that in mind. It's been tested for compatibility with FAR, KW, MechJeb and DeadlyReEntry.


88x31.png Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC

Edited by stubbles
Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it. I have seen it in progress in the development area and it was really exciting to see it come together.

Now I am going to be a total ass and ask whether the strut problem has been tested with KJR :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, checked it out, found a few problems.

1. RD-8 engines should be separated from the RD-120. This is to enable gimbals to control roll (using a plugin).

2. Block D RCS should not only be separate parts, but also jettisonable. Since they're RCS, you can just split them off and don't worry about a separate decoupler. They work like that on the real Block D, jettisoning after the final ignition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, checked it out, found a few problems.

1. RD-8 engines should be separated from the RD-120. This is to enable gimbals to control roll (using a plugin).

2. Block D RCS should not only be separate parts, but also jettisonable. Since they're RCS, you can just split them off and don't worry about a separate decoupler. They work like that on the real Block D, jettisoning after the final ignition.

I dont get it, why u want a seperate part, just to jettison RCS ? or do you mean the ports? but why would u want to do that? (im confused really)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the added cost of having another part, especially in the already cluttered list of parts in peoples moded KSP, just for the sake of real life immitation, seem a bit overkill.

But thats just me.

I might also add that i even deactivate gimbal on 2nd stage, since the sas of the payload or the included one, is enough to keep roll, heading just fine, considering we are only talking about 10-15 tons as payload.

Edited by Thourion
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ASAS is a bit strong, TBH. Also, this mod is very accurate, I think that it should have those little bits, because it already imitates reality closely. Oh, and jettisoning the ullage motors can give you a little extra bit of DeltaV, which is always nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stubbles, tell us if you do changes in name textures or folder structure in future releases, to know when must re-do the configs for texture compressor. Thank you in advance and for this awesome work!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stubbles, your rocket parts won't show up in the techtree because the Tech Required entry is wrong (e.g. you put in

"TechRequired = advanced rocketry" but it should be "advRocketry" instead).

The only parts that I have is the fairing from the stability node of the tech tree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbles, your rocket parts won't show up in the techtree because the Tech Required entry is wrong (e.g. you put in

"TechRequired = advanced rocketry" but it should be "advRocketry" instead).

The only parts that I have is the fairing from the stability node of the tech tree.

Ahhh good catch, Tourman. I'll get that fixed asap! Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahhh good catch, Tourman. I'll get that fixed asap! Thanks!

Also you still have some of your parts with no tech tree entry :P (there is not even any "techrequired" line on some of the parts)

And i think general rocketry is wrong as well maybe?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also you still have some of your parts with no tech tree entry :P (there is not even any "techrequired" line on some of the parts)

And i think general rocketry is wrong as well maybe?

Yeah, the wiki's config page on the matter is completely wrong, apparently. So now I have to go through similar parts in the Squad folder and see what they are set to. =\

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stubbles, this is a really fantastic mod. The sound blew me away. I wouldn't mind a craft file in there though, just so I know I'm putting everything in the right place. (just noticed you mention a craft, there wasn't one in my download, though I don't recall where I downloaded it from)

A gallery for other users to get a taste...

Javascript is disabled. View full album
Edited by junkie_business
derp
Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy the look and feel of everything you have done here, thank you for sharing your talents with us. After a couple of launches I feel that these parts remove a critical and fun part of KSP -the Lego like glee of customization and building. The top stage of the Zenit for instance could be split into a couple different parts that allow for look alike builds and customization. That toroid tank and engine look amazing but I can't really combine this with other parts which I love like procedural fairings or KW etc. This makes the parts and therefor memory they occupy single purpose and unfortunately for me, not worth keeping in my GameData folder (only because of other outstanding mods that compete for memory space). This is not a complaint, more of something to maybe consider when breaking out the parts for your next model. Looking forward to your next update. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what you mean klick, but I imagine for most people, the rocket is the means, rather than the end. I know I spend a lot more time tweaking landers or rovers than I do rockets, and sometimes I just want a vehicle that will get where I need it to be with minimal interference - which is a big deal with FAR launches. If that vehicle looks and sounds fantastic, then even better.

It's a masterpeice. If Energia and Vostok are half as good as this, I'll be very pleased.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, the wiki's config page on the matter is completely wrong, apparently. So now I have to go through similar parts in the Squad folder and see what they are set to. =\

My understanding is that it's all just CamelCase, like general rocketry is named generalRocketry. The one exception so far seems to be advanced rocketry which is abbreviated as adv instead. First word is lower case, second word begins with first letter in uppercase.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know what you mean klick, but I imagine for most people, the rocket is the means, rather than the end. I know I spend a lot more time tweaking landers or rovers than I do rockets, and sometimes I just want a vehicle that will get where I need it to be with minimal interference - which is a big deal with FAR launches. If that vehicle looks and sounds fantastic, then even better.

This is true it is nice to not have to redesign the launch vehicle every time you want to launch something. Ill even add to that, the reduced part count is great for launching custom complex objects as the launcher part overhead can be reduced a bit. I stick by my initial thought however as "welds" (part reduction), the new part formatting that makes shared assets a thing (options with less memory overhead), and subassemblies (create your own standardized launch systems) address your points "against" this being a bit more modular.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...After a couple of launches I feel that these parts remove a critical and fun part of KSP -the Lego like glee of customization and building. The top stage of the Zenit for instance could be split into a couple different parts that allow for look alike builds and customization. That toroid tank and engine look amazing but I can't really combine this with other parts which I love like procedural fairings or KW etc...

One problem that i see with this is, how on earth you take a part of this pure awsomness textured mod, and stick it with another part of a different mod, and yeah i know theres other mods that also look good out there, but really for me this baby is a one piece.

And of course, i respect the need of anyone to mix and match parts, myself included, but even if we clear the Part list clutter and even the resources usage problems, then we should still have the Moders work in mind. It takes time to cut the parts, more time to properly UV them, and even if those are ok, you got more time to make the cfg's, node placements, "Unity brainjuice drain" etc shenanigans.

And yeah i totally agree with junkie here, its a launcher. You want it to look sexy, you want it to look sexy, and you want it to not fall apart even while looking sexy :D, but thats it. All the rest of the time is spent on the actual payload, where to put the panels, what legs on there if any, an AIES probe or a stock one, an Orion pod from bobcat or a SDHI, etc etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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...