[1.12.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [26.0][18.12.2023][Soyuz Revamp Again]

[CobaltWolf]

2 minutes ago, captainradish said:

Does the N1 actually take off? If so, it's colossally OP.

I expect future N1s to at best fly to the top of the launch tower then explode. We're talking realism here, people!

^YASSS @Beale the N1 is currently EXTREMELY inaccurate and should be fixed before you update again. Tantares N1 cannot be better than the BDB Saturn V, and since that doesn't even exist yet, well, I think you know what has to happen.

Edited April 28, 2016 by CobaltWolf

[captainradish]

Just now, CobaltWolf said:

^YASSS @Beale the N1 is currently EXTREMELY inaccurate and should be fixed before you update again.

I was just being silly.

I really really want an alternative to the decadent Saturn-V. Currently I use a Proton to spread socialism to the Mun.

[autumnalequinox]

Has anyone made a Community Tech Tree patch for this mod?  Just curious.  If not I may crank one out (in CTT many of these ship parts come really early compared to their equivalents)

[captainradish]

5 minutes ago, autumnalequinox said:

Has anyone made a Community Tech Tree patch for this mod?  Just curious.  If not I may crank one out (in CTT many of these ship parts come really early compared to their equivalents)

I would argue that several parts come too late in the tree. In particular, there REALLY needs a launch vehicle that corresponds to the Sputnik probe.

[autumnalequinox]

 

1 minute ago, captainradish said:

I would argue that several parts come too late in the tree. In particular, there REALLY needs a launch vehicle that corresponds to the Sputnik probe.

Ooo I didn't think of that.  I just use the command pods and such.  CTT splits command pods up and I noticed I get the Tantares docking systems way before even the simplest stock ones.  I could look through all the parts and shift some things around tomorrow, but it would only work for CTT anything else would be out of it's scope.

[captainradish]

11 minutes ago, autumnalequinox said:

 

Ooo I didn't think of that.  I just use the command pods and such.  CTT splits command pods up and I noticed I get the Tantares docking systems way before even the simplest stock ones.  I could look through all the parts and shift some things around tomorrow, but it would only work for CTT anything else would be out of it's scope.

I use CTT, so this is certainly of interest to me.

What I can think of off the top of my head is we need the lower section of the Soyuz rocket, a radial decoupler (Beale, what happened to the long one you had, btw? It was great!), and the 1.25m fairing available at the same time as the Sputnik probe. Of course, it may be easier to just move the Sputnik to tier 3 rather, but I would prefer moving the probe's launcher to tier 2.

[Beale]

12 hours ago, curtquarquesso said:

Fuji Docking Port: 

• Needs some detail. The parachute port needs something to mark it as a parachute. Stock convention is blue or orange stripes.
• It would make more sense to make the cover that jettisons be the entire inside area of the docking port within the collar, instead of just the tiny little circle in the center. Seems unlikely you could stuff and deploy an entire parachute through a hole that small.
• The standard docking port needs a hatch or detail in the center. It doesn't look like a traversable port. Why not try the texture from the fuel tanks there, and make a small window in the center? You could make the window a weak light probe to assist in docking.

IVAs: 

• Make a list of all the IVAs you need to create, and prioritize their creation based on how many parts can share the same IVA models, layouts, and textures. 
• Soyuz and Progress descent/control blocks can all share the same assets and layout, just sans chairs and some props for Progress. You may not even really need to worry about the neck size.
• Soyuz and Progress orbital blocks can share the same assets. Less sure if neck-size will be a factor. At most, you'll only need to actual models. Window, chair, and props won't be effected by neck size. 
• TKS and MAPC capsules can share an IVA I think, but I know MAPC is an unfinished WIP.
• Cygnus and ATV can share most assets and prop placements. I would make them share textures. Both pressure vessels are manufactured by Thales and look pretty similar except for interior volume. 
• DOS/FGB station parts can share a lot of textures amongst itself, but because it's such an important set of parts, those IVAs should be really robust and well developed. 
• Fuji OM/s can all share assets and textures depending on if you make the cupola OM, or the 1.875m parts.

Thanks for the feedback, I agree mostly all points.

But, on IVAs:

I cannot get a lot of texture sharing going on. For difficulty in creating AO lightmaps. I have had limited success, but nothing high enough quality.

11 hours ago, InsaneDruid said:

its already in Tantares for a long time. Though a bit off scale (to be fixed IIRC) and also currently a little wrong in terms of how the landing gear cant be dropped.

I plan a scale down to around 0.9375:

Top: Current.
Middle: Plan.
Bottom: Soyuz for scale.

10 hours ago, captainradish said:

Does the N1 actually take off? If so, it's colossally OP.

I expect future N1s to at best fly to the top of the launch tower then explode. We're talking realism here, people!

I want to direct you to the N1 launch history, it made it way past the launch tower! Given just one more launch, it may have flown successfully.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Beale

[Calvin_Maclure]

1 hour ago, Beale said:

Thanks for the feedback, I agree mostly all points.

But, on IVAs:

I cannot get a lot of texture sharing going on. For difficulty in creating AO lightmaps. I have had limited success, but nothing high enough quality.

I plan a scale down to around 0.9375:

Top: Current.
Middle: Plan.
Bottom: Soyuz for scale.

I want to direct you to the N1 launch history, it made it way past the launch tower! Given just one more launch, it may have flown successfully.

Hey, just out of curiosity, why do you plan on scaling down to 0.9375?

CM

[Beale]

20 minutes ago, Calvin_Maclure said:

why do you plan on scaling down to 0.9375?

As InsaneDruid already said, It's badly scaled right now.

[Calvin_Maclure]

3 minutes ago, Beale said:

As InsaneDruid already said, It's badly scaled right now.

Gotcha. I figured as much. Yeah sorry for making you repeat yourself. I knew I had most likely skipped that tidbit of information somewhere. Following several threads gets tricky at times!

Thanks for the comments!

CM

[Beale]

11 hours ago, captainradish said:

I would argue that several parts come too late in the tree. In particular, there REALLY needs a launch vehicle that corresponds to the Sputnik probe.

I'm looking to fix up the tech tree, especially for launch vehicles.

Any suggestions in particular? 

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, Beale said:

I'm looking to fix up the tech tree, especially for launch vehicles.

Any suggestions in particular? 

 

BlackArrow needs to come by General Rocketry, preferably Basic Rocketry. BlueStreak, uhh, advanced or heavy.

The problem is the centerpiece of the mod is the R7. Historically, the R7 was a huge because it gave the USSR a HUGE head start on the space race. The other space programs, US in particular, spent a decade just playing catchup.

[Beale]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

BlackArrow needs to come by General Rocketry, preferably Basic Rocketry. BlueStreak, uhh, advanced or heavy.

The problem is the centerpiece of the mod is the R7. Historically, the R7 was a huge because it gave the USSR a HUGE head start on the space race. The other space programs, US in particular, spent a decade just playing catchup.

Fixed the Black Arrow.

I have no idea how to price parts correctly. I am tempted to put everything at 0€ and claim they are just state subsidized!  

[CobaltWolf]

2 minutes ago, Beale said:

Fixed the Black Arrow.

I have no idea how to price parts correctly. I am tempted to put everything at 0€ and claim they are just state subsidized!  

 

We actually have a spreadsheet for BDB where you enter the height and diameter (or both diameters for adapter tanks) and it ballparks numbers for you that you then can tweak. You'll need to ask @Jso to help explain it but I believe if you make a copy of the spreadsheet just start overwriting the BDB parts it should work for you. Balancing engines is a bit harder.

[davidy12]

6 hours ago, Beale said:

Thanks for the feedback, I agree mostly all points.

But, on IVAs:

I cannot get a lot of texture sharing going on. For difficulty in creating AO lightmaps. I have had limited success, but nothing high enough quality.

I plan a scale down to around 0.9375:

Top: Current.
Middle: Plan.
Bottom: Soyuz for scale.

I want to direct you to the N1 launch history, it made it way past the launch tower! Given just one more launch, it may have flown successfully.

@Beale: Great update for the N-1.  The LK really makes my fairings (procedural or not) unrealistic.

 On the IVAs. Honestly, I don't really care for the AO light maps. I just want IVAs for my immersion  

[Thraken]

43 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

... I just want IVAs for my immersion  

I don't know if "immersion" is the right word for me, but with 1.1's cut away function, I need me some IVAs.  (maybe I need them for my OCD)  I actually held onto some of your old IVA's @Beale, and I've adjusted the configs to keep using them in the Salyut and TKS parts.   I don't know the tantares version numbers, but some of the IVAs that are working in 1.1 are from as old as 0.23

[Beale]

12 minutes ago, Thraken said:

I don't know if "immersion" is the right word for me, but with 1.1's cut away function, I need me some IVAs.  (maybe I need them for my OCD)  I actually held onto some of your old IVA's @Beale, and I've adjusted the configs to keep using them in the Salyut and TKS parts.   I don't know the tantares version numbers, but some of the IVAs that are working in 1.1 are from as old as 0.23

I admire your dedication!

I know IVAs are loved by many people, but they are very labour-intensive. The cutaway option has for sure made them a lot more interesting (I did not put any details in many IVAs of the past, because with limited Kerbal POV you could not see much). 

Just a quick compilation:

• All these parts require an IVA.
• Each IVA takes a few days to make (That is if I can manage to work at least one hour a day on Tantares).
• 1.1 Has a much higher standard for IVAs, they must physically make sense now, no more cutting corners (not texturing places Kerbal POV can't see).
• Most IVA s there is heavy demand for RPM compatibility, etc. This requires multiple setups for those who have and those who don't.
• These parts are just the obvious candidates, very easy to argue ATV, Cygnus and Progress should get IVAs too.

There are a few parts that may share IVAs, such as the Salyut upper blocks. But, it is a largely bespoke process.

 

Speaking of old...  

I like to dig through old files sometimes...

Edited April 28, 2016 by Beale

[konsti156]

is this still TAC LS compatible?? speaking of the "hacked" version here.

[Beale]

Just now, konsti156 said:

is this still TAC LS compatible?? speaking of the "hacked" version here.

"Hacked" ?

Sorry for TAC, no it is no longer supported. For future USI LS.

 

[konsti156]

Just now, Beale said:

"Hacked" ?

Sorry for TAC, no it is no longer supported. For future USI LS.

 

what a shame

the hacked version is the 1.1 compatible version of TAC

[Beale]

On IVAs again, if I were to be directed to a good process to bake Lightmaps (Which I can still use Wings3D for the main bulk of modelling), they would be much quicker to make.

I f    y o u    k n o w    w h a t    I    m e a n.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Beale

[CobaltWolf]

If only the people that desperately wanted IVAs were passionate enough to help with them... 

[Beale]

16 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

If only the people that desperately wanted IVAs were passionate enough to help with them... 

I think a new Placeholder I need to make at the very least.

The huge array of black boxes of the stock Placeholder ruins cutaway view.

Some new placeholders like this,would be at least more friendly. And not super hard to create.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Beale

[passinglurker]

18 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

If only the people that desperately wanted IVAs were passionate enough to help with them... 

hmm...

let's see a set of props, a photoshop file containing a pallet of commonly used, windows, hatches, and control/wall/floor/cieling paneling for people to cut up for thier own use, and maybe a design reference document or a tutorial. Wrap it all in an easy to download zip and just throw the download link at anyone who asks about iva's leaving the issues of seating layout and lightmaps to them. It'd be about as much trouble as a single iva, but could spread the work around among though enthusiastic enough to undertake it or at the very least blunt the frequency of iva requests because the asker wouldn't want to know the answer.

[OTmikhail]

On the subject of IVA's there is a module missing from your pic that I would very much like an IVA for, that is the Orbital Module that looks like Shenzhou's (Tantares Habital modules, the can's, not the orb's). Other than that the Vostok would be my biggest priority since it is first. If I knew how to do this stuff I would try to help make them. But screw it, maybe it's time I learned how. Tutorial time.

Edited April 28, 2016 by OTmikhail