Jump to content

[1.11.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [14][17.12.2020]


Recommended Posts

[quote name='Beale']In-Game.

Very useful parts, at the very least fun ready-made orbital tug.

[URL]http://puu.sh/lsu1I/b1bff90c09.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://puu.sh/lstZu/3e924e8cc0.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://puu.sh/lsu0S/aeb268b033.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://puu.sh/lsu2a/bf18914b67.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://puu.sh/lsu2G/9edf9322ba.jpg[/URL]

[URL]http://puu.sh/lsu6x/1869dcae43.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE]

Hi Beale,

I have a quick Question: Were this new parts included in the latest release, or will they come in one of the next versions?
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='komodo']Hey-o! Bug report! But, Configs corrected as well!

The _Extra_RemoteTechControl.cfg is missing the entries for the newer "Small" necks for the Salyut/Mir; (Vega_Crew_E/F) The remote tech lines are missing, to match Vega_Crew_C. I assume they are just ... whats the word... reconfigured sizewise on the nose from the model C, and should have the same capabilities otherwise.

So! Code! This went in the _Extra_RemoteTechControl.cfg right under the first block for the Vega_C.

[CODE]@PART[Vega_Crew_E]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]
{
%MODULE[ModuleSPU] {}

%MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive]
{
%TechRequired = unmannedTech
%OmniRange = 3000

%TRANSMITTER
{
%PacketInterval = 0.3
%PacketSize = 2
%PacketResourceCost = 15.0
}
}
}

@PART[Vega_Crew_F]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]
{
%MODULE[ModuleSPU] {}

%MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive]
{
%TechRequired = unmannedTech
%OmniRange = 3000

%TRANSMITTER
{
%PacketInterval = 0.3
%PacketSize = 2
%PacketResourceCost = 15.0
}
}
}[/CODE]

Hope that's of use, at least as far as copypasta goes :)[/QUOTE]

Fixed, many thanks komodo!

[quote name='Niemand303']A tad of RO: TKS (not Soyuz because I'm bad at timing launches which leads to dV problems) delivers the first crew to Mir in 1.0.5 install! :)

[url]http://cs633821.vk.me/v633821511/a4f/Ilf7su85d78.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]

Awesome! :)

Is that over the sea of Japan?

[quote name='passinglurker']Perhaps beale you should add iva 101 to your tutorial series to have something to point people to when they show enough enthusiasm for iva that they could learn to make one themselves ;)[/QUOTE]

[quote name='curtquarquesso'][B]1st Generation Docking Hub[/B]
[url]http://puu.sh/d7CCf/523d8e9872.jpg[/url]
[I]"The "Right" size would be 0.875m nodes, but that obviously makes the part a bit useless."[/I]

First gen used the 0.625m node size as 0.9375m was not yet a standard, and 1.25m would have been far too large. The blockiness is due to the difficulty required to model a round shape with six holes on each side.

[B]2nd General Docking Hub[/B]
[url]http://i.imgur.com/Qz29sa7m.jpg[/url]
[I]"Very, very awkward to unwrap this model, and the texturing suffers a little because of that."[/I]

Second gen was arguably the most awkward as it was rounder, but not [I]actually[/I] round on all the ends. Moreover, It was meant to support 0.625m and 0.9375m docking ports, and ended up supporting neither. The overall dimensions were a bit better, but no where near accurate. In order to actually use the 0.9375m ports, you had to do a bit of ugly clipping.

[B]3rd Generation Docking Hub[/B]
[url]http://i.imgur.com/oSVUTwAm.jpg[/url]
[I]"Thanks Curtquarquesso for the model! (He needs to share the technique to produce this shape ) Far better than previous shape."[/I]

After being frustrated that this part just wasn't as good as it could be, I decided to model my own, and ended up being so happy with it, that I donated it to Beale to replace the existing troublesome node.


[spoiler=Design Comments:]

[B]• It's nearly perfectly to scale.[/B] Beale figured out in the first iteration that the correct size for the ends of the nodes should be 0.875m to be accurate. This wasn't an option, so I re-modeled both the node and the docking ports to solve this problem. The node really looks best using the revamped 0.9375m docking ports I worked on. Beale and I are still working on them a bit. He has yet to talk about whether they will completely replace the current 0.9375m docking ports.

[url]http://i.imgur.com/rRHtdKcm.png[/url]

[B]• It's actually round on the ends, and was easily UV-mapped. [/B]On Beale's last iteration, the difficulty of the shape made his unwrap very awkward, and made the nodes misshapen. The process I don't remember fully, but I was able to keep the ends round, and imply the shape of a sphere when the revamped docking ports are used.

[B]• I made an alternate hollow model for the future. [/B]I never thought it'd be practical, but after Squad released that hollow structural tube, I think it could actually be really neat. Naturally, it's all up to Beale, but I'd be willing to put a little time into making a hollow six-way node a reality.
[url]http://i.imgur.com/t3Ii9uXm.png[/url]
[B]@Sticky32[/B] managed to make a really great hollow version of the standard Rock-O-Max six way hub.
[url]http://i.imgur.com/mhw7hRUm.png[/url]
It definitely can be done. Just involved using a bunch of small primitive colliders in order to get it to behave correctly in-game.

I assumed that there would be two different configs for the hubs, one with scaling for 0.9375m ports, and one for scaling for 0.625m ports. It's really easily done. Could have slipped Beale's mind to include it, or he has other plans.

[/spoiler]

[B]@Beale,[/B] one thing I have noticed about the hub, is that its texture does not play nice with the docking ports. Its texture isn't similar enough to the docking ports, so it doesn't blend well. The textures for my revamped ports are fairly placeholder anyways, so the correct course of action is up to you. :)

[url]http://i.imgur.com/4yyFy1z.png[/url]

Looking great! Have you considered a longer variant, or an extension for it? I was wary at first about the top end, but it really does make sense after thinking about it. Is there any way the side windows could be more prominent? They're very small, and just get lost. It would definitely be nice if this part didn't have a big ugly hatch on it. Thank goodness for stock crew transfer. Looking good. :)[/QUOTE]

Nice history log there! (I think you must have mastered the search function to find all that)

Seeing them side-by-side, such huge improvement with your node, the old parts were... :rolleyes:

[U]On Salyut[/U]

Thanks!

The more eagle-eyed persons may have noticed it is without an airlock. There is planned a small 2.5m "airlock" part, so you can extend the Salyut with airlock functionality and have a longer body for Salyut 6/7.
The Fore sections will also retain airlocks too.

I'm not sure on the windows, their current size is pretty accurate as far as I can tell (it had very tiny windows IRL!). But, I will play around.

[B]Sketchfab![/B]
[sketchfab]06a75138b4474feaaf45e83ec448a3aa[/sketchfab]

[quote name='Niemand303']Wow, I found a new thing to make in KSP: the 1993 test flight of a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Znamya_%28satellite%29"]"space mirror" Znamya (Banner)[/URL], that reminds me heavily of that James Bond movie, but actually had place IRL with making a circular illuminated spot with an 8km diameter which traveled from Southern France to Southern Russia with a brightness equivalent to the full Moon one:

[url]http://epizodsspace.airbase.ru/bibl/ziv/2001/5-7-1.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]

Wow!

That's so cool. I love it.

Need to make this, stay posted.

[quote name='Sackpfeife']Hi Beale,

I have a quick Question: Were this new parts included in the latest release, or will they come in one of the next versions?[/QUOTE]

Next release :) Edited by Beale
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Niemand303'] RVE work in 1.0.5 has mostly failed. :)[/QUOTE]

I have sadly not the RAM to even try it :sealed:

[quote name='Redhornet919']Will the new Salyut be save breaking???[/QUOTE]

Nope! :)

Well, unless you [U]must[/U] EVA kerbals from this Salyut core. Then you might want to do that before updating.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Ciaran']I have a question, Does anyone have any files for tantares before the new docking port hub? i'd like to try to bring back the previous hub for personal use.[/QUOTE]

Check Kerbal Stuff Previous Vers. :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Beale']

Nice history log there! (I think you must have mastered the search function to find all that)

Seeing them side-by-side, such huge improvement with your node, the old parts were... :rolleyes:

On Salyut

Thanks!

The more eagle-eyed persons may have noticed it is without an airlock. There is planned a small 2.5m "airlock" part, so you can extend the Salyut with airlock functionality and have a longer body for Salyut 6/7.
The Fore sections will also retain airlocks too.

I'm not sure on the windows, their current size is pretty accurate as far as I can tell (it had very tiny windows IRL!). But, I will play around.

Instead of, or in addition to a 2.5m airlock to extend the module, what about a 2.5m aft propellant/docking section? I almost always use the 2.5m crew can with the 1.25m–1.875m-2.5m control block, which has an airlock.

[imgur]ab5lM[/imgur]

From the pictures and diagrams, there's a distinct division between the crew section, and the section that contains propellant, and the aft docking tunnel. I've always felt very cheat-ey clipping propellant into the crew cabin to make the "Star" reebost engines actually useful. It'd be a VERY useful part, and would make replication of the aft section of the the DOS type spacecraft easier. If you feel like doing the work in Unity, some attitude thrusters would also be great, but that may be a tall order.

As far as the windows go, you're right about the size. They're not terribly large. However, more windows and details in general would be welcome. I always greeble up my stations, but that drives the part counts way up, so more detail/greeble is always a plus.

GaeiHdQ.png

As you can see, Zvezda has a crap-ton of different windows. Most, facing Nadir. Only two small windows on such a large module seems wasteful. Plus, if you did add a bunch more, you'd have many different options for the eventual IVA.

Edited by curtquarquesso
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='komodo']Hey-o! Bug report! But, Configs corrected as well!

The _Extra_RemoteTechControl.cfg is missing the entries for the newer "Small" necks for the Salyut/Mir; (Vega_Crew_E/F) The remote tech lines are missing, to match Vega_Crew_C. I assume they are just ... whats the word... reconfigured sizewise on the nose from the model C, and should have the same capabilities otherwise.

So! Code! This went in the _Extra_RemoteTechControl.cfg right under the first block for the Vega_C.

-[I]snip[/I]-

Hope that's of use, at least as far as copypasta goes :)[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the catch! This was on my list of things to fix but going back it seems I missed it completely. I'll make a note to double check the control config if I am ever needed to update the RT configs again. Come to think of it, I will probably to a quality control check tonight as we have just had a big update, lets hope I didn't miss anything else!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Having recently seen a bug report relating to the Remote Tech config files I realized I should dive back in and see if I missed anything else. The last update brought a Luna-9 clone in the form of the Crater Cu-7FM Control Unit. Now I love wacky old soviet probes as much as (or more than) the next guy, but this thing presents a problem. KSP does not really account for having a craft do things when you cant directly control a craft (i.e. Internal logic or guidance/Spring-loaded antenna on a timer) and Remote Tech doesn't (to my knowledge) work with control groups, just attitude and throttle. As much as I try and avoid creating dependencies of any kind I considered if you could make it work with Smart Parts or kOS, short answer no. A longer answer is that the probe is to small to clip anything into and you can't surface attach anything to it anyway. My somewhat unsatisfying solution is to add this to the bottom of the _Extra_RemoteTechControl file.

[Code]

@PART[Crater_Control]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]
{
%MODULE[ModuleSPU] {}

%MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive]
{
%TechRequired = unmannedTech
%IsRTActive = true
%OmniRange = 12000000

%TRANSMITTER
{
%PacketInterval = 0.3
%PacketSize = 2
%PacketResourceCost = 15.0
}
}
}

[/Code]

This means the antenna is always on, regardless of whether the "petals" are deployed or not. You can still extend and retract the antenna manually or with a control group but it will just be cosmetic. The other problem is that there is just no good way to balance it RT wise. I may take another crack at balancing it at some point (set a minimum range to reduce utility maybe?) but I just cant see another way to do it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Foxxonius Augustus']Having recently seen a bug report relating to the Remote Tech config files I realized I should dive back in and see if I missed anything else. The last update brought a Luna-9 clone in the form of the Crater Cu-7FM Control Unit. Now I love wacky old soviet probes as much as (or more than) the next guy, but this thing presents a problem. KSP does not really account for having a craft do things when you cant directly control a craft (i.e. Internal logic or guidance/Spring-loaded antenna on a timer) and Remote Tech doesn't (to my knowledge) work with control groups, just attitude and throttle. As much as I try and avoid creating dependencies of any kind I considered if you could make it work with Smart Parts or kOS, short answer no. A longer answer is that the probe is to small to clip anything into and you can't surface attach anything to it anyway. My somewhat unsatisfying solution is to add this to the bottom of the _Extra_RemoteTechControl file.

[Code]

@PART[Crater_Control]:NEEDS[RemoteTech]
{
%MODULE[ModuleSPU] {}

%MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive]
{
%TechRequired = unmannedTech
%IsRTActive = true
%OmniRange = 12000000

%TRANSMITTER
{
%PacketInterval = 0.3
%PacketSize = 2
%PacketResourceCost = 15.0
}
}
}

[/Code]

This means the antenna is always on, regardless of whether the "petals" are deployed or not. You can still extend and retract the antenna manually or with a control group but it will just be cosmetic. The other problem is that there is just no good way to balance it RT wise. I may take another crack at balancing it at some point (set a minimum range to reduce utility maybe?) but I just cant see another way to do it.[/QUOTE]

RT does work with action groups, as far as I know. It is just really really unobvious. In the flight computer, it in fact takes most any input. If you queue up say a 5 minute delay, and hit action group '3', as in the key 3, it ought to fire (in five minutes). I will leave the opinion of clunkiness up to the reader ><

EDIT to add, a TY for futzing up the RT configs in the first place, I find they are a great addition to the game, if you're a RT sort of person...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a query:

Is there a reason for the why the [I]G-750A Orbital Rocket Motor[/I] can only be decoupled via Action group and not via Staging?

I've been having a look around the CFG file and can see...

[QUOTE]MODULE
{
name = ModuleDecouple
ejectionForce = 40
explosiveNodeID = top
staged = false
}[/QUOTE]

I'm not a modder, but I assume changing [I]staged[/I] to [I]true[/I] will enable this, but will it break anything else (not at home to test out)?
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='BMot360']Just a query:

Is there a reason for the why the [I]G-750A Orbital Rocket Motor[/I] can only be decoupled via Action group and not via Staging?

I've been having a look around the CFG file and can see...



I'm not a modder, but I assume changing [I]staged[/I] to [I]true[/I] will enable this, but will it break anything else (not at home to test out)?[/QUOTE]
the staging is disabled because the engine and decoupler would activate at the same time...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so I haven't played much in last couple of months, waiting for 1.0.5...

- Soyuz is still (STILL!!!) wildly (WILDLY!!!) overpowered. Too much thrust. Please stop making your engines so powerful. And no, "Tweak it" is not an answer.
- Vostok cannot survive a sub-orbital hop (130 km) - the atmosphere can't slow it down. Not sure if intentional or accidental.
- Some British engines sit at "Start" node.
- Also, Soyuz engines has no smoke FX. Edited by biohazard15
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='trooperMNG']Question for everyone: where to find alternate textures? I saw a lot of imgur albums with green Soyuz[/QUOTE]

There's an Alternate Texture folder in the Tantares download. I'm not at home, so can't check the file structure, but I imagine you replace the default files, e.g. in the SOYUZ folder, with the file from the Alternate Texture folder
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='trooperMNG']Question for everyone: where to find alternate textures? I saw a lot of imgur albums with green Soyuz[/QUOTE]
In the download, there *should* be an 'alternate textures' folder. Just follow the included instructions.

[COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Crap, Ninja'd!
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='trooperMNG']Question for everyone: where to find alternate textures? I saw a lot of imgur albums with green Soyuz[/QUOTE]

- open the "Tantares_-_Stockalike_Soyuz__More31.1.zip" file
- open Folder: "Alternate Textures"

[B]tadaaa![/B]

- there is a Folder named "Green Soyuz"
- open the Folder
- show the names of textures, compare and replace
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...