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

[Guest]

@Beale, the next time you say to yourself that IVA's don't matter, think of this image. This was the view Sally Kerman had through the upper viewport as she descended toward the Mun in an LK lander.

Don't think for a moment the gravity of the moment was lost on her as she had home in view above and the landing site below. She nailed the landing, by the way.

In the years I've played KSP, I've never had that view before. Not once. And I can tell you it changed the tenor of the landing completely. It felt more serious. Just a bit more real. It certainly didn't feel like another "Oh, here we go again, plopping on the Mun." It made me sit up and pay close attention to what I was doing.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Jack Wolfe

[Beale]

On 8/4/2016 at 4:40 PM, NeoFatalis said:

I found this great site that tells how to identify the different versions of the N1 rocket , I think that the N1-7L and the N1-5L are the best looking ones... 

also the second and the third stage should look more like this, maybe they should have a some kind of shroud or when you attach a decoupler underneath, or maybe just a decoupler with intergrated fairing...

 

I would love to do this, unfortunately it ends with non standard sizes.

The website is great!

9 hours ago, Deimos Rast said:

Actually....I just now finished writing CLS configs for Tantares and came here to check if anyone else had. Probably should have done that first.

On account of the sheer size of this mod (good Lord, @Beale, I didn't realize the size of this thing!), it just hits the crew parts and some structural adapters. Feedback is of course welcome, as I don't have all the parts unlocked yet, and I went by configs for the most part. Also, Beale, you have a couple ports that are size0, but described as "crew transfer capable". I was under the impression size0 meant no crew (same size as Jr. ClampO), so I marked them as CLS impassible (a lot of your docking ports are size0 in fact). This is an easy change (make a false a true), but currently there will be players who read the description and say "But it says on the tin...."

 

Neat!

I have included the config.

Yeah, the default for size0 is kerbals cannot pass through, but by their size, I think they can fit.

7 hours ago, Jack Wolfe said:

@Beale, the next time you say to yourself that IVA's don't matter, think of this image. This was the view Sally Kerman had through the upper viewport as she descended toward the Mun in an LK lander.

Don't think for a moment the gravity of the moment was lost on her as she had home in view above and the landing site below. She nailed the landing, by the way.

In the years I've played KSP, I've never had that view before. Not once. And I can tell you it changed the tenor of the landing completely. It felt more serious. Just a bit more real. It certainly didn't feel like another "Oh, here we go again, plopping on the Mun." It made me sit up and pay close attention to what I was doing.

The best way to convince me to work on something is this way  

[Deimos Rast]

wait, so which size0 docking ports shouldn't allow crew through? Any or...? I added a note next to the "false" as to why they were false, but as I said, I can change it.

[Beale]

4 hours ago, Deimos Rast said:

wait, so which size0 docking ports shouldn't allow crew through? Any or...? I added a note next to the "false" as to why they were false, but as I said, I can change it.

In this mod, I don't think any. All of the size0 ports I have made (Apart from the kontact port on the LK) are human passable, I think.

[Deimos Rast]

29 minutes ago, Beale said:

In this mod, I don't think any. All of the size0 ports I have made (Apart from the kontact port on the LK) are human passable, I think.

k, I have a few changes to make; I'll update the original and make them passable

And...done.

Lastly, do you want to Lander Can (Korolev?) to be passable? I left it commented out as a optional.

Edited August 6, 2016 by Deimos Rast

[Guest]

ASTP 2. This mission involves a crew exchange.

[Beale]

On 04/08/2016 at 4:40 PM, NeoFatalis said:

also the second and the third stage should look more like this, maybe they should have a some kind of shroud or when you attach a decoupler underneath, or maybe just a decoupler with intergrated fairing...

 

I was giving this some thinking, it would be possible if the engines were integrated with the fuel tanks.

Could be a good idea, because the N1 engine parts are not very useful for anything else.

Thoughts?

6 hours ago, Jack Wolfe said:

ASTP 2. This mission involves a crew exchange.

Beautiful!

I think you should buzz @CobaltWolf for this.

[NeoFatalis]

38 minutes ago, Beale said:

I was giving this some thinking, it would be possible if the engines were integrated with the fuel tanks.

Could be a good idea, because the N1 engine parts are not very useful for anything else.

Thoughts?

I think it's a good idea and also it would help with part count although I thought about that and you can split the tank into two parts, one would be the angular part and second part would be the tank under the fairing and it would have integrated engine and fairing and you can also use sizes like 3.125 and 4.375 and maybe provide some adapters for the engines although if you make it as one part it's much more practical and also it means less parts to clutter the VAB but it also means that it would become less modular which is one the main goals of this pack...

[Beale]

25 minutes ago, NeoFatalis said:

I think it's a good idea and also it would help with part count although I thought about that and you can split the tank into two parts, one would be the angular part and second part would be the tank under the fairing and it would have integrated engine and fairing and you can also use sizes like 3.125 and 4.375 and maybe provide some adapters for the engines although if you make it as one part it's much more practical and also it means less parts to clutter the VAB but it also means that it would become less modular which is one the main goals of this pack...

I think the modular goal only makes sense if there are other parts for it to be modular with. The N1 large fuel tank is only compatible with the N1 large engine and vice-versa. 

[Third_OfFive]

On 7/30/2016 at 11:37 AM, Beale said:

I hope you like Phobos
Because that's where we are going and if you keep complaining, my god, I will turn this rocket around right now.

The comparison to the old model is quite drastic! 
A leg is removed, and the size of the base increases to 0.9375m.

Another fun part here is the texture optimisation!
The previous texture was 1024x1024 (!) and only for the single control part.
A terrible work by myself in 2014!
New texture is 512x512 and space for most of the remaining Phobos grunt.

Both the Fregat and Fobos Grunt need some kind of fairing (I think 0.9375m is a good size), because currently attachments does not look so solid....

Some more strange parts to use!

 

To be perfectly honest, as much as I love this, I think you should keep the old phobos along with the new one. Both are awesome, and it would be a shame to see either one removed imo.

[Beale]

1 minute ago, Third_OfFive said:

To be perfectly honest, as much as I love this, I think you should keep the old phobos along with the new one. Both are awesome, and it would be a shame to see either one removed imo.

I think that's a bad idea.

The old parts are too poor, wasteful of texture and lack detail.

Of course, anybody is welcome to upload the old parts elsewhere and maintain them.

[Third_OfFive]

2 minutes ago, Beale said:

I think that's a bad idea.

The old parts are too poor, wasteful of texture and lack detail.

Of course, anybody is welcome to upload the old parts elsewhere and maintain them.

Thanks for the feedback, I think I'll do that.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Third_OfFive

[tjsnh]

17 minutes ago, Beale said:

Of course, anybody is welcome to upload the old parts elsewhere and maintain them.

Consider it added to my career-mode mod haha!

3 hours ago, Beale said:

I was giving this some thinking, it would be possible if the engines were integrated with the fuel tanks.

Could be a good idea, because the N1 engine parts are not very useful for anything else.

Thoughts?

I could get behind this.
As has been said, the N1 parts rarely get used with anything else. I've used one of the disc engines as an upper stage for a Vulkan built with AB Launchers, but thats about the only other potential application.
Having the engines built into the fuel tank might also give more opportunity for a more accurate fairing detachment etc etc.

[Danny88]

Decided to use Tantares and Stock parts to make a ship many of you may recognize... Might need some refinement and more boosters to actually be usable beyond Kerbin...

 

http://imgur.com/a/ZMR2A

Edit: Bigger, faster, better, cooler version:

 

http://imgur.com/a/ToI7S

Edited August 7, 2016 by Danny88
update

[CobaltWolf]

On 8/7/2016 at 11:24 AM, Beale said:

I think that's a bad idea.

Read:

On 8/7/2016 at 11:24 AM, Beale said:

Why do you wish to remind me of my failures

[Beale]

On 07/08/2016 at 4:42 PM, tjsnh said:

As has been said, the N1 parts rarely get used with anything else. I've used one of the disc engines as an upper stage for a Vulkan built with AB Launchers, but thats about the only other potential application.
Having the engines built into the fuel tank might also give more opportunity for a more accurate fairing detachment etc etc.

Very good points!

There can be more options for 3.75m engines when developing the Ariane. I am happy for the N1 to be a limited number of parts (Less wobble as a bonus!).

On 07/08/2016 at 9:51 PM, Danny88 said:

Decided to use Tantares and Stock parts to make a ship many of you may recognize... Might need some refinement and more boosters to actually be usable beyond Kerbin...

 

http://imgur.com/a/ZMR2A

Edit: Bigger, faster, better, cooler version:

 

http://imgur.com/a/ToI7S

Finally! A reference I understand (But, I am more of a TNG fan  ).

Nice work! I love the extreme Energia booster.

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

Why do you wish to remind me of my failures

Very true!

The simple truth, this does not accurately represent the Fobos Grunt, it's strange.
These three tiny models are also 2 1024x1024 textures and one 256x256 textures (I'm not kidding).

[Guest]

On 07/08/2016 at 3:51 PM, Danny88 said:

Decided to use Tantares and Stock parts to make a ship many of you may recognize... Might need some refinement and more boosters to actually be usable beyond Kerbin...

 

http://imgur.com/a/ZMR2A

Edit: Bigger, faster, better, cooler version:

 

http://imgur.com/a/ToI7S

 

 

Khan Noonien Kerman makes good his getaway...

Edited August 8, 2016 by Jack Wolfe

[Murdabenne]

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2016 at 10:24 AM, Beale said:

I think that's a bad idea.

The old parts are too poor, wasteful of texture and lack detail.

Of course, anybody is welcome to upload the old parts elsewhere and maintain them.

Perhaps a legacy pack, like Necrobones did with his earliest ones that he has improved and preplaced?

[Beale]

23 minutes ago, Murdabenne said:

Perhaps a legacy pack, like Necrobones did with his earliest ones that he has improved and preplaced?

Anyone else is welcome to do this, sure.

But, I will not personally, I do not want to maintain ugly old parts I dislike.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Beale

[Murdabenne]

1 hour ago, Beale said:

Anyone else is welcome to do this, sure.

But, I will not personally, I do not want to maintain ugly old parts I dislike.

Oh I didn't mean that you would maintain a legacy pack.  I meant that those who wanted it should possibly do so and name it as such.  That might give you a place to strip out things you don't like and don't want to maintain: dump them into that pack and never have to fiddle with them again. Unless you simply want them gone, which is also reasonable if you don't want your name on them because you have improved so much (I can see that as a point).  It might be a way of reducing your work on old stuff and allowing you to go into new and fun things.

Anyway thanks for this cool parts collection and the effort it takes to come up with this stuff and make it work.  You are very much appreciated.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Murdabenne
hit enter too soon

[Beale]

2 hours ago, Murdabenne said:

Oh I didn't mean that you would maintain a legacy pack.  I meant that those who wanted it should possibly do so and name it as such.  That might give you a place to strip out things you don't like and don't want to maintain: dump them into that pack and never have to fiddle with them again. Unless you simply want them gone, which is also reasonable if you don't want your name on them because you have improved so much (I can see that as a point).  It might be a way of reducing your work on old stuff and allowing you to go into new and fun things.

Anyway thanks for this cool parts collection and the effort it takes to come up with this stuff and make it work.  You are very much appreciated.

Thanks!

If anyone wants the source files for the parts, they are also welcome.

[DJ Reonic]

On 8/7/2016 at 1:56 AM, Jack Wolfe said:

@Jack WolfeWhere did you get that antenna on the back of your Soyuz?

Edited August 13, 2016 by DJ Reonic
Picture funkyness.

[Andem]

On 8/7/2016 at 7:13 AM, Beale said:

I was giving this some thinking, it would be possible if the engines were integrated with the fuel tanks.

Could be a good idea, because the N1 engine parts are not very useful for anything else.

I disagree. I use N1 parts in wierd ways all of the time. Integrating cumbersome fuel tanks are a great way to limit a part to near uselessness outside of the "Historical Recreation" crowd. Why hurt the "original design" people when (nearly) everyone is already happy? Or, more simply, If it ain't broke don't fix it!

[CobaltWolf]

10 minutes ago, Andem said:

I disagree. I use N1 parts in wierd ways all of the time. Integrating cumbersome fuel tanks are a great way to limit a part to near uselessness outside of the "Historical Recreation" crowd. Why hurt the "original design" people when (nearly) everyone is already happy? Or, more simply, If it ain't broke don't fix it!

I personally am dying to see some horrific mix of N1 and BDB Saturn.

[Joeybafoey]

On 8/6/2016 at 3:08 PM, Beale said:

Apart from the kontact port on the LK

I don't think that the Kontakt port should be passable (actually, I know). They hadn't figured out a way to enable crew transfer yet. That's why they developed spacewalk technologies (apart from the fact that they wanted to beat the US to it), they also chose Leonov to be the first because he was to be the one to land in the LK.