Jump to content

[1.11.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [24.0][21.2.2021]


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, TK-313 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, bot do you mean the large-diameter command section?

HjnBoDY.jpg

My reactions were quite varied...

№1: Ouch. That was such a nice one-piece part to have.

№2: Yay! We will get to use the big command section for bigger ships without having to clip it inwards!

№3: This one really wants the new command section to have an IVA. Probably a spacious one that suggests the ship continues behind the pod's base. Or... Is it possible?

It's an interesting problem, currently I have the first three to make.

AACaZFO.png

But, there is nothing preventing №4 - if people wanted that enough (But of course №4 can already be made from the other parts).

30 minutes ago, tjsnh said:

Hey @Beale ,

I don't know if you have this, so I figured I'd ask just on the off chance.

Do you have, in any format, a checklist or anything of the part "name ="s and which part ("title") they correspond to? For example "Alniyat_Antenna_2_1_1" being whichever comms unit?

With the localization #LOC_Tantares_Whatever strings in the .cfg files now, its incredibly time consuming to try and cross reference for modding/patching purposes. I don't know if you have any kind of list, but figured it doesn't hurt to ask.

I don't understand sorry :(

A list of all the parts for the new FGB?

 

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

I don't understand sorry :(

A list of all the parts for the new FGB?

Of all the parts, actually. I'm updating my "master" mod which patches about 800 parts, which used to take a few hours but now it takes a few days for any mods/parts that have localization support.

For example, updating my patch for the FOBOS A-R25K Avionics Hub which changes the tech required to unlock it (I run a custom tech tree). The part is Ara_Avionics_1 which is what I need to patch, but there isn't any way to know that the Ara_Avionics_1 part is the A-R25K from looking at the config file anymore since the "title =" string links to a localization reference file (#LOC_whatever) instead of having the part name in it, so for every part I need to cross-reference in the localization files or with KSP open on my 3rd monitor and try to match the part cost+mass to what i see in the config file.

So, I was asking if like a spreadsheet existed or something that had the part names from the CFG file (Ara_Avionics_1 , those "names") in one column and the "title" names in another (A-R25K Avionics Hub, those names). I suspect you don't keep something like this, but I had to ask.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tjsnh said:

Of all the parts, actually. I'm updating my "master" mod which patches about 800 parts, which used to take a few hours but now it takes a few days for any mods/parts that have localization support.

For example, updating my patch for the FOBOS A-R25K Avionics Hub which changes the tech required to unlock it (I run a custom tech tree). The part is Ara_Avionics_1 which is what I need to patch, but there isn't any way to know that the Ara_Avionics_1 part is the A-R25K from looking at the config file anymore since the "title =" string links to a localization reference file (#LOC_whatever) instead of having the part name in it, so for every part I need to cross-reference in the localization files or with KSP open on my 3rd monitor and try to match the part cost+mass to what i see in the config file.

So, I was asking if like a spreadsheet existed or something that had the part names from the CFG file (Ara_Avionics_1 , those "names") in one column and the "title" names in another (A-R25K Avionics Hub, those names). I suspect you don't keep something like this, but I had to ask.

Oh damn, yes I understand how you mean now...

I wonder if there's a way to automate this somehow. I could probably put a list together in a little while longer.
It's tricky sometimes, because the parts actual names are pretty throw-away (And I usually think of them in terms of the config names).

The closest thing right now is probably what you have - that is keeping the LOC file open?

Are you on the mod dev Discord? Maybe we can discuss it there more in-depth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Beale said:

Oh damn, yes I understand how you mean now...

I wonder if there's a way to automate this somehow. I could probably put a list together in a little while longer.
It's tricky sometimes, because the parts actual names are pretty throw-away (And I usually think of them in terms of the config names).

The closest thing right now is probably what you have - that is keeping the LOC file open?

Are you on the mod dev Discord? Maybe we can discuss it there more in-depth.

I ended up using a script to replace the "title =" string with the partname string on all the .cfg files. Solved the issue, I just load the game client on my 2nd monitor. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mr. engino said:

The ckan listing needs to be updated, as it only shows 1.4.2

The CKAN people need to know this, not me.

Sorry, I have no control over that.

Edited by Beale
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CardBoardBoxProcessor said:

You are still going strong evne after all these years huh? Impressive. Keep Up the great work. 

I don't recall if I have seen you here before, but many thanks!
It's always nice to know people can come back and see all the changes.

 

Adapters
(Keep in mind, these are plain structural, (for the lack of windows, etc). There will e a crew version.
(Greeble is also missing).

I am interested in feedback on the colours - of course it is a little extreme so far.

ZfvzZ4Y.png
kbrL4fh.png
tGa3Syx.png
7qsRKvh.jpg

 

Edited by Beale
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

@Beale Man, those colours are looking great.

Just out of curiosity, will this update break craft files?

Thanks!

I am aiming to not break anything. But the parts existing now should be deprecated (as painlessly as possible).

This would ideally mean that existing FGB in the wild remain intact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Beale said:

I don't recall if I have seen you here before

Let me refresh your mind:

Him and Normak were creating a pretty cool Russian mod back in the day.  The solar panels they made are still being used by Raidernick.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Beale said:

Adapters
(Keep in mind, these are plain structural, (for the lack of windows, etc). There will e a crew version.
(Greeble is also missing).

I am interested in feedback on the colours - of course it is a little extreme so far.

The colours are, in fact, perfectly fine for the Mir modules. I'm uncertain about the "plain structural" approach - for those playing with realism life support mods that base a ship's habitability on the number and size of crew cans this will be off-putting to say the least. *Sigh* I wish there was a way to make "crew can" and "structural" two variants of one part. Other than that, I'd vote for the two parts being habitation pods. Yes, the one without windows as well. After all, while you can't manually fly and redock a Mir module* as they turned out in the end, you can still live in one. Also, do I get it right that the new Mir modules will now be flown with those tiny flat control units?

*By design, however, the modules were initially planned to be semi-autonomous! That was for various sensitive experiments likely to be affected by the vibration of the big big station all around.

10 hours ago, Deltac said:

Let me refresh your mind:

Him and Normak were creating a pretty cool Russian mod back in the day.  The solar panels they made are still being used by Raidernick.

Ah, KOSMOS. The mod that inspired me to play KSP in the first place. And to think I haven't yet built a Tantares version of this...

 

Edited by TK-313
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TK-313 said:

The colours are, in fact, perfectly fine for the Mir modules. I'm uncertain about the "plain structural" approach - for those playing with realism life support mods that base a ship's habitability on the number and size of crew cans this will be off-putting to say the least. *Sigh* I wish there was a way to make "crew can" and "structural" two variants of one part. Other than that, I'd vote for the two parts being habitation pods. Yes, the one without windows as well. After all, while you can't manually fly and redock a Mir module* as they turned out in the end, you can still live in one. Also, do I get it right that the new Mir modules will now be flown with those tiny flat control units?

*By design, however, the modules were initially planned to be semi-autonomous! That was for various sensitive experiments likely to be affected by the vibration of the big big station all around.

Ah, KOSMOS. The mod that inspired me to play KSP in the first place. And to think I haven't yet built a Tantares version of this...

Extremely impressive station! I almost want to build that myself...

Re: MIR, thanks for the feedback. I think yes actually that is a very good idea - that the parts should be crewed regardless. There is always uses for that.
You are correct I am planning to use the disc control unit as the autonomous probe part (By default this would make all FGB parts crafts able to fly remotely).

I like the free-flying laboratories :) Was this originally Nauka's module plan or am I confusing it with another...

Edited by Beale
Brain
Link to post
Share on other sites

TJ37q0p.jpg
jNkYDK2.png
MFR2951.jpg
10U996I.png

Quick grey approximation, this is just a filter and not a good full idea.

bVPpvcD.png
ldYYesl.png

5 hours ago, CardBoardBoxProcessor said:

I used to do the older/original  KOSMOS, URM/angara, and dragon Rider mod.  wayyyy back. 

Oh cool, I remember it well.

Edited by Beale
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Beale said:
Spoiler

 

TJ37q0p.jpg
jNkYDK2.png
MFR2951.jpg
10U996I.png

Quick grey approximation, this is just a filter and not a good full idea.

bVPpvcD.png
ldYYesl.png

 

Now there`s one more happy Chelomei in the world! 07 

Edited by Legcutter
Ha-ands
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, how do you feel if older parts are deprecated like this? They will not show up in the VAB, but will be available for old crafts. The only difference is...
Textures are crunched to remove memory bloat.

1oRWzUS.jpg

Edited by Beale
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...