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

[Tapejara]

Thinking about playing KSP again after quite a while away. Let's see what Beale has been up to since I've been gone...

*Downloads Tantares 1.0.5*

Great stuff!

Edited December 5, 2015 by Tapejara

[Araym]

[quote name='hraban']Hello Beale,

since the release of version 14 the "Tavio RD-01" decoupler lost.
It is troublesome to restore the old files with every update.
Please try to complete your update starting from the version 13.x.

Thank you and have a nice weekend[/QUOTE]

New TLV (the soyuz launcher) from release 14 lost its radial decoupler by Beale decision to not support it, if I remember correctly...

... that means (like I'm doing myself) that you can only save it by previous release (as I'm doing with the whole old TLV - tweaked to more stock-ish value of fuel, as the original was A LOT overpowered)

[hraban]

[quote name='Araym']New TLV (the soyuz launcher) from release 14 lost its radial decoupler by Beale decision to not support it, if I remember correctly...

... that means (like I'm doing myself) that you can only save it by previous release (as I'm doing with the whole old TLV - tweaked to more stock-ish value of fuel, as the original was A LOT overpowered)[/QUOTE]

Without matching and truly functional radial decoupler makes the complete package TLV no sense. The stock radial decoupler are rather useless (to low on force) and visually a disaster.
Let's see if I can find some time to tinker at least a reasonable and visually attractive radial decoupler.

[Natsu85]

I have a problem when booting KSP, loading always hangs on Soyuz_Engine_A / Tantares_Engine_A
obviously if I try to delete this file, and then to switch to Engine_B Engine_C
same thing in Tantares_LV.

I tried to configure all the mod with the clean install of the KSP, obviously without success, using manual installation and ckan.
to be fair I also say that I use a 64bit Linux system with 16 GB of RAM, while KSP is updated to the latest version, the 1.0.5 Edited November 23, 2015 by Natsu85

[komodo]

While I haven't noticed an issue with the stock decouplers (*dodges flying tomatos*), I was curious about the KIS balancing. The pods have a variety of space allocated to them, which is a boon, but the size allocated seems a bit arbitrary; everything seems to clock in at about 1000 L. While nice, it seems... off. I just started trying out KIS, and thus just noticed it. Does anyone have a sense of what might be a 'realistic'/balanced volume for the pods? Thanks!

[Svm420]

[quote name='komodo']While I haven't noticed an issue with the stock decouplers (*dodges flying tomatos*), I was curious about the KIS balancing. The pods have a variety of space allocated to them, which is a boon, but the size allocated seems a bit arbitrary; everything seems to clock in at about 1000 L. While nice, it seems... off. I just started trying out KIS, and thus just noticed it. Does anyone have a sense of what might be a 'realistic'/balanced volume for the pods? Thanks![/QUOTE]
Personally I set up a patch to remove all kis configs and add them back at 100L per crew seat.

[Redhornet919]

Happy 1000 Pages Everyone!!!!!!!:D:D:D And Congrats on 2500 posts Beale!!! Edited November 23, 2015 by Redhornet919

[Djolox]

Nice! 1000 Pages!

[Ciaran]

I just realized something.. What about the old docking ports? I think the new docking hub looks cool.. but what about the old one?

[Beale]

[quote name='davidy12']CONGRATS ON 1000 PGS BEALE!!!!!
Do I sense a N-1 rocket update/payload soon? MAVR?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Foxxonius Augustus']Let me add my congratulations on 1000 pages Beale! Do let me know if ether the RT or the TACLS configs need updating or adding to.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='ZodiaK']Cool image![/QUOTE]
[quote name='Noah_Blade']Congrats on 1000 pages Beale![/QUOTE]
[quote name='gooddog15']Congrats on the 1000 page milestone![/QUOTE]
[quote name='nothingSpecial']And on the ten thousand replies. Yay for Beale![/QUOTE]
[quote name='Tapejara']Thinking about playing KSP again after quite a while away. Let's see what Beale has been up to since I've been gone...
*Downloads Tantares 1.0.5*
:confused: :confused: :confused:
Great stuff![/QUOTE]
[quote name='Redhornet919']Happy 1000 Pages Everyone!!!!!!!:D:D:D And Congrats on 2500 posts Beale!!![/QUOTE]
[quote name='Djolox']Nice! 1000 Pages![/QUOTE]

Great many thanks for the kind words!

[quote name='komodo'] I was curious about the KIS balancing. The pods have a variety of space allocated to them, which is a boon, but the size allocated seems a bit arbitrary; everything seems to clock in at about 1000 L. While nice, it seems... off. I just started trying out KIS, and thus just noticed it. Does anyone have a sense of what might be a 'realistic'/balanced volume for the pods? Thanks![/QUOTE]

They are very arbitrary! :D

I will take a second look.

[quote name='hraban']Hello Beale,
since the release of version 14 the "Tavio RD-01" decoupler lost.
It is troublesome to restore the old files with every update.
Please try to complete your update starting from the version 13.x.
Thank you and have a nice weekend[/QUOTE]

I will look into a new radial decoupler :)

[quote name='Ciaran']I should stop commenting.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Ciaran']I just realized something.. What about the old docking ports? I think the new docking hub looks cool.. but what about the old one?[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you are saying...?

[trooperMNG]

[quote name='Beale']
Not sure what you are saying...?[/QUOTE]

I don't know if he meant this, but in my opinion you should consider to bring back the old docking hub. The new hub is significantly smaller, and it looks bad compared to other parts... even to kerbals.

[Beale]

[quote name='trooperMNG']I don't know if he meant this, but in my opinion you should consider to bring back the old docking hub. The new hub is significantly smaller, and it looks bad compared to other parts... even to kerbals.[/QUOTE]

This one?

[IMG]http://puu.sh/lvYTP/44cbc62f07.jpg[/IMG]


[B]New Salyut WIP...[/B]

[IMG]http://puu.sh/lvYPW/5de2d9ba11.jpg[/IMG]

[davidy12]

*PRAYS for IVA*

I'm sorry but it's just that I think IVAs are an immersive part of KSP. As I've said many times.

[pTrevTrevs]

[quote name='davidy12']*PRAYS for IVA*

I'm sorry but it's just that I think IVAs are an immersive part of KSP. As I've said many times.[/QUOTE]
Yes, IVA, please, O Mighty One, we beg you, give us an IVA with this one!!!

[Beale]

[quote name='davidy12']*PRAYS for IVA*
I'm sorry but it's just that I think IVAs are an immersive part of KSP. As I've said many times.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='pTrevTrevs']Yes, IVA, please, O Mighty One, we beg you, give us an IVA with this one!!![/QUOTE]

Realistically I need the new part tools to make a space station IVA (of a good standard).

So, it is out of my hands...

[IMG]http://puu.sh/lw07t/0c48eace25.jpg[/IMG]

[davidy12]

Can't you get someone to make it? PLZ?

[komodo]

I believe what is being said is that the needed tools will come in 1.1 (?), and until then it is not practical/possible for such to be done? I would humbly just request that the placeholder IVA be used until such time. I like to see the joyterrornononoyes! on their faces as things go... *ahem*... Kerbal.

[trooperMNG]

[quote name='Beale']Realistically I need the new part tools to make a space station IVA (of a good standard).

So, it is out of my hands...

[URL]http://puu.sh/lw07t/0c48eace25.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE]

Very nice, well done! Will all parts now stick to Soyuz design (like the stripes on the airlock)? Because I find new Soyuz texture really pretty

[Beale]

[quote name='davidy12']Can't you get someone to make it? PLZ?[/QUOTE]

Not really.
It is like asking "Hello, can you slave away for hours to make this thing please?".

IVAs are fun, but take a lot of effort and are not something everybody cares about.

[quote name='komodo']I believe what is being said is that the needed tools will come in 1.1 (?), and until then it is not practical/possible for such to be done? I would humbly just request that the placeholder IVA be used until such time. I like to see the joyterrornononoyes! on their faces as things go... *ahem*... Kerbal.[/QUOTE]

Placeholders, sure! :)


[quote name='trooperMNG']Very nice, well done! Will all parts now stick to Soyuz design (like the stripes on the airlock)? Because I find new Soyuz texture really pretty[/QUOTE]

That's the plan! :)

I have written a "style-guide" now, to ensure all the parts look the same. It is really helping. Edited November 23, 2015 by Beale

[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 :)

[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! :)

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

[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 ;)

[Ciaran]

[quote name='Beale']

Not sure what you are saying...?[/QUOTE]

Next time i'll analyze my comment before posting, What i meant was that i would like the old hub added so the smaller docking ports wouldn't be harder to use.

[curtquarquesso]

[quote name='trooperMNG']I don't know if he meant this, but in my opinion you should consider to bring back the old docking hub. The new hub is significantly smaller, and it looks bad compared to other parts... even to kerbals.[/QUOTE]

[B]1st Generation Docking Hub[/B]
[img]http://puu.sh/d7CCf/523d8e9872.jpg[/img]
[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]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Qz29sa7m.jpg[/img]
[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]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/oSVUTwAm.jpg[/IMG]
[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.

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

[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.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/t3Ii9uXm.png[/img]
[B]@Sticky32[/B] managed to make a really great hollow version of the standard Rock-O-Max six way hub.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/mhw7hRUm.png[/IMG]
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. :)

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




[quote name='Beale']

[B]New Salyut WIP...[/B]

[url]http://puu.sh/lvYPW/5de2d9ba11.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]

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. :) Edited November 24, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[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:

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