spacecookie Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) Thanks!I'll lay out plans for the future more clearly in June.(Or new alternate parts)All this greeble....For the docking port, any chance to reshape the orbital module and texture it a way he could get either a 0.625m or the new diameter you are introducing to us ? Whatever, you always amazed me with your stuff, do whatever you like, I am confident in the result .( Also, you should remodel this docking port to be straight and not angled )Other antennas, dishes and flight-data devices would be so welcome, I love details ! BUT most important of all your soyuz lack of a periscope ! Edited May 8, 2015 by spacecookie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Svm420 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Meanwhile...Here's something very interesting.Soyuz docking port and OM top resized to 0.9375m.Look at it! It all makes sense now.All in favour of resizing (Or new alternate parts) this way (June)?http://puu.sh/hG9mD/681445b77c.jpghttp://puu.sh/hG9lI/513c919ac3.jpgThat looks really nice! So I vote yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I vote for alternate 0.9 meter OM and docking port!BUT most important of all your soyuz lack of a periscope ! Hell yeah!!! A periscope should be high priority for Soyuz, next to the Igla.Still waiting for that Igla... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sackpfeife Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Thanks!I'll lay out plans for the future more clearly in June.Meanwhile...Here's something very interesting.Soyuz docking port and OM top resized to 0.9375m.Look at it! It all makes sense now.All in favour of resizing (Or new alternate parts) this way (June)?Si! Per favore, prego!I vote with yes! But if it is that controversial, maybe you can start a new poll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisK Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 No - plain and simple.Currently they're a standard 0.625m in diameter, which allows their use with non-Tantares parts like stock Mk1 capsule and such.If re-sized, it would be impossible without some third-party things like Tweakscale. And no, adapters are not a solution, since they add to part count.So my vote goes for "put that idea in some dark closet and never get it out again". Please don't turn Tantares into an accurate replicas pack.I agree with biohazard15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted May 8, 2015 Author Share Posted May 8, 2015 SSTO testhttp://img98.rajce.idnes.cz/d9802/10/10447/10447390_7baedd9cfb1ead1a3fc4c0161e06b526/images/screenshot17.jpg?ver=0Back in business! Nice to see!It gets my vote!While it looks nice this would break re-usability and compatibility with non Tantares parts. I would say no.No - plain and simple.Currently they're a standard 0.625m in diameter, which allows their use with non-Tantares parts like stock Mk1 capsule and such.If re-sized, it would be impossible without some third-party things like Tweakscale. And no, adapters are not a solution, since they add to part count.So my vote goes for "put that idea in some dark closet and never get it out again". Please don't turn Tantares into an accurate replicas pack.I like it. Looks distinctly more Soyuz-ish. The 0.625m ports always seemed undersized considering they're meant to be able to fit a whole Kerbal through! Certainly they'd be nice to have even if they were just an alternate config or something.I vote yes for alternate parts.All this greeble....http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2010/4/15/11/its-5824-1271345282-17.jpgFor the docking port, any chance to reshape the orbital module and texture it a way he could get either a 0.625m or the new diameter you are introducing to us ? Whatever, you always amazed me with your stuff, do whatever you like, I am confident in the result .( Also, you should remodel this docking port to be straight and not angled )Other antennas, dishes and flight-data devices would be so welcome, I love details ! BUT most important of all your soyuz lack of a periscope ! That looks really nice! So I vote yes.I vote for alternate 0.9 meter OM and docking port!Hell yeah!!! A periscope should be high priority for Soyuz, next to the Igla.Still waiting for that Igla...Si! Per favore, prego!I vote with yes! But if it is that controversial, maybe you can start a new poll?I agree with biohazard15.Wow!Okay, a lot of feedback in short time.No need for a poll, decision:Will not resize existing parts to 0.9375m, but will introduce new parts in that size for those who want more accurate.@Spacecookie, more greeble is on the cards, sure.@pTrevTrevs, the IGLA and everything else will need to wait until I'm less busy, you'll understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 @pTrevTrevs, the IGLA and everything else will need to wait until I'm less busy, you'll understand.Yes, I understand. It's a very hectic time of year for students, what with finals and all, and I respect the fact that you have a life away from your computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Wow!Okay, a lot of feedback in short time.No need for a poll, decision:Will not resize existing parts to 0.9375m, but will introduce new parts in that size for those who want more accurate.@Spacecookie, more greeble is on the cards, sure.@pTrevTrevs, the IGLA and everything else will need to wait until I'm less busy, you'll understand.Wow I missed it entirely. I would have voted for the new size personally it makes sense as a kerbal passable door space and we already have .9 parts thanks to tks so the size should get more fleshed out also it would let the Mir hub be made a bit beefier right now it must be a terribly tight squeeze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohazard15 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Wow I missed it entirely. I would have voted for the new size personally it makes sense as a kerbal passable door space and we already have .9 parts thanks to tks so the size should get more fleshed out also it would let the Mir hub be made a bit beefier right now it must be a terribly tight squeezeIt means he would need to resize almost every part which was designed to use this docking port. Mir hub, some Salyut and Mir parts, Soyuz, Progress and Shenzhou orbital modules... Oh, and passive docking port, of course.Are you and all other people who voted "Yes" on this resize seriously want another craft-breaking update just for 0.3125m of "realism"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted May 8, 2015 Author Share Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) It means he would need to resize almost every part which was designed to use this docking port. Mir hub, some Salyut and Mir parts, Soyuz, Progress and Shenzhou orbital modules... Oh, and passive docking port, of course.Are you and all other people who voted "Yes" on this resize seriously want another craft-breaking update just for 0.3125m of "realism"?As they would be new, separate parts, no craft breaking New hub is naturally 0.9375m (or close), tapers down to 0.625m.So making alternate hub, very easy! Edited May 8, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biohazard15 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 As they would be new, separate parts, no craft breaking New hub is naturally 0.9375m (or close), tapers down to 0.625m.So making alternate hub, very easy!http://puu.sh/hGjar/9562347263.jpgCan they at least be in some separate folder or something so people like me could delete them without having to rummage through the entire mod? Or maybe a separate download as "realism addon" or something. Can't say that I like the idea of my part list being crammed with almost identical parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted May 8, 2015 Author Share Posted May 8, 2015 Can they at least be in some separate folder or something so people like me could delete them without having to rummage through the entire mod? Or maybe a separate download as "realism addon" or something. Can't say that I like the idea of my part list being crammed with almost identical parts.Mmm, could be an option.But, I can hopefully set your mind to rest that they would not be simply rescaled parts (For example, 0.9375m Docking probe may be not tapered and of a lighter colour?).Still, this is all some time away, best solution will become clear as parts are made To alienate those who like 0.625m I do not want to do! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisK Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) Here's the Kliper config for stock aero based on @DerpyFirework's modifications. I will modify it a bit in the future.Edit: I just missed the runway on my first attempt at a flight + return. Still, 6 kerbals to orbit and back. No landing gear required!Javascript is disabled. View full album Edited May 8, 2015 by CrisK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revenant503 Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 I agree with biohazard15.I have to add my 2 cents, it looks very nice, but looking nice and not playing well with others and having no mix and match ability is why I don't install FASA or Raidernicks Soviet stuff - both are technically very accurate and look great...but not for me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) It means he would need to resize almost every part which was designed to use this docking port. Mir hub, some Salyut and Mir parts, Soyuz, Progress and Shenzhou orbital modules... Oh, and passive docking port, of course.Are you and all other people who voted "Yes" on this resize seriously want another craft-breaking update just for 0.3125m of "realism"?I don't see 0.9m parts as a "realism" issue I see it as a "earning one's place in the part catalog issue" we already have 0.9m parts thanks to the alnair/tks but they aren't really worth the space they take if there isn't more to match up with them Edited May 8, 2015 by passinglurker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenomousRequiem Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Cool, the new Ariane has the launch effects! Any word on that for the rest of the rockets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voidryder Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Hey Beale,Let me get this straight, you found a sizing error in your modelling. Asked your users/supporters if they wanted you to make the correction. They responded with "not if it breaks crafts". So you responded with "ok, I'll make two parts packs so players can choose and so crafts aren't broken." That about right?Here, take all my rep points. Hell, take my money. You are one classy modder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I have to say, the TKS is an oddball to fly. But she sure is fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenomousRequiem Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I have to say, the TKS is an oddball to fly. But she sure is fun!http://i.imgur.com/hZcC8l3.pngEveryone always puts so much detail into their remakes, and I try, but end up doing pretty much the bare minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Everyone always puts so much detail into their remakes, and I try, but end up doing pretty much the bare minimum. Yeah, I do tend to get a little greeble-happy with my designs. But the design and engineering phase can be almost as much fun as flying sometimes. That's why I love when modders take the approach Beale has. Yes, you can make faithful analogues of real-life spacecraft, but you can run off and do your own thing, too. I'll spend hours digging through proposed designs that never flew just to find something new to experiment with, then more hours seeing if the beatie can fly at all. Just don't let my editor know in case I miss a deadline again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Djolox Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 It's 9th May! Smrt Fašizmu! Sloboda Narodu! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) I have to add my 2 cents, it looks very nice, but looking nice and not playing well with others and having no mix and match ability is why I don't install FASA or Raidernicks Soviet stuff - both are technically very accurate and look great...but not for meI don't see 0.9m parts as a "realism" issue I see it as a "earning one's place in the part catalog issue" we already have 0.9m parts thanks to the alnair/tks but they aren't really worth the space they take if there isn't more to match up with themIt's worth pointing out 0.9375m isn't a random number, but is a standard size in the same spirit that 1.875m is a standard size. Many thanks for the feedback.Here's the Kliper config for stock aero based on @DerpyFirework's modifications. I will modify it a bit in the future.Edit: I just missed the runway on my first attempt at a flight + return. Still, 6 kerbals to orbit and back. No landing gear required!http://imgur.com/a/hau4zTried it out, yep, the vertical speed is a little high, but landed pretty well.Many thanks for flexing your aero expertise and the same to DerpyFirework!Cool, the new Ariane has the launch effects! Any word on that for the rest of the rockets?Ah, I've forgotten them a little, get around to that soon.Hey Beale,Let me get this straight, you found a sizing error in your modelling. Asked your users/supporters if they wanted you to make the correction. They responded with "not if it breaks crafts". So you responded with "ok, I'll make two parts packs so players can choose and so crafts aren't broken." That about right?Here, take all my rep points. Hell, take my money. You are one classy modder.Hehehe, well thank you. I have to say, the TKS is an oddball to fly. But she sure is fun!http://i.imgur.com/hZcC8l3.pngNice detail! I've given up flying the TKS in that orientation, instead now put the thrusters the other way, but eh!It's 9th May! Smrt Fašizmu! Sloboda Narodu!Light Gemini art pass.Removed the "covered in oil" high concentrated specular.Edit:Made grills a little more defined. Edited May 9, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisK Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I like the changes, but I liked the original as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voidryder Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 It's 9th May! Smrt Fašizmu! Sloboda Narodu!Ya know I learn the most interesting things on this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) Beale, I'm seeing some oddness with the landing gear for the LK. They aren't staying deployed. When you switch scenes then return to the lander, the gear are retracted again. Thought you'd like to know.That said, Farshot 2 is rolled out and ready to fly. Edited May 10, 2015 by Jack Wolfe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.