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

InsaneDruid · February 20, 2016

I don't quite see the problem. The shroud is only toggable in VAB, and why should somebody disable it there when the stack becomes (graphically) separated by doing so?

Beale · February 20, 2016

21 minutes ago, InsaneDruid said:

Why should somebody disable it there when the stack becomes (graphically) separated by doing so?

Purely, just the possibility of it annoys me.
Somebody can still jettison it during flight, can't disable that, but eh.

CatastrophicFailure · February 20, 2016

2 hours ago, Cdodders said:

Imagine being in that tiny Gemini capsule for over a week...

Bet the Astronauts were glad they went with Apollo instead

They called it "8 days in a a garbage can" for a reason. :0.0: Think the longest Gemini mission was like 14 days. Inside is about the size of the front seat of a car.

davidy12 · February 20, 2016

On February 19, 2016 at 11:16 AM, curtquarquesso said:

Rescaling the LK and all its parts down to 0.9375m using the Tweakscale config makes it much easier to stack on the N-1. It's also less mass to take to the moon, or wherever you're going, and it's more practical.

As far as the N1, and the lunar parts go, I could probably mock up some parts at the correct scales against an orthographic, and find convenient sizes for the stages. I would wait for a while before messing with N1 though. It's a lot of work, and there's so much else to do.

Wait, did I miss the tweak scale DL?

InsaneDruid · February 20, 2016

Nope, was my personal test.

Spoiler


// Tantares LK Tweakscale Fix
@PART[fairingSize*]:NEEDS[TweakScale] // Procedural Fairings (for KWANT)
{
	@MODULE[ModuleProceduralFairing]
	{
		@snapThreshold = 0.05
	}
	%MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 1.25
	}
}
@PART[Libra_Crew_A]:NEEDS[TweakScale] // LDL Crew Module
{
	@MODEL
	{
		@scale = 0.9375, 0.9375, 0.9375
	}
	@node_stack_bottom = 0.0,  -0.6328125, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
	@node_stack_top    = 0.0,   0.7209375, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0
}
@PART[Libra_Engine_A]:NEEDS[TweakScale] // LDL Landing Propulsion System
{
	#@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Engine]/MODULE[TweakScale] { }
	%MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		type = free
	}
}
@PART[Libra_Engine_B]:NEEDS[TweakScale] // LDL Landing Propulsion System
{
	#@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Engine]/MODULE[TweakScale] { }
	%MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		type = free
	}
}
@PART[Libra_LFO_A]:NEEDS[TweakScale] // LDL Fuel Tank
{
	%MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		type = free
	}
}
@PART[Libra_LFO_B]:NEEDS[TweakScale] // LDL Structural Case
{
	%MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		type = free
	}
}
@PART[Libra_RCS_A]:NEEDS[TweakScale] // LDL Structural Case
{
	%MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		type = free
	}
}
@PART[Libra_Ladder_A]:NEEDS[TweakScale] // LDL Structural Case
{
	%MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		type = free
	}
}
@PART[Libra_Leg_A]:NEEDS[TweakScale] // LDL Structural Case
{
	%MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		type = free
	}
}
@PART[Libra_Nesting_A]:NEEDS[TweakScale] // LDL Structural Case
{
	%MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		type = free
	}
}
@PART[Libra_Antenna_A]:NEEDS[TweakScale] // LDL Structural Case
{
	%MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		type = free
	}
}
@PART[Libra_Antenna_B]:NEEDS[TweakScale] // LDL Structural Case
{
	%MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		type = free
	}
}

Edited February 20, 2016 by InsaneDruid

curtquarquesso · February 20, 2016

3 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

Wait, did I miss the tweak scale DL?

Nope. It's currently possible in the current TweakScale config. Besides it's default size, it can scale down to 0.9375m.

It looks like a version or two ago, the parameter in the "ScaleExponents.cfg" that's part of TweakScale had a parameter removed that disables scaling for crewed pods, so I don't think you have to go in there and enable it anymore. There should be no more reason to have that in the instructions for installing the config. Should just be drag and drop.

I could use some input here actually regarding scaling in the config. Should I just allow free scaling of all parts? I'v been reluctant to, because I didn't want to break career stuff. I'll still make size increments for the the popular scales, but do you all want to be able to adjust sizes down to one or two decimal places?

I was just make sure players couldn't take advantage of sizing increases in the early-game... Thoughts?

davidy12 · February 20, 2016

Just now, curtquarquesso said:

Nope. It's currently possible in the current TweakScale config. Besides it's default size, it can scale down to 0.9375m.

It looks like a version or two ago, the parameter in the "ScaleExponents.cfg" that's part of TweakScale had a parameter removed that disables scaling for crewed pods, so I don't think you have to go in there and enable it anymore. There should be no more reason to have that in the instructions for installing the config. Should just be drag and drop.

I could use some input here actually regarding scaling in the config. Should I just allow free scaling of all parts? I'v been reluctant to, because I didn't want to break career stuff. I'll still make size increments for the the popular scales, but do you all want to be able to adjust sizes down to one or two decimal places?

I was just make sure players couldn't take advantage of sizing increases in the early-game... Thoughts?

Free scaling, definitely.

legoclone09 · February 20, 2016

Make sure we can go to 0.9375 or any other crazy numbers we want, most go by 0.25m scales so we can't get 0.9375 currently.

VenomousRequiem · February 20, 2016

All this stuff about Black Arrow's scale... what about this?

The one on bottom is a Castor 30 from BDB, the one on top is a Castor 30XL from Tantares. 30XL and it's not even half the size of a more realistically scaled Castor 30.

curtquarquesso · February 20, 2016

59 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said:

All this stuff about Black Arrow's scale... what about this?

The one on bottom is a Castor 30 from BDB, the one on top is a Castor 30XL from Tantares. 30XL and it's not even half the size of a more realistically scaled Castor 30.

I'm working on it. Beale has yet to approve any changes made to Antares, Cygnus, or Castor. I haven't really sent him anything to work on, because I don't have all the correct solutions to all the problems quite yet, but I'm getting there. The reason it's currently 0.625m is because Beale's original Cygnus was 0.625m. There's a 1.875m now, but no Antares to match.

There are probably more important things to tackle at the moment though.

Edit: I haven't worked on Cygnus in a little while, but I still have to figure out with Beale what he wants to change, and is willing to change. Antares is a cozy 2.5m which makes the Castor 30XL 1 less-cozy 1.5m, which makes the Cygnus service module 1.7, but is basically irrelevant due to shrouds, and Cygnus is more or less 1.875m, with all the bumpy panels. 1.25m PCBM, of course.

My current to-do list is:

Lower poly-count on PCM. The Standard configuration is sitting at 2,400 verts, and the Enhanced is at 3,216 verts. I'd like to reduce this some, but given that a stock mainsail is around 2,500 or so, I don't feel too badly about it.
Make a way to separate Castor's interstage in a way that's fun and interesting. I'd like to to be able to jettison from both ends, first from the Antares S1, then from Castor prior to its ignition. This requires some collider and ModuleJettison tricks.
Figure out how to give players somewhere to put their payload fairing above the interstage. I've fooled around with trying to make floating ProceduralFairing nodes, at a predetermined position relative to the decoupler/procedural fairing base, but no matter where I define them, they always want to be located at the center y-coordinate of the part that they're defined for. Very weird.
Make it so that the parts go together intuitively, and people aren't constantly asking for craft files. It's no fun fussing around with decouplers, interstages and tanks, trying to get things to work. Uni-tasking parts also suck, and aren't fun to play with except for anything other than replicas.
Not shown is a rounded bulkhead that will be an "IconHidden" tagged mesh that will go on top of the Castor. It's kind of the inverse of what we were talking about a few pages back regarding the R7's "crown".

Spoiler

Edited February 21, 2016 by curtquarquesso

the_pazter · February 21, 2016

it would be great if you could make manuals on how to make Mir ect.

Jeb Jawkins · February 21, 2016

1 hour ago, the_pazter said:

it would be great if you could make manuals on how to make Mir ect.

There are a lot of craft files at kerbalx.com for Mir-modules made by using tantares. Get them and simply dock them together.

Beale · February 21, 2016

14 hours ago, curtquarquesso said:

I'm working on it. Beale has yet to approve any changes made to Antares, Cygnus, or Castor. I haven't really sent him anything to work on, because I don't have all the correct solutions to all the problems quite yet, but I'm getting there. The reason it's currently 0.625m is because Beale's original Cygnus was 0.625m. There's a 1.875m now, but no Antares to match.

There are probably more important things to tackle at the moment though.

Edit: I haven't worked on Cygnus in a little while, but I still have to figure out with Beale what he wants to change, and is willing to change. Antares is a cozy 2.5m which makes the Castor 30XL 1 less-cozy 1.5m, which makes the Cygnus service module 1.7, but is basically irrelevant due to shrouds, and Cygnus is more or less 1.875m, with all the bumpy panels. 1.25m PCBM, of course.

My current to-do list is:

Lower poly-count on PCM. The Standard configuration is sitting at 2,400 verts, and the Enhanced is at 3,216 verts. I'd like to reduce this some, but given that a stock mainsail is around 2,500 or so, I don't feel too badly about it.

Make a way to separate Castor's interstage in a way that's fun and interesting. I'd like to to be able to jettison from both ends, first from the Antares S1, then from Castor prior to its ignition. This requires some collider and ModuleJettison tricks.

Figure out how to give players somewhere to put their payload fairing above the interstage. I've fooled around with trying to make floating ProceduralFairing nodes, at a predetermined position relative to the decoupler/procedural fairing base, but no matter where I define them, they always want to be located at the center y-coordinate of the part that they're defined for. Very weird.

Make it so that the parts go together intuitively, and people aren't constantly asking for craft files. It's no fun fussing around with decouplers, interstages and tanks, trying to get things to work. Uni-tasking parts also suck, and aren't fun to play with except for anything other than replicas.

Not shown is a rounded bulkhead that will be an "IconHidden" tagged mesh that will go on top of the Castor. It's kind of the inverse of what we were talking about a few pages back regarding the R7's "crown".

I think the texel density on the curent Antares parts is too low to scale them to 2.5m without looking ugly (maybe that's just me though :wink: ).

Anyway, I like a lot your ideas, the curent setup relies quite a bit on stock parts (good or a bad thing?).

1 hour ago, the_pazter said:

it would be great if you could make manuals on how to make Mir ect.

I'm putting together a nice typset LaTeX manual to include with releases

Edit: The manual also includes guides on often-requested things, such as three-seat Soyuz, etc.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Beale

Beale · February 21, 2016

Here's a quick preview of user guide. Let me know if it is vaguely what people want.

I much prefer this to craft files:

Less chance of breaking.
Much less painful to create and manage.
All the images are generated from a Unity scene, so guide can be easily updated with art passes.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Beale

InsaneDruid · February 21, 2016

@curtquarquesso 3500 vertices is NOTHING.

I have seen a single parachute part with 60000 verts, 75000 tris. And nobody complained about bad performance.

tjsnh · February 21, 2016

27 minutes ago, Beale said:

Here's a quick preview of user guide. Let me know if it is vaguely what people want.

I much prefer this to craft files:

Less chance of breaking.

Much less painful to create and manage.

All the images are generated from a Unity scene, so guide can be easily updated with art passes.

Love it so far.

Would absolutely LOVE to see the scale/node values needed to resize the R-7 rocket parts to 1.875m , I've had nothing but failure trying to do so.

Beale · February 21, 2016

14 minutes ago, tjsnh said:

Love it so far.

Would absolutely LOVE to see the scale/node values needed to resize the R-7 rocket parts to 1.875m , I've had nothing but failure trying to do so.

This should actually be as simple as setting "rescaleFactor = 1.5". Should not be any need to change node values

Tried that?

And, thanks!

Quote

@curtquarquesso 3500 vertices is NOTHING.

I have seen a single parachute part with 60000 verts, 75000 tris. And nobody complained about bad performance.

The stock parts all have quite low polycounts, I think it is best to stay around them, otherwise things can look "too detailed" (I know that sounds silly).

Edited February 21, 2016 by Beale

InsaneDruid · February 21, 2016

Rescalefactors other than 1.0 did produce errors when reverting back to launch (parts get scaled wrong after such an reset). I dont know if this problem still occurs. but i rather would used the model scale value.

tjsnh · February 21, 2016

23 minutes ago, Beale said:

This should actually be as simple as setting "rescaleFactor = 1.5". Should not be any need to change node values

Tried that?

... as always, the simplest explanations turn out to be the right ones ... that seems to work quite well .. not sure why I've had to fiddle with nodes in attempting to rescale other parts by hand, looks like by trying to do so I was just making more work for myself that wasn't needed.

Thank you so much.

Beale · February 21, 2016

15 minutes ago, InsaneDruid said:

Rescalefactors other than 1.0 did produce errors when reverting back to launch (parts get scaled wrong after such an reset). I dont know if this problem still occurs. but i rather would used the model scale value.

1 minute ago, tjsnh said:

... as always, the simplest explanations turn out to be the right ones ... that seems to work quite well .. not sure why I've had to fiddle with nodes in attempting to rescale other parts by hand, looks like by trying to do so I was just making more work for myself that wasn't needed.

Thank you so much.

Glad it worked!

But, as InsaneDruid has said, there are some problems with rescaleFactor (rarely it can be off-scale on vessel load).

Best way is with like this:
But this method, you do have to mess with nodes.

MODEL
{
   model = Tantares/Parts/LK/LK_Crew_A
   scale = 1.25, 1.25, 1.25
}
scale = 1
rescaleFactor = 1

Edited February 21, 2016 by Beale

InsaneDruid · February 21, 2016

Thats why I strongly recommend the use of the node {} system with empties placed in the geometry. At least for all non-surface attach parts (and those can be placed arount the 0,0,0-point so that the surface attach point doesnt scale. It makes rescaling SO much easier, and the nodes are MUCH better in terms of accuracy as there are no additional rounding errors.

(And its easier to setup, too. Place the emtpy, make it arrows or cone for easier visual placement, align it as wanted, remember the name. DONE. No coordinates to fiddle with. Never.

Edited February 21, 2016 by InsaneDruid

tjsnh · February 21, 2016

56 minutes ago, Beale said:
Glad it worked!

But, as InsaneDruid has said, there are some problems with rescaleFactor (rarely it can be off-scale on vessel load).

Best way is with like this:
But this method, you do have to mess with nodes.
MODEL
{
   model = Tantares/Parts/LK/LK_Crew_A
   scale = 1.25, 1.25, 1.25
}
scale = 1
rescaleFactor = 1

That's the method I was using before, with difficulty, but just for the R-7 fuel tanks and the two engines (which aren't especially complex shapes/etc) the rescalefactor seems to be working pretty well.

CobaltWolf · February 21, 2016

18 hours ago, curtquarquesso said:

I'm working on it. Beale has yet to approve any changes made to Antares, Cygnus, or Castor. I haven't really sent him anything to work on, because I don't have all the correct solutions to all the problems quite yet, but I'm getting there. The reason it's currently 0.625m is because Beale's original Cygnus was 0.625m. There's a 1.875m now, but no Antares to match.

Lower poly-count on PCM. The Standard configuration is sitting at 2,400 verts, and the Enhanced is at 3,216 verts. I'd like to reduce this some, but given that a stock mainsail is around 2,500 or so, I don't feel too badly about it.

How the heck did you manage to stuff 3,216k verts in one PCM? 0.o I struggle to reach 2k verts on an engine, let alone a docking port.

curtquarquesso · February 21, 2016

4 hours ago, Beale said:

I think the texel density on the curent Antares parts is too low to scale them to 2.5m without looking ugly (maybe that's just me though ).
Anyway, I like a lot your ideas, the curent setup relies quite a bit on stock parts (good or a bad thing?).
I'm putting together a nice typset LaTeX manual to include with releases
Edit: The manual also includes guides on often-requested things, such as three-seat Soyuz, etc.

3 hours ago, Beale said:

Here's a quick preview of user guide. Let me know if it is vaguely what people want.
I much prefer this to craft files: Less chance of breaking. Much less painful to create and manage. All the images are generated from a Unity scene, so guide can be easily updated with art passes.

Antares: On texel density, I agree. It could stand for a lot more detail. I'm just working on part layout, and integration. Gotta find a way for all the parts to go together conveniently. Not sure what you mean by relying on stock parts. Clarification needed.
Manual: Holy crap, that's awesome. That's perfect. I love it. So many advantages over .craft files.

3 hours ago, InsaneDruid said:

@curtquarquesso 3500 vertices is NOTHING. I have seen a single parachute part with 60000 verts, 75000 tris. And nobody complained about bad performance.

In modern modeling, I agree. For KSP, and especially against Beale's work, where few parts are beyond 1500 verts though, it is a lot in comparison. I don't think my Cygnus model pushes too far into over-detailed as Beale mentioned. The base cylinder is still 24 sides.

19 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

How the heck did you manage to stuff 3,216k verts in one PCM? 0.o I struggle to reach 2k verts on an engine, let alone a docking port.

In a convenient segway, I can show you exactly how that model is pushing 3,000 verts. If you look below, every one of those stupid beveled MMOD panels has to be beveled at least twice, or it looks awful. If anyone has any ideas, let me know. I'm already planning on red-doing the front face of the model entirely. It's messy, and poorly done.

2 hours ago, Beale said:

The stock parts all have quite low polycounts, I think it is best to stay around them, otherwise things can look "too detailed" (I know that sounds silly).

See above. I'd like your input. What do you think? Is it too detailed? There's no way I could justify faking the bumps with just a normal maps. I've seen it done, and it's awful. The base cylinder is 24 verts. What's your opinion?

2 hours ago, InsaneDruid said:

Rescalefactors other than 1.0 did produce errors when reverting back to launch (parts get scaled wrong after such an reset). I dont know if this problem still occurs. but i rather would used the model scale value.

Ugh. Another annoying stock bug. Wonder if we could get a status check on this one, and see if 1.1 fixes it...

2 hours ago, InsaneDruid said:

Thats why I strongly recommend the use of the node {} system with empties placed in the geometry. At least for all non-surface attach parts (and those can be placed arount the 0,0,0-point so that the surface attach point doesnt scale. It makes rescaling SO much easier, and the nodes are MUCH better in terms of accuracy as there are no additional rounding errors.

(And its easier to setup, too. Place the emtpy, make it arrows or cone for easier visual placement, align it as wanted, remember the name. DONE. No coordinates to fiddle with. Never.

Hmmm. Yeah. I might start making this part of my convention. Have any screens of your unity setup showing how you do this? Sounds like a better workflow in some ways.

@Beale, I think now might be a good time to develop another development road-map. There seems to be a lot of different projects in motion at the moment, certainly, through much fault of my own.

Edited February 21, 2016 by curtquarquesso

CobaltWolf · February 21, 2016

2 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

In modern modeling, I agree. For KSP, and especially against Beale's work, where few parts are beyond 1500 verts though, it is a lot in comparison. I don't think my Cygnus model pushes too far into over-detailed as Beale mentioned. The base cylinder is still 24 sides.

In a convenient segway, I can show you exactly how that model is pushing 3,000 verts. If you look below, every one of those stupid beveled MMOD panels has to be beveled at least twice, or it looks awful. If anyone has any ideas, let me know. I'm already planning on red-doing the front face of the model entirely. It's messy, and poorly done.

See above. I'd like your input. What do you think? Is it too detailed? There's no way I could justify faking the bumps with just a normal maps. I've seen it done, and it's awful. The base cylinder is 24 verts. What's your opinion?

I think you could have gotten away with just using the smooth rendering option on the edges, rather than adding all those extra loops. The corners might need a single bevel but not more.

EDIT: Curt can you send me an OBJ of that so I can play with it? I'd like to try a couple different ways of reducing that polycount.

Edited February 21, 2016 by CobaltWolf

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

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation