[1.12.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [26.0][18.12.2023][Things are happening]

[Deimos Rast]

27 minutes ago, Beale said:

I think you need to be a little more descriptive of what you are trying. I have a test just to make sure and there are zero problems (apart from lack of IVA).

You can not do this? (left-click hatch).

 

Correct. I have a number of mods that could be causing interference here (chiefly CLS and Ship Manifest, but a few others hook into the EVA feature as well). I did a look through my player.log for all references to the capsule (specifically references to "Almach_Crew_A"), but they were all benign, best I can tell, but I was really only looking for big angry text. I also compared its config to the Mk1 pod, to see if anything jumped out at me, which it didn't, but again, I don't really know my way around these things.

As mentioned previously, I have more than a hundred mods installed and with even more null refs, errors and exceptions, (none of which are attributable to you, don't worry!), so discerning the root cause of these kind of things can be more trouble than its worth, especially on such a minor issue. I also did a clean install of the mod, to no discernible effect.

Regarding the picture, you'll note the mod Part Commander in the foreground showing you all the available actions I can take with the pod. There should be an EVA action (added from another mod). Likewise, I also have the ability to hotkey "Go On EVA" which has no effect when in the pod, nor does Science Alert's "Go On EVA" popup. I double checked to make sure CLS and Ship Manifest were working correctly, and every other cockpit/pod works fine. I can't help but think it's tied to the lack of IVA? I have Raster Prop Monitor, if that matters at all, maybe a conflict? I'm grasping at straws here.

Anyway, if you have any ideas, please let me know. If not, that's cool too, you've been more than helpful enough.

Cheers.

[GoldForest]

Hey @Beale,

Did you have any plans to make a Tantares styled Orion and Tantares styled Ares I, IV, and V?

If not, could you make them please? I would love to see them added to this pack!

[Beale]

11 hours ago, Deimos Rast said:

Anyway, if you have any ideas, please let me know. If not, that's cool too, you've been more than helpful enough.

Sadly I think yes, it's a mod conflict.

My best guess is CLS, but I'm not sure.

11 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Hey @Beale,

Did you have any plans to make a Tantares styled Orion and Tantares styled Ares I, IV, and V?

If not, could you make them please? I would love to see them added to this pack!

I have no plans, they do not interest me so much  

But, I encourage you to make them youself!  (this is my official challenge to you).

Quote

liked the way I formatted mine if you're interested.

This should do, thanks! 

Edited February 23, 2016 by Beale

[Beale]

Black Knight Parts

It is also becoming a small 0.9375m rocketry expansion. What I think needs to be included extra:

• 0.9375m Decoupler
• 0.9375m Upper Stage Engine
• 0.9375m Fairing
• Another fuel tank, half the size again of the second tank?

Click for Larger

[kopapaka]

What? Bealaerospace?

http://www.bealaerospace.com/Home.html 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 23, 2016 by kopapaka

[CobaltWolf]

4 hours ago, Beale said:

Black Knight Parts

It is also becoming a small 0.9375m rocketry expansion. What I think needs to be included extra:

• 0.9375m Decoupler
• 0.9375m Upper Stage Engine
• 0.9375m Fairing
• Another fuel tank, half the size again of the second tank?

I think another 0.9375m tank would be useful. And I think Tantares is short on fairing bases

Also, isn't that BLACK ARROW and not Black Knight?

[Beale]

32 minutes ago, kopapaka said:

What? Bealaerospace?

http://www.bealaerospace.com/Home.html 

 

 

That's crazy, I love it!  

13 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I think another 0.9375m tank would be useful. And I think Tantares is short on fairing bases

Also, isn't that BLACK ARROW and not Black Knight?

Whoops, yes it is the second stage of Black Arrow, I get the naming jumbled up! Black Knight was roughly similar to second stage of Black Arrow, but used four-chamber engine (and longer?).

These parts will also have to double up as a Black Knight for the Black Prince rocket, which means maybe I need to make a four-chamber engine (or maybe nobody will notice )

More parts, tanks, decoupler and fairing base  

Edited February 23, 2016 by Beale

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, Beale said:

Whoops, yes it is the second stage of Black Arrow, I get the naming jumbled up! Black Knight was roughly similar to second stage of Black Arrow, but used four-chamber engine (and longer?).

More parts, tanks, decoupler and fairing base

As far as I can tell, the naming scheme for British rockets was stupid.

Looking good though!

[Beale]

2 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

As far as I can tell, the naming scheme for British rockets was stupid.

Looking good though!

It is a little confusing!

I think this picture best demonstrates what I am going for:
All of these rockets should be able to be built using the parts.

[Cdodders]

27 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

As far as I can tell, the naming scheme for British rockets was stupid.

Looking good though!

Its part of the Rainbow Code system of naming bombs, missiles, rockets and equipment at the time, such as Yellow Sun, Red Beard, Red Top, Blue Steel etc

[Beale]

2 minutes ago, Cdodders said:

Its part of the Rainbow Code system of naming bombs, missiles, rockets and equipment at the time, such as Yellow Sun, Red Beard, Red Top, Blue Steel etc

Interesting! Thanks!

Alternate name for Black Prince, 'Blue Star' I like it  

[Cdodders]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rainbow_Codes

 

Quick Wikilink to the Rainbow codes buisness

[Deimos Rast]

6 hours ago, Beale said:

Sadly I think yes, it's a mod conflict.

My best guess is CLS, but I'm not sure.

So...um, there never was any problem. Except that I might be an idiot. When you said "click on the Crew Hatch" I right clicked it. Turns out, it's left click that brings up the option to EVA. I've always done the EVA through the portrait screen and never knew about the crew hatch option (or, apparently left clicking things), so the lack of IVA/portrait threw me.

I'll be walking quickly toward the nearest exit now...

[Guest]

I see there's a Red Shrimp, but no Red Dwarf. A pity, that. 

[Cdodders]

General rule, a code-name that is a clever reference to the thing being code-named, isnt clever

[VenomousRequiem]

2 minutes ago, Jack Wolfe said:

I see there's a Red Shrimp, but no Red Dwarf. A pity, that. 

All for naming Black Knight Red Shrimp say aye! 

[curtquarquesso]

10 hours ago, Beale said:

Black Knight Parts
It is also becoming a small 0.9375m rocketry expansion. What I think needs to be included extra:

• 0.9375m Decoupler
• 0.9375m Upper Stage Engine
• 0.9375m Fairing
• Another fuel tank, half the size again of the second tank?

Click for Larger

6 hours ago, Beale said:

These parts will also have to double up as a Black Knight for the Black Prince rocket, which means maybe I need to make a four-chamber engine (or maybe nobody will notice )
More parts, tanks, decoupler and fairing base  

The new Gamma engine looks great! Can't wait to see how you figure the interstage for that out. Neat stuff.

The tanks, I'm really not digging frankly. I really liked the rounded COPV-styled bulkheads that you used to do on your tanks. The copy/pasted stock structural part texture is rather dull, and ill-suited for usage on fuel tanks. Plus, it's lower-resolution than your textures. The rounded COPV-styled bulkhead on a fuel tank shouts very clearly, "I AM A FUEL TANK, USE ME AS SUCH." I know it's a bit more difficult to whip up, but it makes all the difference in the world, really.
Maybe it'd be beneficial to make one or two common COPV bulkheads you could drop into models, without making them from scratch every time?

Same goes for the fairing base. The model and texture doesn't really give any visual cues as to what it actually is. 

It might be a good idea to make some nice looking fairing bases in all the common sizes that support the stock fairings, and ProceduralFairings. 

 

[hraban]

15 hours ago, kopapaka said:

What? Bealaerospace?

http://www.bealaerospace.com/Home.html 

 

BA-2 Launcher is in progress by CONTARES

 

BA-810 Engine 80% ready

BA-4100 Engine 85% ready

BA-LFO's 90% ready

BA-Decoupler, BA-Fairing-Base and BA-3rd Stage 50% ready

 

 

 

 

[Beale]

14 hours ago, curtquarquesso said:

The new Gamma engine looks great! Can't wait to see how you figure the interstage for that out. Neat stuff.

The tanks, I'm really not digging frankly. I really liked the rounded COPV-styled bulkheads that you used to do on your tanks. The copy/pasted stock structural part texture is rather dull, and ill-suited for usage on fuel tanks. Plus, it's lower-resolution than your textures. The rounded COPV-styled bulkhead on a fuel tank shouts very clearly, "I AM A FUEL TANK, USE ME AS SUCH." I know it's a bit more difficult to whip up, but it makes all the difference in the world, really.
Maybe it'd be beneficial to make one or two common COPV bulkheads you could drop into models, without making them from scratch every time?

Same goes for the fairing base. The model and texture doesn't really give any visual cues as to what it actually is. 

It might be a good idea to make some nice looking fairing bases in all the common sizes that support the stock fairings, and ProceduralFairings. 

 

Thanks for the feedback! 

I like the pressure buttes a lot on the larger tanks (Ex. ALV Top), but even though they look very nice, for smaller tanks seems a big polycount for something mostly invisible.
That being said, getting a common shape that I can place anywhere could be handy.

I think I will wait to see what Porkjet does with the rocket tanks.

How about these, by the way?

For the fairing top, any suggestions? I think the stripes, but also what, a "Place Here" sign?  

5 hours ago, hraban said:

BA-2 Launcher is in progress by CONTARES

 

BA-810 Engine 80% ready

BA-4100 Engine 85% ready

BA-LFO's 90% ready

BA-Decoupler, BA-Fairing-Base and BA-3rd Stage 50% ready

 

Wow! You work fast! 

Looks great  

Edited February 24, 2016 by Beale

[hraban]

41 minutes ago, Beale said:

Wow! You work fast! 

Looks great  

No,

in this case,i'm slow, because the project BA-2 I have already started 2 months ago and then placed to the side. The components currently have a non-Kerbal-matching diameter of 3.1 meters (50% scale).

[curtquarquesso]

2 hours ago, Beale said:

I like the pressure buttes a lot on the larger tanks (Ex. ALV Top), but even though they look very nice, for smaller tanks seems a big polycount for something mostly invisible.
That being said, getting a common shape that I can place anywhere could be handy.

I think I will wait to see what Porkjet does with the rocket tanks.
How about these, by the way?

Whatever the poly-count, it'll still be far less than anything present in stock. It's so worth the extra verts. The looks of some of the newer parts are starting to become a bit too homogenous. You visual cues to indicate the purpose of a part. 

I would be wary of holding your breath for PorkJet. Due to 1.1 lacking the standard shader.

acking the standard shader, It's probably unlikely many/any revamped parts will make it into 1.1. I hope I'm wrong, but that's what's more likely. 

No the the one on the left, maybe to the one on the right. I wouldn't use them on anything larger than 0.625m though. It will look disproportionate if used on larger diameter parts.

Quote

For the fairing top, any suggestions? I think the stripes, but also what, a "Place Here" sign?  

 

Resource images spoiledered for brevity:

Spoiler

Ven remade the stock fairing bases really nicely actually. They have strong visual cues, they allow you to see through them to the tops of the tanks, and they're no more high poly than many other parts in the game.

 

The ESA Soyuz variant would be another good reference. The structural ribbing sets it apart from the smooth rocket parts. 

The Centaur payload adapter also has some interesting things to draw from. Again, common to them both is the structural ribbing, and truss-like elements. 

A

I tried something really simple to improve the appearance a bit of the Soyuz fairing base, so I just hollowed it out. If you put some structural truss inside it so people don't assume it's concave, and passable, I think that might be a good holdover solution perhaps.
Joking aside, arrows, warning labels, model numbers, and other verbiage are really good at improving understanding of part function. For example, the red arrows on the TLV Decoupler are super helpful, and shouldn't be under-estimated. Not saying all decouplers now need arrows, certainly not, but the visual cues help.

Another example would be the new TKS parts. The short monopropellant tank with the yellow tank insets is super handy, and visually clear on what its function is. The service module though, not so much. For a while, it had been driving me crazy, because it always seemed to be underperforming awfully when paired with a monopropellant main engine. Little did I know that it was mainly LFO, with some monopropellant. By looking at it, I couldn't tell that it was a combined resource part. I wrongly assumed that it was all monopropellant, because it didn't really visual indicate one way or another what its contents were. Ultimately, it was because I didn't read the resources in the tool-tip, but perhaps you see my point.  

 

Edited February 24, 2016 by curtquarquesso

[hoojiwana]

38 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

Whatever the poly-count, it'll still be far less than anything present in stock. It's so worth the extra verts. The looks of some of the newer parts are starting to become a bit too homogenous. You visual cues to indicate the purpose of a part. 

I would be wary of holding your breath for PorkJet. Due to 1.1 lacking the standard shader, It's probably unlikely many/any revamped parts will make it into 1.1. I hope I'm wrong, but that's what's more likely.

Extra verts from making tanks look like tanks shouldn't be an issue. I think making them feel like fuel tanks adds far more than saving a couple hundred verts-per-tank, and exposed tank ends can show up in builds from time to time, either by the player deliberately exposing them, or through see through parts like those Vens fairing bases or certain engines that don't include an obscuring tankbutt/boattail of their own. Seeing proper fuel tanks through those types of parts is just plain cool! Really lends a feeling of authenticity to everything.

As for Porkjet stuff, from the start they said that wasn't going to be for 1.1.

EDIT: Oh and apparently in 1.1 we'll be able to limit gimbal axes, so that should be pretty nice for the Gamma 8 engine!

Edited February 24, 2016 by hoojiwana

[Beale]

49 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

Whatever the poly-count, it'll still be far less than anything present in stock. It's so worth the extra verts. The looks of some of the newer parts are starting to become a bit too homogenous. You visual cues to indicate the purpose of a part. 

Example would be the new TKS parts. The short monopropellant tank with the yellow tank insets is super handy, and visually clear on what its function is. The service module though, not so much. For a while, it had been driving me crazy, because it always seemed to be underperforming awfully when paired with a monopropellant main engine. Little did I know that it was mainly LFO, with some monopropellant. By looking at it, I couldn't tell that it was a combined resource part. I wrongly assumed that it was all monopropellant, because it didn't really visual indicate one way or another what its contents were. Ultimately, it was because I didn't read the resources in the tool-tip, but perhaps you see my point.  

 

12 minutes ago, hoojiwana said:

Extra verts from making tanks look like tanks shouldn't be an issue. I think making them feel like fuel tanks adds far more than saving a couple hundred verts-per-tank, and exposed tank ends can show up in builds from time to time, either by the player deliberately exposing them, or through see through parts like those Vens fairing bases or certain engines that don't include an obscuring tankbutt/boattail of their own. Seeing proper fuel tanks through those types of parts is just plain cool! Really lends a feeling of authenticity to everything.

As for Porkjet stuff, from the start they said that wasn't going to be for 1.1.

EDIT: Oh and apparently in 1.1 we'll be able to limit gimbal axes, so that should be pretty nice for the Gamma 8 engine!

Great feedback, I think you have persuaded me! Many thanks you both.

Standby while I rig up some alterations.

 

Gimbal news is also very great! 

 

Edited February 24, 2016 by Beale

[Beale]

Okay @curtquarquesso, here is my plan for the tanks.

Tank Ends

Re-usable Texture 128x128

Standard Method For Creation

- Indent 0.75m Diameter Top, 0.65475m Diameter Bottom, 0.0525m Depth.
- Inset 0.1m 
- Raise 0.025m
- Inset 0.1m
- Raise 0.015m
- Inset & Collapse
- Raise 0.01m

Of course, this is only for sizes of 0.9375m, every tank end will require a unique texture and model instructions.

128x128 @ 0.9375m = whole tank end texture

128x128 @ 1.25m = half tank end texture

128x128 @ 1.875m= quarter tank end texture

Edited February 24, 2016 by Beale

[curtquarquesso]

1 hour ago, Beale said:

Great feedback, I think you have persuaded me! Many thanks you both.
Standby while I rig up some alterations.
Gimbal news is also very great! 

Glad we could persuade you.   In general, don't worry so much about poly counts. You're so stupidly good at texturing, I can't stand to watch yourself get limited by poly-counts. Some of your more complex parts really stands out. 

18 minutes ago, Beale said:

Okay @curtquarquesso, here is my plan for the tanks.

Tank Ends
Re-usable Texture 128x128

Standard Method For Creation

- Indent 0.75m Diameter Top, 0.65475m Diameter Bottom, 0.0525m Depth.
- Inset 0.1m 
- Raise 0.025m
- Inset 0.1m
- Raise 0.015m
- Inset & Collapse
- Raise 0.01m

Of course, this is only for sizes of 0.9375m, every tank end will require a unique texture and model instructions.
128x128 @ 0.9375m = whole tank end texture
128x128 @ 1.25m = half tank end texture
128x128 @ 1.875m= quarter tank end texture

Ah! A good start. I would make the curvature and indentation more severe honestly. @hoojiwana's tiny LFO tanks are pretty much perfect in terms of curvature and AO.
The best looking tanks you've ever made/helped make are in AB Launchers. The bulkhead on the 5m Energia tank is just flipping cool. I love it. For the large tanks, I would definitely up the curvature quite a bit. 

 

Edited February 24, 2016 by curtquarquesso