CobaltWolf

Delete the CryoEngines compatibility, those configs have been activating themselves for some reason. Apologies for the confusion.

~~~~BUT DOES IT HAVE LANDVERMESSER????~~~~~~~~

That was like, the entire point of the 1.0 release. Yeah, KJR, or liberal use of auto struts. And adjusting the gimbal of the F1s down. and disabling the gimbal on the middle one (as you should). I was able to get it flying fairly stable with autostruts... and I think @IronCretin figured out that stock nodes go up to size 5, instead of 3 like we thought. And thanks @Jimbodiah and @Jack Wolfe! Now that it's done, we can get to the fun parts. Sky's the limit now.

For what we want, WBT can do all that B9 can (mesh, texture, fuel and node switching? Unless I'm missing something) plus a lot more like the science lab functionality. Plus, I know/see Angel on a regular basis for when I have issues.

Negative, Ghostrider. However, my mod Sample Capsule Return capsule needs an update (easy enough, I might be able to do it tonight) but it is based loosely on a film return bucket. Jso was working on a new system for our cameras (in terms of balancing them, not a huge plugin or something) and I believe he had something like film capsules. The new stock science container also gives me hope. Unfortunately, the guy needs a break. Just about every day I text him with another awesome thing that needs to be his first priority. Its one thing when I do that to myself, another thing when its him... MOLE has them too. its definitely possible (sorta unclear why everyone wants a LESS functional spacecraft considering you would probably be regularly docking during missions at that point...) and something ill make sure to get done. The roadmap doesn't keep up with the pace of ideas. EDIT: I'll make sure to get it on to the current texture sheet.

I disagree, Saturn has such a thing and it looks good; it distinguishes between the walls of the tank, and the thrust structure. Some ribs, along with just a couple primitive meshes to break it up (raised squares or tubes or something) would make it a lot better. Right now the issue is that it looks TOO MUCH like the tank walls - it doesn't look like there is a distinct thrust structure supporting the engines. It looms like they just sprout out of nothing. The engine mount, being inside a fairing, doesn't need to be aerodynamic and smooth. In fact, they try and cram everything that would break up the aerodynamics down around the engines. In any case, what does the real one look like? Simplified is good for kerbal, but I think TOO simplified is bad, and over the years the game's style has been steadily moving to higher fidelity, higher detail. If that's the extent of the detail of the model, then it will look obsolete before it comes out. With that said, what you have right now is fantastic as a WIP.

We have entries in the options menu? 0.o someone show me a screenshot!

I have to redo the all the Atlas engines, and the new Finch will be able to gimbal. It would go straight on the bottom rather than on the edges. and ETS is an alternate history 'timeline' (basically prose, I guess) where NASA decides to use Apollo derived hardware rather than spend a decade (and all their money) developing the shuttle. The various Apollo variants, along with the Saturns and some other stuff are going to be covered in BDB. There's your starting point, click on Chapters to start reading or Media to look at pretty pictures. http://wiki.alternatehistory.com/doku.php?id=timelines:eyes_turned_skyward

Thank you, I couldn't find it.

Yes, which gets us the Spacelab style MDA for free. EDIT: Reminder that the Service Module is still the placeholder one; it needs to get a bespoke texture. And the whole thing needs some serious normal + specular maps before it looks up to snuff.

It's a video. The Saturn stuff is in flux right now, we are reevaluating some of our balance since the division of the dV among the stages was incorrect. I'll edit the IU.

Example of a new feature coming to BDB...

Check to make sure you're running all the correct versions of your mods. You have B9partSwitch installed, but not working. It triggers our MM configs for it, which remove all the fuel and such but doesn't properly add it back in. You can go into Gamedata/Bluedog_DB/Compatibility/ and delete the B9partSwitch stuff and everything will fix itself. @Foxxonius Augustus >>letting a Shuttle dock with my glorious Apollo era parts. Also, I've prepared a list of all the IVAs that I know of right now, including ones that can't be done yet. If you're interested in working on IVAs, start there. Those of you working on IVAs (@Daelkyr @TaintedLion) it would probably be good to connect and discuss there

FASA's stuff is under CC-BY-NC-SA now. If you modify the FASA IVA to better fit (since the detail is AWESOME) I'd greatly appreciate sharing it back to include in BDB (with credits for the modification work). Ditto if you finish Beale's.

Oh god what were you building... better not be putting some disgusting judeo-bolshevik spacecraft on top of my rockets No problem, welcome to the forums! Nyet.

I PM'd you.

I think it does look very plain. It needs some sort of additional shapes to break up both the frustum of the tank, and the frustum of the engines. The perfectly flat surfaces make it look sort of outdated.

You mean so you can look at it from behind and see the Kerbal's back? I actually *don't* like that - if you leave it so the Kerbal can only be seen from the front it reinforces how claustrophobic that pod would be. Also, gotta mention it here too, but thanks to @Pak for the awesome new signature!

Whoa. D: That's AWESOME! Question - will it be possible to set up the occlusion so that you can see into the windows, but can't see in through the sides etc?

Certainly not going to be anything stopping you. That's just not going to be the way the 'official' version works.

Likely going to be a sort of 'screw you, end user. undock this thing and redock it somehow'. Especially because then it works in the standalone Apollo/ATM freeflight configuration...

dontyellatme andimnotgonnatellyounowfigureitoutyourself

???

I was more thinking of things like Tantares' ATV and Ariane, which if I remember do not fit well. The Soyuz and Progress are already small so they wouldn't have the same issue.

I know you are fairly set in the 50% scale launchers (as it's your choice ) but don't you worry about payloads not fitting properly with their launchers if you're scaling them differently?