CobaltWolf

I don't know, they were cool :S

It's cool to know that people put that much thought into using this stuff! I'd love to see some of the stuff you've made. I'll think about those, I'm not sure the Star 13 is meaningfully different than the BE-3 that is already in the mod. STAR-26 would be hard to pin into a size class (also, I just realized my Star-20 is too small). That's what I thought the response would be, I didn't expect to hear so many people do go through the stress of using the kickers. The SRBs in BDB should have something approximating the IRL thrust curves, thanks to @Jso. I wish they were customizable using a GUI on the fly to help give more control. Meh, I don't like using reaction wheels for that reason (they make a lot of the cool IRL RCS and verniers pointless). Stinks about the RAM, I'm sure I'm not helping the issue with how big the mod is

I'd love to come back to this some day when I can, the Blue Streak parts might need some work but nothing too horrible I think. Finding time to work on them now is difficult.

First.

Were the burner stages used on something else I don't know about? Slash, any other vehicles that are 'almosts'? Hopefully the thrust curves help alleviate that somewhat. The upper stages can all be shut down using the action menu. Good to know! I don't see that many screenshots from people so I don't really know what is and isn't getting used in the mod.

Should I take that as a vote against the expansions I outlined? Yes, they are always a 'some day' thing that I hesitate to get to for some reason, even though they're probably what I actually should be working on at this point in the mod's life... if anything, just more 'payloads' and less launch vehicles... Mmhmm. I think that is the hang up many users have. Generally the idea is to use a combination of the ability for BDB's upper stage solids to be turned off (I wish I could make it easier, I personally always wind up hot-keying them) and the orbital adjustment modules (HAPS/PIBS, and the proposed larger OAMS and PBV stages) to correct your orbit/trajectory for however much you need before releasing the payload. This alleviates the issue somewhat, and long as you have a general idea how much delta V your mission needs you can do some additional tailoring to the fuel loads for stack. For Scout-class payloads I think you're mostly just aiming for any LEO orbit (testing new parts, primitive comm relays, contracts) so it isn't as big a deal there.

The compatibility folder IS inside the gamedata, specifically Gamedata/Bluedog_DB/Compatibility. Unfortunately, neither myself or my co-author maintain any of the compatibility files at this point - we're pretty reliant on community uploads, which is why we hold on to them ourselves in the first place - easier for someone to come along and make a fix to them if they don't have to build a full compatibility setup from scratch. I've seen other mods where such compatibility files are linked in a single post and afterwards are bery hard to find. It looks like lately there has been some tinkering on the RemoteTech and SETI Rebalance configs, but again I frankly don't know what their status is. But, maybe I should hold my tongue - I just looked at the recent issues on the Github, and it looks like the syntax for our remotetech configs was recently edited to properly activate only when SETIRebalance is *not* detected - ie, the configs are disabling themselves. I don't know why that is, since it sounds like it just means our antennas just don't do anything with SETI installed. I think opening up your copy of the remotetech_Antennas.cfg file in something like Notepad++, and then running a find and replace to change all instances of NEEDS[RemoteTech,!SETIRebalance] to NEEDS[RemoteTech]. In the mean time, if anyone else here uses those mods and knows what is up, please reach out on Github with some suggestions. And now, for something completely different... As you might tell from the previous post, I am currently sidetracked from the Atlas V (artist blocked!) and a would-be-small revamp on the radial Castor/Algol's nose cones has grown in size somewhat. As excruciating a dev cycle as this has been, I tend to try and be a 'If I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it right' type person (when I can be). After all, I did list revamping all the solid-based LV parts as one of the goals for this update some months ago on Github. To me, that includes the Scout, the Castor-120/MX-based parts (Athena/Minotaur/Carrack stuff), the various STAR motors and other upper stage solids, the "PIBS" and "Super PIBS" stages, etc. These parts have aged fairly poorly IMO, and there is some opportunities for new additions to these families. However, I want to know - Who actually uses the various solid motors (besides the radial Titan SRBs)? Does anybody in the community actually bother dealing with solid kick stages? Does anybody use 1.5m or 1.875m launchers that primarily use the existing BDB solids like the Castor-120? I know that, personally, they are fairly interesting to model/texture, and there's a certain appeal to their use. But, I feel that its likely many players do not make use of them, and would rather see me spend time on other parts. That's completely fine, I just want to give people a chance to speak up so I know if that is the case. If anyone is wondering what sort of new stuff we would get (in addition to the existing parts getting significantly improved, and more accurate, art): Orbus 21 and Castor 30 would be correctly differentiated, I'm not quite sure how yet. Currently the one we have is something of a combination of the two. If nobody cares then we'll just sort of default to a better version of what we have. I had to think for a moment, but the reason why we have a Castor 30 and not an Orbus 21 is the IRL Athena was supposed to use a Castor 30 if I even flew again (it didn't). Castor 30XL, along with Castor 30, would have a black paint scheme like the ones used on Antares. If Orbus-21's 'Athena 2' configuration is dropped, then only the XL would be black. Orbus 21 is, for those that don't know, also the first stage of the Inertial Upper Stage. If I make an 'Athena 2' version it might not be possible to have them in the same. And then there's TOS to worry about... The Athena 2 OAMS system, basically a 1.5m version of the Super PIBS, for post burn orbit corrections. Pictured here and here. MX Peacekeeper Post Boost Vehicle. Basically, a fully integrated 1.5m upper stage including a small main engine. Pictured here and here. The MX Peacekeeper 2nd and 3rd stages would be on the to-do list. This is something I promised to @Pappystein and @Jso over a year ago now, and honestly, they're kinda dope. Why do you ask? Because they're SRBs with extending nozzles. Since this also would involve the STAR motors getting redone, a Burner 2 stage might be appropriate. Burner 2 is basically taking an off the shelf STAR-37 and adding enough hardware (full attitude control and guidance systems, for starters) to make it an independent upper stage, mostly for launching small weather satellites using surplus Thor and Atlas missiles as a first stage. If anyone has any particular feelings on the above, please let me know! FASA is still the go-to mod for American stuff in Realism Overhaul, with some of the less notable/small launchers being covered by Raidernick's US Launchers pack.

Small WIP update, because of all the work that got put into the other radial solids, we wanted to do some touchups to the radial Castor IV (from the Scout, we use it to represent a Castor 4 due to its over scaled nature)... one thing led to another, Scout is desperately in need of revamp and I don't see much of a point in putting off necessary things if I have the drive to do them. The new Algol will have correctly functioning thrust vanes, and the new fins that go with it will have moving tips like the real ones. If you look at the Centaur interstage - those three spots are three of the six RCS jets! The inline version will include them, and they will stay part of the booster after the lower part of the shroud is jettisoned. The Castor itself is mostly from Scout, with some influence taken from the Maxus sounding rocket for how the mouth of the nozzle should look. The larger-than-real-life size difference between the boosters is rectified by having the Algol represent the larger Algol-III variant, which was wider. The black line on the Castor interstage is the 'correct' diameter of the first stage, so this is a great compromise. It essentially means the BDB scouts only represent the later operation variants, which have a much more meaningful payload anyways. The little hump to adapt the size is now the autoshroud for the Castor. The radial version of the Algol will have a more traditional, Castor-like nozzle, as of course the radial Castor will as well. Please note all of these textures are very WIP.

Alright, just got back to my PC and I think I have an answer for you. Back on Feb 1st (the most recent release), I had to make a change to the model file that appears to have partially fixed it. However, several days later, a user ( @Pappystein, as it turns out) pushed a fix for the part's config that seems to have completed the fix. At the time I remember thinking that the upcoming dev cycle would be short, sweet, and restrained (oh how I was wrong), but anyways - yes, the answer is to download the Master file from github and use that version of BDB for the time being No, the parts are 62.5%/64% scaled to fit with other stockalike parts

<3

They were uploaded last night.

Just wanted to comment on this - 10-foot stages like the Titan should be 1.875m, not 2.5m in KSP. Depending on who you ask the scaling is either 62.5% or 64%, both of which result in 10 foot rockets (and anything in the 3 meter class) being 1.875m in game.

She should just make them since she already has the first one.

No, I didn't have a chance to upload it. I was trying to get more done this weekend, but wound up not feeling well and having to leave things off about there. Having artist's block on one of the last Atlas V parts which isn't helping.

New 4m long Centaur tank for Atlas IIA/IIIA. Both of the new Centaur tanks now have color switching between white and orange foam, and both have flag transforms.

Yes. Eventually

Awesome! Misc space history stuff is always welcome here, anything that might be reference I don't have yet (including things like plastic models, those can be super helpful!) is especially useful! EDIT: Missed this No, thank you!

I definitely remember seeing that mod, but I can't remember the name. I don't know why, but I feel like @Snark might know? It might have been his.

Very cool, glad I decided to poke my nose in this section of the forums today! I wonder why your Skylab solar panels aren't working, the BDB plugin should automatically flip them so they are pointing the same direction.

@DECQ ooo, that new LEM looks lovely! Definite improvement over the old.

Oh, yes. I found out since those parts were originally made that segment is actually the avionics core, not a fuel tank. I didn't want to break craft files (indeed, the fuel load got distributed to the other parts so the dV should be the same), but since the parts are not released yet maybe it would be better to change the part's name? Shoot, I could make a separate model that still has the little fuel tank end caps and keep the new one as a separate control core part. What do people think? Might be confusing. Not 'last resort', as I said just try to corroborate with other sources (that *don't* cite astronautix), and be skeptical of the numbers instead of accepting them at face value. To stem off anyone asking, I don't believe I have the ability to change the sounds back to the old ones. I think Squad just overwrote them. Just pushed a small commit to Github, dropped the packet cost to 0.4 EC from 1.5. Is that better? Side note, but just wanted to gently remind people that we primarily try to keep track of issues on the Github repo, since that way any information on said bugs can be permanently catalogued and addressed when we have a chance to get around to it. So, logging issues there is appreciated, but please make sure that you have documented it properly, and check to make sure there isn't already a similar issue. Anything related to work in progress parts should be logged under the main issue for them, etc.

Astronautix is a great source, but I always try and find another corroborating source because I have found A LOT of errors in those entries over the years. By the way, Wikipedia doesn't count since usually they cite Astronautix. Sometimes Astronautix is the only source I can find that has numbers for something, and then I need to make a judgement call if I believe it. For the curious, by errors I generally mean using 'placeholder' numbers in place of hard numbers where he can't find better sources, for example the Titan-Barbarian rocket stages are listed as being the same diameter as the Titan 3! As an example of other sources I use, with these GEMs I was able to just find Orbital ATK's 2008 solid motor catalogue and use that as my source! In general my number one source is photos of the actual rocket in question. Often there are variations between individual rockets of a design, giving me flexibility and options for how I detail a rocket. Some of my favorite websites for more information, besides Astronautix, include (in no particular order): The NASA Technical Reports Server, of course! b14643.de Alternate Wars' Space Engine Encyclopedia (For engines I am often able to compare these numbers with Astronautix's) Andegraf.com (Pretty orthographics, but questionable accuracy) Gunter's Space Page Russian Space Web Scott Lowther's blog and Patreon rewards - this man is doing god's work and anyone interested in aerospace should support him on Patreon! Space Launch Report's Library section David SF Portree's Spaceflight History blog Again, in general the important thing I've found is to try and find multiple sources for anything, though often I am limited to just one. I figured I'd try to list as many as I can remember, since I know a lot of people haven't heard of some or even all of these. Hopefully a few people are going down a rabbit hole today... Don't tempt me I've thought about it after seeing @Drakenex's attempts to clean up that old CST-100 model. I don't have time for it unfortunately. Of course, if someone wanted to make a mini mod with a complete, fresh CST-100 it would be a nice limited scope project...

Now in game: GEM-40 (updated), GEM-40-Inline (was requested), GEM-46, GEM-60, GEM-60XL (I wanted a longer one...). All have switching between 3 colors of stripe (or none at all), and all can switch between straight and angled nosecones. Delta II core and AJ-60A for comparison!

Development stream starting on Twitch! Taking a break from the Atlas V and working on the remaining solids for the Delta series, as well as some general cleanup of those parts!