Jump to content

tjsnh

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    942

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by tjsnh

  1. tjsnh
    Don't sweat it. You layed out the folders and parts files very logically (FAR FAR better than some other large parts mods), and it's incredibly easy to delete stuff out of the "old" mod that has been replaced.
  2. tjsnh
    Question. From the wiki : "A greenhouse part that allows growing Food is planned, but is not included yet." Is it possible to add lines to some existing part to manufacture "food" from "electriccharge" the same way the refinery stuff makes fuel out of ore, or the fuel cells make electricity out of fuel? Or will this feature need more source to be written into the TAC library?
  3. tjsnh
    An oddly shaped engine, to be sure - looks like it's coming along well !
  4. tjsnh
    Yep.
  5. tjsnh
    Version 5 is coming shortly, within a month. This will be a pretty major overhaul, due to drastic changes in a couple of the dependent mods. Updates include: Completely new tech tree. Added hypergolic fuel as an alternative to LOX, and added a few tanks/engines that can use it. Inclusion of discontinued parts from Tantares/TantaresLV which are no longer included in those mods. Refinements to the additional contracts Updated craft files Support for the fixed KSCswitcher mod, to move the KSC to the desert on the western continent Support for Kerbal Planetary Base Systems (at the very top of the tech tree)
  6. tjsnh
    Cool - sounds like "less than a month" is maybe a safe guess? That 2nd stage engine model looks great. It'll go quite well with the contares decoupler that has the framework/truss strucure.
  7. tjsnh
    Not to be "that guy" - but is there a rough guess as to the release of the "new" Tantares, and the next rev of LV with the R-7 ? Not trying to rush anything, just planning my own mod's release schedule. :-)
  8. tjsnh
    THANK YOU , this is an ENORMOUS help to use as a base reference.
  9. tjsnh
    Stupid question - Is there a config file somewhere (or set of configs) with all the default properties of the stock solar system filled in (as opposed to undefined, as in the cfg that comes with the kopernicus download)? I've poked around a bit and can't find one.
  10. tjsnh
    The side boosters burn for too long. If the booster engines were a bit less efficient, it'd be in rather good shape IMO.
  11. tjsnh
    I love that you pre-empted my "op" comment ;-) Gave the parts a few quick launches, functionality is very good, verniers work right, etc etc. Thumbs up.
  12. tjsnh
    The parts are balanced-for-purpose rather than balanced-against-stock (or thats how it seems) They end up being very well tweaked to get a shuttle into orbit without a lot of spare delta-v
  13. tjsnh
    I'm not at home and am unable to test at the moment - do the new booser engines have the built-in verniers that work now?
  14. tjsnh
    Needs more betas ;-) .. and toptank that tops in 1.875m .. ;-)
  15. tjsnh
    Correct, those are protective covers only.
  16. tjsnh
    I'd love to get in on this if possible, it would be a great addition to my career mod.
  17. tjsnh
    Speaking of which, wasn't there a link to the beta of the new soyuz parts? I seem to have lost it.
  18. tjsnh
    I cant even tell you how excited I am for this. Very much looking forward to the release of the new soyuz stack.
  19. tjsnh
    Flatter attachment plates like the old N1 frisbee engines? Attachment point slightly "up" inside the booster like behind a lip/hood or something? Where the dotted line indicates a recess up into the tank, and the green square is the engine part. The attachment point would be at the top of the green square in this pic, and the bottom of the tank forms a kind of fairing/lip around it. Not sure if I'm explaining what I'm thinking very well.
  20. tjsnh
    This is what I was talking about in my last post, but was having a hard time articulating. Take a look at the bottom rocket, and how it "matches up" with the image in the middle compared to the top rocket. By shortening, or removing, the straight section at the bottom of the rocket it becomes a much closer match to the "real" one.
  21. tjsnh
    Suggestion - consider having the tank not taper-off on the bottom as it does in these pictures, or perhaps have the bottom flare out in a shroud or something around the engine mounting. The one complaint I've had with the tantares R7 stack is that the bottom of the radial boosters flattens out instead of flaring out. The only real way to prevent that, that I can think of, would be to have the tank extend a bit beyond/around the mounting point for the engine in a shroud, or to have the engines which mount on the boosters be rather short. Or just have the engines include the flare shape, but it would prevent their use in other designs. Just 10 cents
  22. tjsnh
    My ten cents, just bear with me as this rolls into a few other places. This is presuming that 1.5m is out of the question (though I think it would be the best option if the soyuz crew capsule stays 1.25m). Thoughts on the R7 stack (just calling it the R7 stack to distinguish it from the Soyuz crewed spacecraft, which I will call the Soyuz stack for now) being 1.875m: If the R7 stack goes up to 1.875 we gain a few things, and lose a few things. The fairing housing the Soyuz stack will "bulge" slightly less and look a lot more like the "real" launcher and spacecraft assembly. However, the engines and tanks will have slightly less utility value for use outside of the assembled R7 rocket. Upping the R7 to 1.875m would put it slightly more out of ratio to the Proton (presuming the proton stays 2.5 if/when it is eventually remade) compared to the current 1.25m R7 stack. It would also break compatibility with the Vostok (and other parts) from the "old" tantares mod. If the R7 stack stays 1.25m, the fairing stays "bulge-y" with the Soyuz spacecraft stack mounted inside it, but the parts retain their multi-use capability. What I would strongly caution against is having the top of the R7 stack cap off at 1.875 but the bottom of the core be 1.25m. The difference would be too drastic, and would look exceedingly odd. This is all presuming the Soyuz stack stays 1.25m. If the Soyuz spacecraft stack were scaled up to, say, 1.5m and the R7 booster stack scaled to 1.875m this would be an almost ideal solution for several reasons. It would make the Soyuz big enough to be modded for a crew of 3 without looking like a Tardis, but would allow the fairing off the R7 to "bulge" only a little bit and look a lot more like the "Real" booster+spacecraft assembly. Having the "top" and side-boosters as 1.5 and having the bottom "core" 1.25 (with a 1.25m soyuz spacecraft) would in my opinion be a great choice for a variety of reasons, BUT it also introduces an oddball size that isn't used for any other parts in the pack at the moment which I know you are very hesitant to do especially considering the lack of structural parts as size adapters, fairing bases, and so on. At the end of the day, I don't think there is an optimal solution given that the parts are meant to live in a larger world (the larger tantares mod, which contains more than JUST the R7 / Soyuz) and play nicely in that world. The key thing to keep in mind, which I think you do, is that the R7 rocket stack is going to sit below the Soyuz spacecraft stack and as such probably shouldn't look especially over/under sized compared to the Soyuz+fairing. The current sizes, based around a 1.25m spacecraft and 1.25m booster, work pretty well given the limitations of "playing nice" inside the game's parts ecosystem. Only change that formula if you are really sure.
  23. tjsnh
    Kindof. Some of the parts in the "new" replace parts in the "old" so if you install both you'd want to manually delete the duplicate parts out of the "old" first.
  24. tjsnh
    Its a new mod, he started it over from a "clean slate"
  25. tjsnh
    I tried that, but it was causing problems sometimes changing camera views and loading saves. :-(
×
×
  • Create New...