Zorg

I personally havent tested it with waterfall but having dealt with other plume mods as far as I know Engine Lighting module does not interact with or interfere with things in the Effects node. It works directly with the engines module. Put simply any existing engine lighting patches should still work. Whether the lighting might interact in a weird way with the mesh plumes is another question, a good opportunity for someone to test it out

The RS68 has a bright orange plume as a result of the ablative nozzle. Other engines are very transparent but do have a red hue. Theres room to tweak these waterfall plumes of course they arent final. That said the demo video i uploaded at night does seem a little unatural but in daylight conditions they do appear quite faint. Its a tricky balance between realism, something aesthetically pleasing and looking good in all lighting conditions. (also check the videos in the spoiler in my previous comment).

And er a little accessory to go with the above The straight section below is not part of the original Vega fairing design but is there to provide an optional extension. Not uploaded yet but should be very soon.

IMO thats a bit intense for an RL10 plume. Dylan semrau made what I think is a very realistic RL10 plume for the BDB one and I've made a few small modifications to that and converted it to use the directional shader. In addition I've derived a couple of different sea level plumes. The question of colour often comes up. You do see some pics of very blue RL10 plumes but every operational sea level hydrolox engine has always shown a reddish or reddish orange plume in flight (apart from the Delta IV RS68 which has an ablative nozzle contributes to the distinctive bright orange). Wrt to the RL10 specifically I'm fairly sure the blueish images are from vacuum chamber tests. Images of RL10-A5 used on DC-X as well as various open air horizontal test stand images show the reddish plumes. In any case I think these templates will be included the repo soon if you wish to use them. Left to right, 1) Hydrolox vacuum, 2) hydrolox sea level(Vulcain, SSME, RD0120 etc) 3) hydrolox sea level alternate (bit more orange, more energetic looking RL10-A5, BE3 etc). Some footage:

not yet but will be in the next update.

I too would like to know the answer to this.

Friznit maintains an excellent wiki where you can see all the historical (and many non historical builds). https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/wiki The list on the right side have the real world names but the part names in the actual build guide will use in game names so its easy to find everything. If you downloaded the github development branch instead of the official release you can find work in progress future guides here: https://github.com/friznit/Unofficial-BDB-Wiki/issues

I don't use it myself, Im quite happy with the standard blender 2.8 interface so felt no need to try it. I know one person who uses it and they seem quite happy with it. Cobalt and JSO use Maya.

Post KSP 1.10 there are issues with parts that have more than one module trying to provide procedural drag cubes. For instance a deployable solar panel module + a generic animation module etc. Can be solved by deleting all but one of the modules, loading the game, finding the drag cube in partdatabase.cfg and then defining it manually in the cfg. After that it should work fine with the other modules added in.

It's Mariner 10 . I er didn't copy the panel over to the other side but it will have two of course. Still a fair amount to do including science instruments, antennas etc.

Indeed, another example (though much rarer) is the Agena D which had a sump which stored a small amount of propellant which was pressurized independently from the main tanks and that could feed the engine for a restart without ullage. Technically I believe this system was part of the tankage and not strictly part of the engine assembly but in the BDB standalone Engine Ignitor configs we abstract it a bit and make the Agena D engine not need any ullage.

So usually I post pics of things when I'm done but I thought I would share some WIP pics of a little Centaur payload I'm working on right now.

I can now finally retire across the sea to Valinor.

These parts were completely removed in BDB v1.6.3. They have been obsolete for a long time a year and their textures replaced with "rusty" crushed textures since BDB 1.6.0. If you need Titan craft files please check the ones included in the download or here: https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/tree/master/Craft Files They are the relevant ones for the titan parts in the current official release.

Here are two simplified ways to look at it. 1) Same delta V as a liquid fuel tank stage Remember liquid hydrogen is less dense. So a fuel tank of the same size as an LFO one will give you LESS delta V. To get the same Delta V you need a bigger tank (or more tanks). When you achieve this what you will discover is that the MASS of the propellant will actually be less. And assuming you are comparing similar sized engines what you get is an LH2 stage that is bigger than the LFO stage, with the same delta V but much lighter. Whats the advantage? Any stages you have below it will now have more performance since its lifting a lighter load. 2) Same mass as a liquid fuel stage For example if you have a 10 tons of liquid fuel in a stage, try to build a liquid hydrogen stage that also has 10 tons of fuel. You will find you need much bigger tanks (or more) than even case 1) above. Now you have a stage that is much bigger than the LFO stage, same mass and significantly more delta V. As a general rule you get the benefit of LH2 stages when they are boosted by something else. If you have an LH2 core stage, use solid rockets to start with (think shuttle, SLS, Ariane 5). Lh2 upper stages give a lot of performance if they come after an LFO stage (think Saturn V which had a kerolox 1st stage followed by 2 hydrogen ones). If the rocket is all Hydrogen its difficult to get a performance benefit. The only real world rocket that does this is the Delta IV heavy and thats for industrial reasons than performance per se. it was in theory convenient to lash together 3 of the same cores. As Jade mentioned these benefits become more apparent when trying to build bigger rockets as the tank masses in KSP are quite heavy compared to the real world.

There were briefly in dev but we decided to merge it with the other camera experiment. Will delete that def at some point.

We could do, but might be better to do it like the new insulation panels so they can be staged just after the fairing separates.

If you have a problem with a science experiment with Kerbalism I suggest checking with the Kerbalism devs. Compatibility patches for BDB (and most other mods?) are centralised within Kerbalism itself so that they can maintain them properly.

KSP 1.10.0 broke modded fairings. There is no way to get them to work properly. You must upgrade to KSP 1.10.1 and use BDB v1.6.3. Due to how problematic the new fairing module is to deal with even after the 1.10.1 "fixes" we removed variants from the fairings themselves for the stock type fairings. The fairing bases will still have paint variants. None of this affects the procedural fairings patches or SAF.

Unfortunately I dont have a solution for that. No idea what the cause is. At least its temporary at the very beginning of the mission. If you wanted good screenshots or video of lift off, suggest letting the SRBs run for a few seconds before staging launch clamps.

Do you have a log, perhaps a video or screenshots? I do know of an issue where the SRB plumes cut out for a few seconds after take off (i have no idea why) but I would need some more specifics about your problem if thats different.

I dont quite recall the situation with the Altair but certainly the bigger star motors are all not at their "proper" scale having been rounded up or down to fit KSP bulkhead sizes. That rounding factor may not match up with the rounding factor for a given rocket which would lead to further discrepancies. This is the stuff we have to deal with when not developing for Realism Overhaul

There is an even lower profile 0.125m decoupler, I suggest using that for now, its still clips the antenna into the fairing but not so far that it can be seen outside. I believe the issue is caused by the fact the SRM nozzle should be recessed slightly into the GCU looking at the diagrams. These parts were made before the SAF project was a thing so there weren't allowances for that.

Modders were only able to fix fairings following some changes in KSP 1.10.1, they will be broken no matter what in KSP 1.10. Would suggest upgrading.

The Titan update for BDB has been out for some time. We arent interested in switching it over to Monoprop. We feel LFO covers an abstracted Kerolox or Hypergolic biprop mixture while mono represents, well monopropellant such as straight up hydrazine. We therefore use mono only for rca and various small OMS systems like Gemini, and probe engines. Even Apollo runs on LFO. For people who are interested in having hypergolics distinguished from LFO without going full realfuels, we have a tentative optional Az50+NTO patch in the issues section of BDB github. Functionally my understanding is the in game LFO has a mixture ratio and density that is in fact relatively speaking closer to biprop hypergols than kerolox actually and without a boiloff mechanic for stock Oxidiser to make it behave like liquid oxygen doesnt make much difference if you abstract both Kero and hypergolic biprop into one. In BDB we do distinguish the fuels with the choice of plume effects and the titan engines come in both flavours for each generation.