Jump to content

curtquarquesso

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    848

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by curtquarquesso

  1. curtquarquesso
    Absolutely fantastic. Glad to see it flying. I'll check the configs, and see how it plays. On the windows, I think they could definitely stand to have some subtle light probes near them to illuminate the window area. On a related note, how did you model the window grooves? That's always stumped me... Which part of: did you not understand? I've called for a mod to do some clean up here as seen fit. Do people even read previous replies before posting? Apologies in advance. I hate being rude...
  2. curtquarquesso
    The 0.9375m number assumed a 1.5m Gemini. I included a scaled mockup of Agena for Beale, just because I could. It looks large, but that's really the size that it should be. You'll need to figure out how it works with Atlas though... You may need a 0.9375m adapter for Atlas, if you don't already. On experiments, there was the experimental MMU, I believe there were some exposed payloads, but I'd have to look. They also attached a tether to Agena, and did some orbital ballet. I'll have to check. Making a convex collision mesh for that section so you can stuff equipment back there will be a pain, and it will also make symmetry and surface attachment back there possible, but frustrating. Not sure how to handle it really... I would not do this. No one is in that much need to get their hands on the add-on right now. Just please be patient, and wait for Beale to get things running again.
  3. curtquarquesso
    Keep discussion of KERBALSTUFF, CURSE, and CKAN to their respective forum topics. In other words, don't make me call a moderator. I'm being proactive before things get off the rails here. Beale will host wherever is convenient for him to host. End of discussion. There were multiple uses. It usually held an experiment. One mission held a prototype EVA MMU actually. I'll give the config a look-see. How does Agena scale relative to Beale's Gemini at the moment?
  4. curtquarquesso
    Heat shield: I would definitely leave it as integrated. This doesn't conflict with the Big G, as there was a hatch in the heat shield. As stated, just removing the ablator should do the trick. RCS: For RCS parts, are you creating them, or letting users use the existing BDB RCS parts? Service Module: Good choice to abandon the Kapton/Mylar/MLI. Wait for PBR. Have you attempted to fashion a primitive convex collider for the rear of the service module? I'd like to be able to store stuff back there for EVA access. I'll be pushing out a TweakScale update that will alleviate some of this hopefully.
  5. curtquarquesso
    Looks fantastic. Have you tried a normal map on it yet? The docking/science nose could use a little more greeble I think that gives it the appearance of a part that's meant for mechanical docking. I've not looked at Cobalt's Agena parts too much. Do they match with the orthographics I included in the Wings file? Also, here's one more site that may help with references and modeling: http://geminiguide.com/default.html
  6. curtquarquesso
    In the last revamp for the Soyuz/R7 in TantaresLV, the change of the launch escape motor was changed from something, to TLV_LES_A. Enough has changed, that those craft files are probably totally defunct. I would just make your own, and look at the pictures that CaptKordite provided.
  7. curtquarquesso
    I can help with this. I'm working on a reworking of the R7 that scales it more appropriately. It makes the top of the core stage 1.5m, as well as the strap on boosters, and keeps the bottom of the core 1.25m. I could whip up a 1.875m version I suppose. @Beale, I'll write a lengthier reply to you a bit later tonight.
  8. curtquarquesso
    Nozzles: Things to tend to look better when slightly exaggerated for the sake of KSP's art style, but I don't think many people will mind them either way. Ariane: Ultimately, the priority will be to scale it correctly to the ATV. I would not change the dimensions of ATV, or at least not drastically. I checked out the scaling, and it's surprisingly not all that inaccurate for the current iteration of the ATV. At 3.75m, it's only slightly larger than it should be compared to your ATV. The reason that Ariane is too large compared to the other launchers is that the widened integrated cargo carrier section of your ATV is 2.75m. By the math, it should be about 2.556m or so, but I think for the sake of making it actually appear like it's wider than 2.5m, as it should, 2.75 is probably ok. Though it may sound silly, it may make sense keeping Ariane at 3.75m. It's nice stock size, it's only slightly larger than it should be compared to your ATV, which is really what matters most, and there's no nice size to reduce it to that doesn't make the solid boosters either 1.7m or 1.5m. I can expand on config support, and allow people to scale it to 3.0m, and some other sizes in that range for the accuracy-nuts. Throw an orthographic into Wings, and play around with it yourself. I'm not so concerned with scale accuracy that I would want the parts to be less fun to play with. That's the priority. In addition, Tantares doesn't have a 3.75m LV, so it does fill a gap, however oversized it may seem in comparison to the other LVs. Crown: Yes! Like so: Consider that the sneak-preview for the re-tooling of the TLV I'm doing for my own use. And maybe this... Gemini: Agh. I'm just not sure about this. I would like to be able to use Gemini without having BDB installed. It could just cause confusion seeing parts that visually look like yours in another parts pack. Not all players pay attention to changelogs and development like we do... Glad to know it was just a simple .cfg error. Let me know how they work for you. Glad to know people enjoy using it. I actually found out that @Ven figured out soft-docking docking ports months before I did. All of his revamps of the Clamp-O-Trons have "bumpers" that work the same way. I'm going to have to talk to him about his Unity setup for those ports, and get some tips... In the event that Ariane does get scaled down, I agree with your point. Because they're radial, I don't think many people will care what diameter they are. You could conceivably even bake the nosecone onto them, and basically make the diameter irrelevant, as they wouldn't be stack-able at all, but, that would be a bit drastic.
  9. curtquarquesso
    What works that didn't work before? The configs that come with TweakScale for Tantares are horribly outdated.
  10. curtquarquesso
    Lack of PBR in 1.1 was sad news. I was really looking forward to it. I was planning on holding off on releasing stuff until 1.1 hit, but I guess I'll just push stuff out using the standard shaders in Unity. It'll be less work in the long term still to work ahead for PBR. The Mk2 aged very well for how old it was. Barely noticed a different frankly. I will say, for some reason, the engine nozzles seem much to small in comparison to the rest of the stage. What's your current source material? N1: In need of an overhaul, but probably low-priority. I can mock up the general scales of the parts and the appropriate divisions if it makes things easier for you at all. Ariane: What scale do you think you'll go for? 3.0m, or 3.125m? R7: More on that in a little while... Antares: I've got a fixed and properly scaled version I'll send your way when I feel it's done. I've figured out a way to do the "crown" on the top of the tank you're referring to. If you build it into the tank, it makes it unusable for play with most other parts. The trick is, to put the crown in the fairing of the engine that goes on top of it, not the tank itself. That way, everything is compatible with everything. I'll post pictures of what I mean below... That's part of the fun! Do the research yourself! I used to host craft files, but couldn't keep up with the revamps. Tis a lost cause for now. Ah. Yes. I do recall this. Usually, I prioritize scale of parts compared to each other over parts compared to the scale of the planet. At long as it performs about like you'd expect, and is equally balanced to stock, I'm good. This is a great post, and really well done. 1.875m still feels large for Gemini. If it's only slightly larger than the Soyuz descent capsule, then 1.5m makes more sense. The best argument for a 1.5m Gemini capsule is that it makes all the other related parts scale to normal sizes everyone likes like 1.875m, 0.625m, and the stock sizes. Least messy option by far. I think SQUAD needs to formally adopt 1.875m as a standard size. I was playing the other day with sole stock parts, and I could't make a single vesselI liked, because all the size transitions were just so awkward and jarring. Intermediate sizes like 1.875m, 0.9375m, and perhaps eventually 1.5m, makes building so much nice, provided you have a handful of adapters and transition parts to make things play nice. I'd like to see Gemini to remain in Tantares if at all possible. There's no reason both add-ons can't have their own takes on Gemini. On scaling, I didn't think so either. The general goal should be to try to make the size and scale as realistic as possible, while being totally compatible with the stock parts, and common intermediate sizes, right? I've been holding off on releasing TweakScale configs because I've been working on something. I'll make a post about it a bit later tonight hopefully.
  11. curtquarquesso
    Toggle-able shrouds could be made so much better if they they could allow authors to include multiple meshes for different size shrouds/interstages/tankbutts for users to cycle though in the tweakable menu. Procedural stuff is always tricky, because you're stretching a single texture over a user-specified mesh, and it can often look bad compared to a properly modeled and textured mesh.
  12. curtquarquesso
    I think where people get confused, is when they assume that the stock Mk1 Pod is equal to the Mercury capsule. (1.9m) I don't do this, because Mercury only flew and handful of times, and the program only lasted 5 years. The Soyuz program on the other hand, is the longest running manned spaceflight program to date. It's far more significant. I'd much rather Soyuz be a convenient size increment like 1.25m than Mercury. It's more convenient to fudge Mercury up to 1.25m than it is to fudge Soyuz up to 1.5m. If you do make the assumption that the Mk1 Pod is perfectly equal to the Mercury capsule, then, the Soyuz capsule would equal 1.447m in KSP, which is close enough to 1.5m. This is not the way I do it. The only exception to this rule is Gemini. By the Soyuz scaling, Gemini should be nearly same, but due to the service/retro module's strange dimensions, this leaves us with a bunch of messy sizes. When you make Gemini 1.25m, the diameter for the Titan II GLV becomes 1.733m, the RCS/parachute block becomes 0.556m, and it's all just nasty. Once you fudge the Gemini capsule to 1.5m, the GLV becomes pretty close to 1.875m, the RCS/parachute block becomes 0.625m, and everything is once again consistent, and "lego-like." This is how I do it too! On the R7/Soyuz scaling, you are correct. It's definitely not scaled correctly against Soyuz. The third stage, and the top of the core stage, and the bottom of the strap-on boosters should be equal to 1.5m, to properly support a 1.25m Soyuz. (Recall that the flared base of the Soyuz propulsion section is roughly 1.5m in diameter.) I have in the past remade these parts for my own use with correct dimensions. It's not all that bad to work with really. The slimmer portion of the core stage still scales roughly to 1.25m, but Beale's R7 is definitely slimmed down for the sake of convenient part diameter increments.
  13. curtquarquesso
    It would be a BIG job. Everything in the add-on revolves around the Soyuz capsule being 1.25m. It would throw a lot of things off. I've created a Gemini capsule for Beale that's 1.5m, but he hasn't actually committed to revamping Gemini as such. He's working on Proton and eventually Ariane at the moment.
  14. curtquarquesso
    There was a recent update. I'm on mobile right now, so I can't check. In the config for the part, could you tell me what the values are for "scale" and "rescaleFactor" ? Also, has the part been TweakScaled in anyway? Do you know if it is the root part of the vessel? Also, if you're going to take pictures take them in sunlight. I can barely make out what's going on.
  15. curtquarquesso
    Glad to be of service.
  16. curtquarquesso
    I seem to be getting an error in the search, but only specially when I search for a specific phrase... Any ideas?
  17. curtquarquesso
    If you assume that the Tantares Soyuz capsule is 1.25m in KSP, then the Proton scales roughly to 2.5m. All the Salyut/Vega parts are 2.5m, so Proton has to be 2.5m as well. I've provided Beale with two setups for that section. One all one part like we currently have, and another that's divided properly. The divided one yields a messy intermediate size that's useless for much else. It's up to Beale on how he wants to do it. Big G: The scaling mockups I provided should help you at least plan for a future Big G. I'm currently working on a mockup for the proposed Gemini lunar configuration. Some of those updates should be reflected in the file I shared with you. Proton: Make sure you get another source image or two beside andegraf. A few of the models have been slightly hit or miss. Looks ok to me though.
  18. curtquarquesso
    3.0m isn't possible. The current Mir modules are all 2.5m. It wouldn't be correctly scaled compared to them.
  19. curtquarquesso
    Yes. I'll try to as soon as I can. Whoo! Proton still needs to be 2.5m without a doubt, it's the height that needs tweaking. I'll send you an accurate diagram as soon as I can. I'm in the middle of cramming for an exam, so I'll get it to you sometime tomorrow. Not quite. There's APAS, Probe and Drogue, and the Hybrid Probe and Drogue ports used on Zarya, Zvezda, Pirs, and Poisk. They are all compatible, but the collar is a larger diameter. The revamps of the ports I did are accurate for standard probe and drogue. I think it would make sense to make the full 0.9375m ports Beale did more like the wider diameter hybrid docking ports. Docking ports still need a lot of work. Andegraf is nice, but inaccurate in a lot of places. I agree. Be careful using this resource. Agreed. Omelettes and eggs. I never have a problem with broken crafts really. I always favor improvement. I have more fun building than I do flying nowadays. 2.5m is definitely too small for Ariane 5. Ariane would work best as a 3.0m launcher. You can't make it 2.7m, or the ATV barely fits. Good info. 3.125m wouldn't be bad for Ariane, but 3.0m would be perfect. I'd be happy with either really. I believe my TweakScale config allows for 3.0, and could easily be made to scale to 3.125m Play around with it and experiment. Gemini Revamp: There was talk of a Gemini revamp, so I solved the age-old Gemini dilemma, and it only requires one "off-size" The divisions are these: Gemini_Port_A 0.625m Gemini_Parachute_A 0.625m Gemini_RCS_A 0.625m Gemini_Crew_A 0.625m x 1.5m Gemini_Engine_A 1.5m x 1.875m Not pictured are parts for Big G, MOL, and an alternate version of the service module split into two sections, a retro-propulsion module, and a life-support and experiment module. So, they could be done as one piece, or as two. Don't think too many people care. The Big G crew compartment is 1.875m x 2.5m, the Big G service module is 2.5m x 3.75m, and the MOL crew compartment is a straight 1.875m compartment. Dealing with conical frustums in Wings is maddening. I wish you could lock your slope angle, and then slide vertices along it, but alas, no. Trigonometry is required. I got lucky by just making loop cuts, and getting the correct loop diameter at the related height. Tricky stuff. There are supporting orthographic drawings included in the Wings3D file. Should be uploaded to the drive now. As long as you don't change the overall dimensions, everything is cut up and scaled to avoid off-sizes, to make the slant-heights, and capsule slops, and part proportions as accurate as possible.
  20. curtquarquesso
    I don't have a ton of time to embellish, BUT LET ME HELP PLEASE. I've worked a long time on how to do Gemini. I can mockup the appropriate scales, and sizes tonight. Don't set anything in stone just yet. I'll report back in a little while...
  21. curtquarquesso
    Craft files are a lost cause for now. I can't even keep myself happy with them. Maybe some day. TweakScale configs, absolutely. I'll try to push an update, but there shouldn't be much in Tantares that can't be scaled right now. Have any specific requests for things you want to be scaleable? Hmm. I'll guess we'll just have to wait what the 1.1 Porkjet-styled windows look like.
  22. curtquarquesso
    Mono/Solar Propellant: Yep. Perfect sense. One day, just not today. Heh. Cygnus HIAD: Definitely a bit futurey, but not overly so. I mean, it seems Kerbal-kind has mastered high-thrust solar-electric propulsion, and can safely operate nuclear engines, so I'd say inflatable heat shields aren't out of their ability. Plus, I think it was @RoverDude who teased an inflatable heat shield due for 1.1. It's neat, but I'm thinking about something low-profile, and compact. I won't be getting around to it for a little while here, but I'm doing to start mocking up some of the basic shapes in Wings and see how it all works out. PBR: In fact I do! CrazyBump. For Windows and OS X. Lucky me. It's super quick, but doesn't offer a ton of control, like you'd get with a normal map editing program. Works great on everything but things with caution stripes. For some reason, when it sees a caution stripe, it digs a bottomless trench in the map. It can be compensated for, but I'm not sure how you get it to ignore that stuff. Perhaps just turn off the layer with the caution stripes on it in photoshop, export, normal-map, then revert. Make sure when you choose a file to import as a photo to normal map, (or whatever-else-map) that you choose a .png, not the .psd. If you choose the .psd, it'll read the alpha channel, and you'll get bad results. One more. I swear this is the last one, even though this is technically the wrong thread... I'll have to ask @DangerouslyDave how he did the windows on his capsule revamps. No matter what I do with the sliders, I can't get them to look like glass. I think it's either that they're already diffused mapped with a color, or that when they're opaque, you'll never really make it look like glass.
  23. curtquarquesso
    I've got some ideas on how to split materials with parts. Wings3D has a someone cumbersome system when it comes to managing materials and textures, but it is doable. I'll PM you about it later today. As for the monopropellant tanks, I wish I had said something earlier, but is there an easy way to make the curved radiator/solar section cover a larger radius of curvature? (Not sure how best to convey it...) They seem a bit narrow, and don't cover enough of the vessel it feels when working with them in the game. Maybe for another time seeing as you've just gotten them done. Lots of variety of interesting textures when looking at the entire craft assembled! It definitely helps spice up the grey-ness of the parts without adding excessive coloring. I like the tiny grid pattern and the texturing on the MonoProp pressure vessels. Very subtle. Ah! One of my favorite parts! So many uses for it. A thought: Sometimes, you want to be able to attach a decoupler or mating fixture to the back wall of the thing, so you can jettison your payload directly out the doors, right? Currently, with nodes on the top and bottom, and only surface attach on the back wall, which can be funky sometimes due to collider problems, this can be difficult. You usually end up decoupling your payload inline with the cargo bay, (usually violently), and then you have to either have to back the spacecraft off your payload, or maneuver your payload of of the spacecraft if you can. Very frustrating. When you write up the config for it, could you put a Size_0 or Size_1 node on the back wall with the +Y axis facing out the door opening? Perhaps some visual indicators that you can attach a decoupler there to shoot payloads out the doors? I have an idea for Cygnus... Overview: http://websites.isae.fr/IMG/pdf/20120619-heart_update_v02_fmc.pdf Video Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7B50CrMb-s Addition: It seems PBR basically does away with the need for alternate colored textures. As long as the underlying texture isn't already a strong color (gray isn't...) then you just change the albedo to the color you want. Obviously, I'd have to mask of sections of the model material to preserve the colors of certain parts, but when using PBR, you pretty much have to do that anyways. Learning things every time I tweak things. Also, the metallic map doesn't have to be created from scratch it looks like. You can just use the texture file's alpha channel, and it'll use that to map what's shiny/metal/specular, and what's not. Makes initially getting things to look decent pretty easy without having to rework a ton of stuff.
  24. curtquarquesso
    Everything I did was fairly slap-dash. I used CrazyBump to throw together the normal and spec maps. Very imprecise, and very rough. Here! Crinkles: It's very basic, and poorly done, but the texture itself probably wouldn't nee much tweaking to support decent looking crinkles. The crinkle normal map would be the thing that'd have to be created for the texture. Currently, there's lots of visible tiling. I think I'll try putting crinkles on @planeguy868's black fabric TMA textured Soyuz... Hmm... As someone who's generally new to texturing, I'm loving it. It makes so much sense from someone who doesn't have to unlearn things. Even if you just throw your old assets and textures into Unity, they look better. All they need is tweaking of metal-ness and albedo. They won't look as good as they could, but you don't have to make metallic maps, spec maps, normal and AO maps for the stuff to look decent. Can't wait to see people start redoing assets with the new shaders. Can't stop me now... Here's the Tantares flagship vessel: The process consisted of going into the models, and sorting out which sections of the models get assigned to which materials. All generic gray parts of hull get grouped, the window panes get grouped, all the greebley bits get grouped into one material, and some of the fabric parts get grouped, etc. Then, once it's all in Unity, depending on what the material is supposed to represent in reality, you can tweak to make it look correct. Large areas like the main sections of hull, the fabric bits, and anything that would benefit from a normal and AO map got one applied to it conservatively. I think metallic maps would make it look good, but I don't really know how to generate one at the moment. Will investigate.
  25. curtquarquesso
    So, I've started messing around with Unity 5... CYGNUS: The aluminum panel segments on the PCM came out looking really nice with no excessive fiddling. The albedo is somewhere in-between platinum and aluminum. PBR is just amazing. I experimented on the service module with a crappy Kapton/Mylar texture I dug up somewhere. If KSP is lacking anything, it's Kapton and Mylar. It naturally looks out really out of place next to the Tantares style, but Kapton and Mylar is now totally doable in KSP. ATV: It just keeps getting better. Another quick and dirty test of a polar oppositely materialed part. Thermal fabric needs a normal map to really stand out, but I wouldn't say that it's a necessity. The aluminum structure stands out a lot more with the metal shading. I've got it setup currently so that the fabric and soft-goods are in a separate material from the aluminum paneling, trim, and the engine assembly. I also threw little Capella's beady little eyes into a material of their own so I could make them super black and glossy like two little tiny marbles. I'm actually curious as to why more people aren't ramping up for 1.1 PBR shaders. Sure, you can't test them in game right now, but if you've been modding for a while, export to KSP is fairly trivial if your Unity setup and .cfg are set up correctly. There's a lot to learn with PBR, but it's so much fun. Heh.
×
×
  • Create New...