Pappystein

1) are you planning on posting the Textures unlimited cfgs? 2) the Polish of the CSM was in part to make it pretty for the media. Also it would aid in visibility for docking. There are other reasons for the polish which include to help with heat management etc... I do not think the AARDV, nor the engines need such a treatment. Every AJ-10 I have seen for the CSM had an oxidized or matte look. Something Cobalt has done an amazing job of reproducing. 3) While there may be an exception or two, Agena almost exclusively flew either White and black or Bare metal (non polished) and Black color schemes. The exception is the Gemini Docking target Agena. This was polished for several reasons once of which again is visibility in space for docking. Any chance of having it switch back and forth between the TexturesUnlimited Texture and CobaltWolf's? 4) Skylab, only had a few parts that were a bare metal (not painted.) Space Lab however is an ETS and I would defer to E of Pi. Over 2/3rds of Atlas Rockets were polished But again not all (although there was a far higher percentage of Atlas's launched with polished tanks than not.) So Atlas is a SURE as it was the most commonly flown variant. A lot of Atlas Rockets early on had Day-glow Orange on the plumbing fairings (the side structures) IIRC DayglowOrange is still the brightest pigment Humankind has used in Paint. I would ASSUME that the Vega upper stage would have received the same polish treatment. VERY few STAR rockets have a polished metal case. First off most of the metal cased STAR rockets are Titanium and that metal does not lend itself to polishing the same way rolled sheet steel or rolled stainless steel does. Actually a goodly percentage of the STAR motor cases were painted, Gloss black, Gloss White, Matte British Racing Green (dk green) or left raw with only a simple (matte finish) clear coat. Specificly the STAR-37 and STAR-48 family can be found here: https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/propulsion-systems/docs/2016 OA Motor Catalog.pdf You can clearly see the STAR-37 and Star-48 are mostly raw and steel reinforcement straps are the only part that have any sort of polish to them (IE not the Titanium hull, just the attachments to it are polished.)

Um Cobalt and JSO asked me why I needed some specific config alts for a MM file set I was helping to test (part NOT to be coming soon but maybe... someday) and I said because I need to reuse it. They said For a 60 cost empty SRM? I said yes. Local Congress critter didn't like me launching from KSP on my northern orbits and dropping stages on the poor Homes... err... trees. The only stage I have not been able to recover is the MS-IC stage (my personal MM file.) Seems it breaks up before StagedRecovery can grab it. I probably have something screwy in the MM file. I recover the engine mount and the engines but I never seem to recover the tank. Half of my launches are devoted to recovering non probe controled stages from LKO. And most of my upper stages have a probe core of some sort on board (even if it is a pioneer 0.125m core.) I ALWAYS try to leave a little fuel in my orbiting stages with probe core to de-orbit it to recovery. Actually the Winged Saturn S-IC stage was only *SERIOUSLY* proposed for Saturn-Shuttle. None of the winged proposals I have seen are for the Apollo era Moon launches except in VERY GENERIC, hey we could try this, kind of wishful proposing/thinking. Parachutes for the versions of Saturn IN BDB currently... to stay correct to history. But I do believe @e of pi was involved with an alternative timeline that had a Saturn Shuttle launcher and a winged Saturn S-IC stage.... I THINK. I ALSO think I read in one of the many books on the Valk I have, that North American and General Electric proposed slapping a bunch of J93-GE-3 or -9 engines on a Valkyrie derived wing structure, appropriately scaled up onto the S-IC stage. As part of a Saturn Shuttle proposal.

Um. Put the AJ-260 inline short SRM in place of the Saturn IB stage? AFter all that is what the AJ-260 Cobalt made the other day is for!

Well I tried and failed. I spent two hours with a MM file that wouldn't give me bupkis on this subject. My much *AHEM* SELF lauded MM fu has failed. I CAN tell you that the linear port DOES work great on probes. I can also tell you that you have to disable FORWARD control for any other RCS you might have on your probe... I actually landed a probe which comprised of an antenna, a single R4D and a re-scaled Agena probe to 0.625 with the 0.625 Stock mono-propellant tank on the Mun. I put 4x rescaled Solar pannels (again stock) on board... and totally forgot to put meaningful science on the probe... It landed in a Biom I have not landed in yet... DOH!

And as Cobalt said... It is already in the mod. Has been for a while actually. Since I am IN GAME I will provide the model to look for under CONTROL (not under engines) Kane LTS Linear RCS thruster. AKA a SINGLE R4D motor. and it IS under command and Control. No it does not attach to nodes and no it does not STAGE but beyond that it works JUST like it should should you choose to orient it correctly assuming RCS is on and you have the throttle UP. I will see if I can create a MM to give a "Probe Engine" version but I don't know about node attachments.

That was a USAF artist and likely given the TWO sizes of wings they figured (the Artist not an Engineer) that a TAIL WING and a Vertical Tail was what was needed. The Vertical Tail is the smaller size airfoil. You see this a lot in "conceptual Art" done for the USAF. Half the missiles that were proposed in the 1950s and 1960s had over-large wings until the USAF got smart about wing size vs maneuverability of a rocket/missile. Remember the "Whale Tail" Cadilac was FRESH in peoples minds. One begot another.. which was begotten by the first (literally the American Fascination with big fins on cars started not for performance reasons but rather because of the exploits of the Pilots in their planes and rockets... which caused big wings to appear in everyones art for future planes and rockets... )

A few screenies from my test today. 1) S-IVC is and is not working... I don't know why yet but I have had 3 good and 2 bad separations using both the S-IB inter-stage and the S-II inter-stage adapters. When things go good the rocket almost LEAPS from the interstage. When things go bad I have 2 J-2 of various marks burning holes in the S_II or S-IB stage tanks. Suggest a double check on the colliders for the S-IVC engine mount. (You have issues with the ultra low pro Torodial J-2s last night right?) 2) Inline AJ-260 is also missing one of it's 2 Vernier effects in stock.

I have a MM for the S-IC already. it is the longest S-IC I have found data for... to match the AJ-260+LR-Drop tank configuration. you have to download the MASTER files from Github. But be warned, bug fixes are in process. And some parts that DID work are not currently.

Use the Pioneer probe in Surface attach mode. Gives you an additional science experiment and gives you probe control all without mussing with other crazy stuff to make what you want to do work. And Good Luck

I have found the line posted on every command part that has no crew save the S-IVA IMU. I am in the midst of checking the other parts in game but it appear that you just need to delete one line from the tweakscale_Saturn.CFG at the moment. Agena Command checks out fine as do all the other INLINE command parts for the US rockets. I have not verified the Vexin control parts yet. I did confirm that the S-IVC engine mount is now not working. I am going to RE-download the pre-hotfix1 version of this mount because it WAS working fine on my install. But that will follow in a bit. Yes you can all now launch Saturn II-INT-17s with no SRBs... well if you can find a good HG-3 analog that is

I am looking into this today. It scales from 3.75 to 5.625 just fine as well as down to 2.5m But below that is when I noticed things. ---------------Edit 1---------------- Testing the below information (as well as a few other things... AJ-260, Saturn II INT-17.... ) but I found this line in the tweakscale cfg that is on NO OTHER part including the other IMUs. I have commented it out and am loading KSP #@TWEAKSCALEBEHAVIOR[Science]/MODULE[TweakScale] -------------Edit 2---------------- CONFIRMED, the Above line impacts how much Tweakscale is shrinking or expanding the Saturn IVB IMU. @CobaltWolf One bug solved

Ahh yes the KISS principle at it's finest. Keep it Simple and Silly.... If it is Silly someone might remember it! No self fulfilling prophecies of self reduced intelligence need apply

I will add one small tidbit here. When I had Sigma 2.5 installed (mind you almost a year ago now.) I had issues with Delta II rockets getting satellites into orbit in my Career (this was mid career and not all upgrades were unlocked for the Delta II parts.) Now I know I was launching SLIGHTLY bigger (mass + size) satellites than the stock Delta II was designed for but you may want to convert all your Delta Launches to HEAVY if you fly them like they do RW (6 SRBs ignite on ground, 3 at burn out ALL ejected at the same time.)

The mounting plate is significantly older for the Centaur/Inon. The Centaur Tanks are new as of a version or so ago. Any compatibility files that are in BDB are likely for the older tanks and have not been updated to the latest build. I am GUESSING here but back in the day, all the Sarnus/Saturn tanks were LFO only.... (Actually this was before I was actively flying BDB so I should even guess at that except I have been in most of the CFGs and they list a LFO fuel loadout in // comments. ) So again we are likely dealing with Before and After update changes breaking the compatibility file.

I assume you are using SSTU docking ports when this happens? I to have had this problem. I solved it by Right clicking on the docking port and clicking the angle snap Gui button. I did not have to make any adjustments and Mechjeb would AUTO dock. You have to do this on the RECEIVER craft more than the Docking (controlled by Mechjeb) craft. it even worked with my rescaled DP docking ports (1.5m and 0.9375m) @Kaa253 NavHUD (maintained by @linuxgurugamer) does an even better job because it is graphics on the screen instead of just the attitude indicator, and you don't have to worry if a pro-grade or retrograde symbol is being occluded so you can't tell which one it is. Starwaster, Actually it is an OVER-correction on the Controls (lets say you need 1 degree of pitch Mechjeb goes for 2 for the sake of argument.) I have seen this with all the 1.3x builds including the latest dev build. Figured it was a mod on my end but obviously others are having issues. I had a Rocket launch under accent guidance to 8000km with a 180degree roll through out the flight (to keep the poor Kerbals from Redding out you know,) and it took from ~180m to almost 26 km for the 90 degree roll to complete because it was constantly oscillating left to right with FULL control deflection + full SAS roll. If removed movable controls and kept RCS off Mechjeb gives a perfect control but add either/both to the built in SAS and Mechjeb over-controls. Currently Mechjeb is causing MJIO (MechJeb Induced Oscillation) when more than one control system is concurrently in operation. (in my experience.) So since I continued the derailment of the thread with my last post (SORRY!) let me ask a question that is apropos to this thread. A Rail? I assume no passage over this port would be allowed? If you don't mind an opinion on the subject, I think you would be better served with 2 circles of different sizes. one is for "resource transfer" and the other is for "Crew Transfer" It still forces the strict orientation, but gives you a plausible way to have an internal crew transfer. So model wise you could easily use the DP-0 + an off centered DP-1 port with a single point of docking and being Gendered would have only one way to dock (game wise would only dock at one point but it will LOOK like two separate docking connections have happened.

While Cobaltwolf has his bespoke models of awesomeness. And since my original reply to this was consigned to the dump bin given the a-for mentioned Bespoke Models of Awesomeness. IRL there was a major planned update to either the S-II or S-IVB stage visa-v insulation and structural "enhancements" IE optimizing the thrust structure to put up with realistic masses rather than hypothetical ones that never became real. I want to say it was the S-II stage and changing its insulation (PRE SOFI mind you) the gain was 20% thermal efficiency (lower boil off) and 5% increased propellant load due to increase open volume and a 10% loss in empty mass... All without sacrificing the ability to stretch into the MLV-S-II stage. Like I said this is from memory as I don't have my data sources near me (except for Astronautica and THEY get confused between Saturn-II and stage S-II... so how can I trust them implicitly! And this is all possible because the S-II stage is the oldest stage/structure designed for the Saturn-V (it was scaled up from the Saturn-C4 design or post 1961 Saturn-C3 design.

1x 260" Short SRM? And I was just replying to an earlier post about your bespoke models of awesomeness! Err sorry I see now that is the FULL Length AJ-260! *Edited* One Segment to rule them all. One segment to be safe and fly us to the Mun!

No matter what side you put the flap on or how you rotate it both flaps are pointing the same way (long side is to the LEFT and short side is to the RIGHT.) As I even stated, I made a single wing and then mirrored the entire wing trying to fix this... everything was mirrored except the flaps... They maintained the same orientation no matter what I tried.

I will add that the art level is pretty darn good @IronCretin And agree with the control surfaces not attaching correctly. I even tried to make a single wing and then remove the ENTIRE wing and Mirror it and the Control surface still was wrong on the opposite side. I assume some sort of X-20 tail to BDB 1.875m Titan (or 1.5m Titan...) will be available Soon(TM)? I didn't experience @Kerbal01s issue with controls but I did follow all the original USAF X-20 promotional literature and put HUGE all moving stabilizers on my Titan's 1st stage (should that also be a part you address?) IDK if you did that Kerbal01. I used the Stock all moving tail plane and then with Tweakscale made it 150% base size. RE landing skid, are you using stock or KSPWheel to make it survive impacting the runway? Oh and if a good XB-70 Valkyrie could be made, The X-20 was one of the proposed "2 stage to Orbit" lifters proposed for a re-purposed Valk. I have seen ONE graphic and a brief description of the vehicle but it would be a "New USAF space plane powered into Orbit from the back of the Valkyrie by the Hustler Rocket motor [AKA Agena... the final use of the Hustler Rocket Motor.]

Is that Single UA1205 an Inline or a Side attach SRM? I tried that a few version ago with standard Titan II hardware and a single UA-1207 and ended up in the drink about.... 500 yards off the shoreline

Well then you DO have a mod either out of date, you have two cfgs with the part name: bluedog_Saturn_S1F_Tankage or a mod is actually killing the part. If you are using the BDB_Extras folder, MAKE CERTAIN it is current and up to date! I have my own version of the BDB extra cfg files and that means I had to manually comment/delete out all the code for the S1F parts (tank, S-IVC parts as well.) We have seen a lot of issues because of the ORDER mods were installed... Some Mods were loading older versions of the dependency mods (eg B9PartSwitch, DMagicScienceAnimate etc... Check THOSE mods and make certain you have the most up-to-date list of mods. My Build only has BDB, MechJeb and some of the DMagic mods as I am testing out some new thrust curves and trying to develop my CFG and MM skills further ATM. As I said, NO ISSUES with BDB 1.41 with any parts except the fuel switch (which my CFG took care of.)

Copy the below information into a new file named BlueDogDB_Temp_Bugfix.cfg and place it in your Gamedata folder (DO NOT PUT IT IN BlueDog_DB folder so it is easy to find later when the fix is no longer needed!) If you have already modded the Tank types to include additional fuels (like AZ50/NTO) this SHOULD work with those, so long as you didn't alter the original BDB supplied B9PartSwitch compatibility CFGs with your own changes. With the above code, all 12 types of Tanks I have in my game (because of the extra fuel combinations I created) showed up in the S-1F tankage I am going to ASSUME that the final bug-fix by CobaltWolf and JSO will include some different configs for the Atlas Balloon tank structure to change fuel fraction etc (or maybe not it is just an assumption.)

So before I go to the effort of making and posting a MM patch that will add the B9PartSwitch Fuel swapping feature I want to make certain since I am not seeing an issue in my game. You have NO fuel or you have no way to select DIFFERENT fuels? I have just launched a Saturn ID with the Saturn I-F fuel tank with no issues.

Having read both your most recent posts, I get your Idea. Thank you for sharing and posting it! However, from my viewpoint it appears to be an Awful lot of work that requires some specific standard that doesn't exist anywhere in game or the Real world for that matter (Mass vs Volume trade off ratio.) If Shadowmage were to put the (and I am ball-parking this here) 100's of hours of effort into a coding change for it, everyone would pipe in "But Experiment X doesn't mass that much," "I loose too much/too little volume when I slide the slider," and my favorite "But this part is made out of Unobtainium-57 which has a much lower SFG than standard CrazyOnesStructuralAlloy so my station part should have a lower empty mass" (ok so the alloy names are made up by me but you get my drift right?) So to simplify what I am saying (and hopefully this will give you a different viewpoint to think from for your ideas,) There is no way to standardize a mass-volume conversion that would leave most people even content (let alone keep more than a few people happy.) There would be a lot of work to make just a few people happy and the rest of the players not to want to use the parts at all (in my opinion.) Your Ideas would limit part count in the VAB/SPH for station parts, but the cost to game play would likely be a negative effect (IE makes game play HARDER not EASIER.) NOW having said all of that. PLEASE continue to SHARE your IDEAS! Just like the only stupid question is either the one you didn't ask.... Well you get the Idea I hope

I use a different approach. I put a small 0.9375 or 1.25m Probe core with identical RCS tank and 4 RCS ports (2 Identical Docking ports) on the Front of whatever module I am getting to the station. I dock with it attached. Make certain everything is stable, Un-dock and Back out. Separate the baby probe, and then with just the Aft-half of the tug, re-dock. I end up with a less complex 2 part tug rather than having to install something like IR (as Jimbodiah has done.) Sure it is a few steps... But I don't have to worry too much about balance and the same tug setup works for all the station modules or fuel tanks I want to deploy. Most of my tugs have been based on a SSTU 1.25m-x-0.5 front tank with 2x 1.25m DP-01 docking ports and SSTU or RLA 5x RCS ports (x4) 4 tiny Pioneer Solar panels from BDB complete the front half of the Tug. The Rear half is often the BDB/ETS Aardvark Tug with the SSTU 1.25m DP-01 port. Most of my lateral docking ports are 0.9375m instead of the 1.25m (I re-scaled the DP-01 to do this.) Most ships I dock with my space station end up with a 0.9375m Nose connection. This includes the Aardvark Resupply vehicle, Apollo Blk III/IV/and V and Agena based probes and resupply vessels. My stations tend to be based on the DOS/TKS group of parts. (Shadowmage I think I have played with almost all of the Station parts packs out there and your DOS parts are STILL my favorite!) Question for everyone. I am looking for a Suggestion from the group on proper station construction. I tend to fly CA Technologies Shuttles (Bruan mostly) to my Stations. Other than adding a Tank/Structural fuselage part with a docking port on each end to dock the Shuttle (or SpaceX Dragon with it's 90degree port cover... etc etc etc) Is there a suggestion to allow a space-plane to dock with the COS/DOS parts? I am having too many collisions due to the docking port on the station being nearly flush and the space-plane/shuttles are RECESSED. I think this might also be causing some docking problems (where the parts lock but never complete docking... Ports to close to the edge of the Bounding box?)