Pappystein

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?)

Seasonal Doldrums suck. Also the Flu this year seems to be more of the "Oh my god I don't feel good" type. To me it just felt like someone wrapped my torso in a wide leather strap that was being restricted... And my joints hurt. None of the Castor family of parts call out Castor 1 in either Realname or cfg... But I assumed the Early Rockets CastorSRB.cfg was Castor 1 since it's flavor text calls out the early Thurst Augmented Thor in general terms. While the TExture looks like an older Castor I then thought that Bluedog_CastorRaddial.cfg was Castor IV due to the higher thrust and better fuel load (vs CastorSRB.) If I was wrong then there is a balance issue here (CastorRadial has thrust of 91kn vs CastorSRB thrust of 58 I have a lot of stuff that could go into the extra folder currently. Including patches adding IRFNA-IV/AZ50/NTO to appropriate rockets (via CRP of course,) The UA-1562 SRM, Saturn MLV tankage extensions, Saturn C-3 S-III stage, Atlas-F(Proposed) H-2 Engine, Man Rated UA-1202 (It can be shut down and has a different thrust curve to reduce MAX-Q) Yes I meant CRP. I homogenized the Community Resource Pack with the Community Category Kit. oops

That means at some point an older mod probably overwrote a newer release for one of the various bundled support mods (like B9Partswitch or DMagic Science Animate to name two.)

Solid Rockets Boosters. A series of questions meant to open discussion on a few parts in game already and several parts that are either on the Roadmap or maybe should be on the Roadmap. Ok so I have been doing a lot of reading on the CASTOR family of Rockets. Looking at the dimensions and the performance lead me to a realization. The CASTOR 1 in BDB is almost exactly 1:1 scale. The Castor IV is 1:0.625ish scale. IRL there are 3 major and 2 minor versions of the Castor IV not counting the XL(s). There is a significant difference in performance between the variants. Modeling this would require the use of Different types of Solid-fuel (which is supported thanks to BDB requiring the use of Community Resource Kit.) So the questions: Did the Bug in KSP that caused issues when parts had more than one activation/staging trigger ever get fixed (for self separating SRBs.) Does it make sense to re-scale CASTOR 1 to 0.5m which is ~0.64 scale from real life? BDB has already "Broken" the 0.625, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75 "Stock scales" more than once. This is a very MINOR change that should not break any vehicle given it's already small size and Radial nature of the beast. Would players gain a benefit for supporting the Castor IV, IVA, and IVB all in two variants (surface ignited vs Air Ignited?) Would it make sense from an actual play-ability standpoint to further embrace the CRK modlet to support a diversified fuel load for various marks of SRBs. SRBs are not like Liquid fueled rockets since you cant add tanks with more fuel.. so the whole argument of/for "STOCK FUELS "is moot. CRK changes the fuel density and energy which results in identical volume fuel loads having different performance because of the differing types of fuel (both performance and straight mass.) I am guessing the answer to this question is no... or Not unless used along the lines of SSTU's structure but... I guess we still don't have a way to alter the performance of a SRB between various marks in the VAB (select Castor IV model then chose IVA Air ignited profile?) Thanks for your thoughts and feedback!

Really??? ONE and only ONE corned Beef sandwich flew on Gemini. One and only one IVA has it. Sounds fair to me! Besides, Corned beef was meant to be eaten... Not displayed. A Sandwich wrapper with a Deli''s name displayed on it Floating in the IVA would be more appropriate But more importantly, @Kerbal01 are YOU going to pay him for his blood sweat and tears to do such a significant art change? What is more important to you? A very minor but massively time consuming Art change or how about more Saturn Rocket parts and maybe if we are lucky in a the near Future a LDC Titan variant? After all THOSE are things Cobaltwolf already HAS on this Roadmap

Looking at your Gamedata, I would suggest temporarly removing Trajectories and Gravity Turn. If the game runs without them then there is something in the DLL that is tripping up on the Agena parts. For the most part the Agena parts are VERY stock so the issue would be with the other mods and not with BlueDog DB. WHAT Agena part is shown on the loading screen when the game locks up? This is an issue with Kerbin Environmental Institute. FASA launch clamps continued is not directly associated with Bluedog-DB. The FASA launch-clamps in BDB should not Trigger this and Launch Clamps Continued should have just the same launch clamps that BDB has... so Why would you bloat the game memory by installing both? Back in the day Frizzank gave permission for CobaltWolf to use his Launch-clamps. The Launch-clamps in BDB are named BDB_FASAlaunchclamp25 etc. and while the names are derived from the original clamps in FASA and Launch Clamps Continued they are not the same. Now, I have not downloaded any FASA derived mod in over 1 year so my information on the FASA side is... dated.

I would try the same test setup WITHOUT SMURF. If the values end up being the same then the issue is with support for SSTU by SMURF and should be addressed in that forum. ALSO Please make certain your Masses are the same in the test builds as that directly affects dV

I hate to say it but there is no way that is BDB + a Clean install. First entry is stating there are missing components from the Galileo Planet Pack (GPP) While I am not a great parser of KSPLOG files I can see MANY MODS that are missing parts. Bluedog is ONE OF MANY in this case. Your issues stream from multiple mods interfering with each other. Check that you have downloaded the latest Dependencies (things like B9Partswitch, Modmanager, DMAgic Science Animate etc.) After that, I hate to say this because it looks like it will be a LOT of work to test (I have been there so I know...) But you are best starting with a True Clean install. Then install the BAsic GPP mod set... test the game, Install GPP related addons...Test the game, Install Bluedog.. TEST the game, Install SSTU... Test the game... Install KIS... well rinse and repeat until all your mods are running.....As soon as the game breaks with missing parts you will know what mod is the cause. For followup. I see three mods I have never had good luck with when playing with lots of other mods... FAR, VanguardTechnologies and HullcameraVDS. I am not saying any of the three mods are bad... Rather I have just had bad... VERY BAD luck with them.

Completely Delete your Bluedog_DB folder under Gamedata and re-install. I had the same problem when I copied over the top of BDB 2 releases ago.

That sounds like an issue that was common in 0.21 The station just starts to tremble and then KA-BLAM-O Pieces everywhere. Go through and turn off all SASes you have on the station then try docking with it again. If the issue goes away then you are somehow replicating a REALLY old bug. I had a 26 part (20 of them being from SSTU so there are actually a lot more parts but...) station (not counting the escape pods (Mk 1 pods with a small SRB for de-orbit burns) And no issues. I am NOT using any of the inflatable HABS in this (it is all strictly DOS/COS based with a couple hitchhikers for extra crew spaces with small size.) Before I upgraded to 32GB of ram I WAS having a lag issue if too many things were flying NEAR each other..... That would sometimes cause colisions that did not appear on screen. Hope that helps! (I know it probably wont but... I still hope it does!)

seads23, Cobalt has stated previously that Delta IV in any form was not on the table at this time (or ever.) But it is his mod and he can do whatever HE wants with it. Personally I think you will get a better rocket than Delta V when Titan LDC is released (No pressure Cobalt!) Same Diameter (3.125m at kerbal scale..) But available BEFORE the 4 and gee gollie it is designed to lift MOAR to space than Delta IV does! That being said. Man rating Atlas-V... There is no change with the in game parts needed to have it considered Man rated. The only parts that would need to be changed would be SRBs since they need a "kill switch" Since there are no Atlas V SRBs in the mod as of yet... Atlas V is already man rated NOW if you want to maintain that Man rating only use SRBs that can be shut down.... And Bluedog DB has a bunch of them that can (and more that can't) All this being said, in my opinion, the best mod for RS-68 engines and big tanks for your Delta IV is probably SSTU (by @Shadowmage ) I will warn you now that SSTU is different than a typical part mod. It has a different layout, a different art style and some unique things in KSP today. I personally use BOTH BDB and SSTU in almost all of my builds using the appropriate parts from each mod as best suits my needs at the time.

To further clarify they are in the MASTER branch of the Github. If you just go to the Github and click download you are going to get the files from like 3 months ago. Instead click at the top where it Says Bluedog-Design-Bureau then click the green Clone/Download button. Now the masters have EVERY file Cobaltwolf currently thinks of as done. There COULD be craft breaking changes...(I don't think there are but their COLD be!) But sure as shooting their are NEW parts as well. Just be warned you don't copy EVERYTHING from this download to the GameData directory. Else you WILL break things. If you don't know what SHOULD and what SHOULD NOT be copied to the GameData directory of your KSP install than you shouldn't bother downloading these files and instead join the Hype-train waiting for the next OFFICIAL release.

While not required, since you have made a 3.75 procedural fairing it would be nice.

Yes no and not really THe launch towers you refer to are from FASA originally. Frizzank (the creator) worked diligently to remove the side forces generated by the launch towers. The result. The towers stayed attached to the rocket. This is a GAME MECHANIC and not something that can be altered without a pretty big plug-in. Any plug-in developed to fix this would then require a re-export of the original FASA models linking it to the plug-in instead of the base game code. All of this will be a lot of resources that are essentially wasted when instead you can stage the towers "smarter" Here is how you can MITIGATE the issue. Please note the issue will still exist but your rocket won't keel over on launch because of it. Separate your bottom Launch clamps from the launch towers. in your staging menu THe towers being in one staging group... The launch clamps being in a separate group above the towers Stage the launch tower(s) wait about 5 seconds for your rocket to re-stabilize. Go for launch! Oh and if your build of KSP will allow it Kerbal Joint reinforcement can help after staging the towers. Since it conflicts with several mods on my build I have to make certain I auto-strut everything!

Tagging on to Tater's comment to amplify why converting tanks in flight is not a real world thing. If you wanted to take a crew accessible tank (like on dragon or cygnus) and convert it to a fuel tank in space (not built from the ground up) you would have to put tanks within the tanks and their goes any sort of efficiency or Real ability to use. Delta V on such a setup would be less than half of an ideal tank of a similar over all volume. Honestly probably closer to 25% of that ideal ISP. Converting such a tank to fuels would be the last resort of the desperate. Converting a Fuel tank to a "wet or dry workshop" is easier because you are REMOVING parts of the tanks. However the interior of such a setup is VERY spartan. That is why the US finally decided to rebuild a Saturn IVB tank on the ground for Skylab. They could make the interior safer, and more useful many expensive rocket launches. Building a fuel tank with the accouterments for use as part of a space station's habitable section would greatly reduce efficiency as well but now you are talking 50-75% idea dV... This is why in real space flight none of these convertible systems have ever actually flown and been used for anything more than some basic tests.

Saturn II INT-18 of-course! After all why waste those valuable F-1 or F-1A engines when cheaper J-2s could suffice

Um just about every Spy satellite prior to Digital Cameras? Most famous western world version being KH-9 Corona. It had 3 (I think) film return canisters. Ok so I have repeated this experiment twice. I launch a space plane. Orbit Kerbin and return to land at the Space center. On touchdown the game locks up for about 5 seconds and then I get an explosion sound (no graphics) and the message is that every part of my space plane has collided with SSTU Shader probe. before I start posting log files is this a known issue? The only SSTU part on the plane were landing gears that are affected by KSP wheel IIRC (LY35 and the LY25 variant via MM file.)

No, it is just with BARIS I have to turn in a crapton of Science to try to keep up with the funding drain! I probably don't have it set up right (It is my first attempt with BARIS and I still don't have a lot of time to play...)

I get to dl the masters AGAIN. I can't wait to unlock these new parts/textures in my BARIS test build I am currently experimenting with. I am about a million credits and 1000 science away from that point however More stupid useless Tourist and satelite placement launches in my future!

F-1 derived Hydrolox replacement engine with Densified fuel???? How about just Densified fuel? And thus needing the insulation and thus needing further tweaks to the CFGs? I mean we have known for oh at-least a couple hundred years about making things cold makes them smaller On the subject of ETS or other historical paths not taken, I wanted to add my tested preliminary UA-1562 and UA-1563 MM cfgs to convert existing UA-120x SRMs into the larger 156s. The models used are not RIGHT but atleast this gets them in the game. RW UA-156x family does not have the hydraulic tank on the side of the SRM like the UA-120s (it is internal) in the Real world only 2 and 3 segment versions of the UA-156 were tested but there was a proposal for a 4 segment version as well. The UA-156x technology was the primary stepping stone to the Space Shuttle SRB... Since BDB has a 2 segment UA120 model the UA-1562 is pretty close to real life (just he hydraulic tank on the side is wrong) but the UA-1563 uses the UA-1205 model from BDB. 2 segments too much. These are not man rated versions of the SRM. But I am working on a patch for Man rating the entire UA-120x and UA-156x SRM family for BDB. Please feel free to provide feedback. I use the UA-1562 on Titan IV launches and the UA-1563 on Saturn IE/F or Saturn II-I18 launches. With Saturn II INT-18 I can launch a Skylab type station without issue into a high orbit.

Jimbodiah, I was just looking at the CFG for your LR-87-LH2 single bell. Your description keeps calling it the J-2. Just an FYI "description = SSTU - ShipCore: Engines - LR-87-LH2. When the mission planners at SSTU were unimpressed with the thrust output of the RL10 series of engines, they tasked the engineering team with coming up with a viable restartable second-stage motor for larger payloads. The J-2 is the result of over two years of development, three exploded hangars, and twelve and a half tons of melted prototype engines. Intended to be used solely as an upper-stage engine, its sea-level thrust and efficiency are quite poor, but generally compensated for by its above-average vacuum performance."

Whoot! S-III will get new graphics Ok so some of the basic sketches of S-III back in 1961 did look a lot like some of the Sketches for S-IVC in the late 60s but it still won't be a bespoke part. S-III had an open structure above the J-2s S-IVB/C has the Conical structure.... But close enough for me!