Jump to content

OMSK Space Products - Stockalike Atlas rockets & more! [Omich-L Beta]

SnowWhite

By SnowWhite
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

sp1989

sp1989

Posted
Posted

Just playing around in career mode. The "Mercury" atlas should definitely be under General or advanced rocketry. It's way too late in the tech tree. It should be available to unlock for the orbit Kerbin contract. The atlas centaur tank would be great for heavy and then the rd180 and tanks after that. Redstone when it's read fits perfect under basic rocketry. Just my opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pappystein

Pappystein

Posted
Posted

That Color is DAY-GLOW Red. It is ONLY used on EXPERIMENTAL aircraft and Missiles. It was not on any PRODUCTION Atlas unless it was being used in a Test Launch. No Photo from that time-frame can show you the true color of DAY-GLOW. It is more Orange than RED. But it is one of the first Florescent paints (by today's standards it would not be considered florescent.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnowWhite

SnowWhite

Posted
  • Author
Posted

OMSK 3.0

What's new?

  • Redstone rocket
  • Technologies was rebalanced
  • Some tiny fixes

Fantastic job, I really want to fly this!

Great to hear such a nice words from you! Our texturer (SpcAnn) getting better and better.

Just playing around in career mode. The "Mercury" atlas should definitely be under General or advanced rocketry. It's way too late in the tech tree. It should be available to unlock for the orbit Kerbin contract. The atlas centaur tank would be great for heavy and then the rd180 and tanks after that. Redstone when it's read fits perfect under basic rocketry. Just my opinions.

Nice feedback over here! Career-mode things was rebalanced, just as you said.

I am checking this topic everyday, I want to thank the whole team of this mod, you are doing an amazing job, those parts match very well with tantares ones, I don't play anymore without OMSK in my VAB ! :D
Excellent work! This, Tantares, Bloeting, AB Launchers, and Bacon Labs are all a wonderful combination that fit pretty much all of your needs in Kerbal Space Program.

Thank you, guys!

Are you guys planning to do the gemini - titan rocket to match with the tantares gemini ? :rolleyes:

As I said previously, we are going to make Titan II. The only thing is that 3000 chromosomes ago I promised Niemand to make Luna-3. And here is it.

4qCq1g4.png

i8hVQlU.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leszek

Leszek

Posted
Posted
Delta II would bee great!

But Atlas V SRMs would bee even greater

I vote for Delta II, the other Delta II mod that I know of has dependencies, and those dependencies have dependencies and I don't have any of them, nor the memory for too many more mods.

Atlas SRMs, I have been using the KW rocketry ones, they are the right size and shape and look good on this Atlas. I know that isn't a perfect solution for many people but for what it is worth I am throwing that out there.

I think before Atlas SRM's though, the Atlas 1, verniers would be nice. I have been using Beale's waykeeper engines from Tantares LV, they do the job but don't look quite right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leszek

Leszek

Posted
Posted

There is a bug in KSP where in some rockets on some launch pads get stuck and will not lift off. I normally get around this bug in the very early game by sticking a decoupler under the main engine. This holds the rocket off the pad and the bug is solved.

Now you can't do that with the Redstone rocket because it doesn't have a node under the engine. I am not making a feedback suggestion to fix this in the pack because the engine shouldn't need that and when V1.0 comes out it might not be needed at all. Instead I am going to point out how to fix this for those that have this issue. (Like I did.)

In the cfg file (make a backup.) there are a lot of lines near the top that start with node_stack...

Copy paste this line in there somewhere.

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -1.079288, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1

Here is how mine looked when I finished:

node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.079288, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -1.079288, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1
node_stack_side1 = -1.421125, -0.6045233, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0
node_stack_side2 = 1.421125, -0.6045233, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0
node_stack_side3 = 0.0, -0.6045233, -1.421125, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0
node_stack_side4 = 0.0, -0.6045233, 1.421125, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0
node_symmetry = 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnowWhite

SnowWhite

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi everyone!

There is a bug in KSP where in some rockets on some launch pads get stuck and will not lift off. I normally get around this bug in the very early game by sticking a decoupler under the main engine. This holds the rocket off the pad and the bug is solved.

Now you can't do that with the Redstone rocket because it doesn't have a node under the engine. I am not making a feedback suggestion to fix this in the pack because the engine shouldn't need that and when V1.0 comes out it might not be needed at all. Instead I am going to point out how to fix this for those that have this issue. (Like I did.)

In the cfg file (make a backup.) there are a lot of lines near the top that start with node_stack...

Copy paste this line in there somewhere.

I have never heard about this bug! I'll take a look.

Yeah, I've been using the Waykeepers too, and they do look a little off now that I'm actually looking at one.

http://www.rocketrelics.com/atlasgimbalmain.jpg

I don't know why I wanted this, but you should totally make a Delta II! I think 7000 series. Whichever one has the 9 GEMs on the side. I know that I could just get the Launcher Pack but those are too replica. I like the stock-alike thing you've got going on.
Delta II would bee great!

But Atlas V SRMs would bee even greater

I vote for Delta II, the other Delta II mod that I know of has dependencies, and those dependencies have dependencies and I don't have any of them, nor the memory for too many more mods.

Atlas SRMs, I have been using the KW rocketry ones, they are the right size and shape and look good on this Atlas. I know that isn't a perfect solution for many people but for what it is worth I am throwing that out there.

I think before Atlas SRM's though, the Atlas 1, verniers would be nice. I have been using Beale's waykeeper engines from Tantares LV, they do the job but don't look quite right.

Our GRAND PLAN is:

  • Titan II
  • Delta II
  • Saturn I
  • Saturn Nova

We'll make SRM's/verniers etc. on the way.

Sorry was no there for a long time. I was busy, Niemand was busy, everyone was busy! Situation on the next week is not nice for you too, because I'm going to other city for a week. (Just as our texturer, lol)

I also have a question for all you. As you know, Titan II is WIP now and here is the unfinished version of engine that has 9k polygons! Is there need in redesign to make engine more stockalike and lower the polycount? Speak your mind.

HYyX3Sc.pngS76rwrG.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leszek

Leszek

Posted
Posted

Our GRAND PLAN is:

  • Titan II
  • Delta II
  • Saturn I
  • Saturn Nova

We'll make SRM's/verniers etc. on the way.

Sorry was no there for a long time. I was busy, Niemand was busy, everyone was busy! Situation on the next week is not nice for you too, because I'm going to other city for a week. (Just as our texturer, lol)

I also have a question for all you. As you know, Titan II is WIP now and here is the unfinished version of engine that has 9k polygons! Is there need in redesign to make engine more stockalike and lower the polycount? Speak your mind.

http://i.imgur.com/HYyX3Sc.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/S76rwrG.jpg

Well, I can't say because I don't know how much it slows the computer down. What is the average poly count on other parts?

As you probably know it isn't the level of detail that makes things stockalike but how many parts they take to build in game and how many of those parts are readily useable elsewhere. With an engine that means that as long as it is one part to stick on the bottom of a tank, it is stockalike no matter the level of detail. So the question is reduced to computer performance. How much does this engine slow down the computer?

I lack the information to answer that, so I will just say if the games runs fine with this engine below it, it is cool with me.

Also it occurs to me that this engine, being without a shroud and having two bells, should have a higher polycount than a simpler engine to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnowWhite

SnowWhite

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Oh, okay! Sounds like a grand GRAND PLAN​ to me!

Great to hear! :cool:

Well, I can't say because I don't know how much it slows the computer down. What is the average poly count on other parts?

As you probably know it isn't the level of detail that makes things stockalike but how many parts they take to build in game and how many of those parts are readily useable elsewhere. With an engine that means that as long as it is one part to stick on the bottom of a tank, it is stockalike no matter the level of detail. So the question is reduced to computer performance. How much does this engine slow down the computer?

I lack the information to answer that, so I will just say if the games runs fine with this engine below it, it is cool with me.

Also it occurs to me that this engine, being without a shroud and having two bells, should have a higher polycount than a simpler engine to begin with.

Don't mind poly count, it's really not important for KSP at all. But it looks goid, you guys are getting better and better! :)

Thank you all for such a nice opinion! It's very important for us. So, we are going to make really big polycount, yeah. (Also, the most biggest engines ingame has about 6k polygons)

How about later Titans? It would add some synergy with the Centaur rocket stage, and big solid boosters <3

Roger that! We'll make them, I guess.

________________________Updated_____________________________

OMSK 3.5

What's new?

  • Luna probe!*

​

With custom experiments!

What do you think about engine?(It's really impotrant to know your opinion) Also, only 8k polygons!

x4Hz7aU.jpg

Fcv3yIX.jpg

Edited by SnowWhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Leszek

Leszek

Posted
Posted

Got to try out the Atlas V / Centaur in my new career. Made a Atlas V heavy. Very nice.

Took off, wobbled and crashed right away. Had to rebuild my runway. It was over controlling. A quick look and the engine has a gimbal range of 3 degrees. Wow. In real life that would be modest but KSP likes to over control. Changed my gimbal range in the CFG to 0.5. Does it fly good with 3 degrees in stock aero?

Also, what is OMSK stance on alternate cfg's? I have remote tech and the Centaur upper stage is in many ways like a spacecraft itself. So I have been clipping probe cores so they are hidden inside the tank. It occurred to me that I could make a CFG that would turn the Centaur fuel tank into a probe core. Then I could offer the RT alternate CFG's for anyone who wanted them but I don't want to do things like that without consent from you guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...