[1.12.5] Cormorant Aeronology - Mk3 Space Shuttle

[cxg2827]

16 hours ago, frencrs said:

Excellent, excellent, excellent!!! This is one of the best mods hands down, it takes the stock shuttle parts and makes them absolutely fantastic.

Here's a tip, for anyone that loves this mod: combine it with the CxAerospace Station parts mod and you can use the shuttles to construct ISS like stations.

Some shots of the two mods in 1.1.3

http://imgur.com/a/go6IV

And a shout out to @benjee10 with his habtech trusses and solar array wings on your station as well.

[Avalon304]

Here... have a pretty shuttle pic:

 

 

Buran and the Space Shuttle meet up to compare notes.

[Pak]

 

A quick poll for a thing I was working on today.

 

It looks like adding a snapRotation to the MMU makes it unable to dock with ports that don't have a snap. So the current docking port Jr. compatibility would have to go away and I'd create a little surface attach MMU construction panel.

The docking feels much better with snap, but I could mess with the colliders some more to make the current docking a bit cleaner.

Or if anyone knows a way to make a snapRotation port dock with other things let me know.

 

Let me know what you think, I made a straw poll.

http://www.strawpoll.me/11457715

[DaGuyAboveYou]

51 minutes ago, Pak said:

 

A quick poll for a thing I was working on today.

 

It looks like adding a snapRotation to the MMU makes it unable to dock with ports that don't have a snap. So the current docking port Jr. compatibility would have to go away and I'd create a little surface attach MMU construction panel.

The docking feels much better with snap, but I could mess with the colliders some more to make the current docking a bit cleaner.

Or if anyone knows a way to make a snapRotation port dock with other things let me know.

 

Let me know what you think, I made a straw poll.

http://www.strawpoll.me/11457715

i have rarely used the mmu to dock as it was but i liked the feature being there. But i think having an actual construction piece would remind me that I can do that and actually use them for construction.

[Avalon304]

Hey @Pak, Im seeing something odd with my Buran replica, in regards to its Center of Lift.

 

Here is my Space Shuttle, sitting in the SPH:

http://i.imgur.com/3M6C6sl.png

 

and here is the Buran (CoM is too far forward but that is a different problem), note that the CoL if twisted (but otherwise centered along the middle of the length of the craft):

 

http://i.imgur.com/ZPea9dL.png

 

and here it is with the tail plane removed:

 

http://i.imgur.com/RaIayr9.png

 

I dont know whats causing this when the tail plane is attached to the craft (and more importantly, why its only the Buran that sees this issue).

[Pak]

On 10/18/2016 at 6:30 PM, DaGuyAboveYou said:

i have rarely used the mmu to dock as it was but i liked the feature being there. But i think having an actual construction piece would remind me that I can do that and actually use them for construction.

Yeah I was thinking about that. Plus a little panel would look nicer than a docking port if people aren't using KAS to remove them after.

 

 

1 hour ago, Avalon304 said:

I dont know whats causing this when the tail plane is attached to the craft (and more importantly, why its only the Buran that sees this issue).

Yeah that's weird. I fixed that problem many versions ago. I probably goofed a collider or something on the B model. Temporary fix is to attach the flap to the bottom and gizmo it back into place.

As for the CoM it's staying where it is for now. I haven't decided if I like the idea of the two parts having different stats. I'd prefer they stayed the same to keep heavier tailed designs available for that version. It flies alright as is (or just ballast the tail some)

[Avalon304]

37 minutes ago, Pak said:

Yeah that's weird. I fixed that problem many versions ago. I probably goofed a collider or something on the B model. Temporary fix is to attach the flap to the bottom and gizmo it back into place.

As for the CoM it's staying where it is for now. I haven't decided if I like the idea of the two parts having different stats. I'd prefer they stayed the same to keep heavier tailed designs available for that version. It flies alright as is (or just ballast the tail some)

Oh, I wasnt complaining about the CoM as something that you needed to fix... I just figured I was going to have to ballast the tail some to put it where it should be. Though it is actually sitting about midway between the nose and main gear... so it might not be too bad where it is... I dunno, I havent put Buran into the air (like I have the Space Shuttle) to see how it glides with it where it is.

 

If it were something you wanted to consider, you could add some more monoprop into the Buran OMS bubble (or increase the max). 250 does seem low, as the tank seems larger than the stock 2.5m monoprop tank.

[Frednoeyes]

Hey Pak, seeing as how you made alternate textures for the Mk3 Cockpit and Cargo Bay to fit in more with the parts pack, you think you could do the same to some of the stock landing gear?

It looks a bit odd to see plain white gear stuck onto a black thermal tile shield. Just a thought.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Frednoeyes

[Pak]

7 hours ago, Frednoeyes said:

think you could do the same to some of the stock landing gear?

Yeah I'll consider it. I'm planning on redoing a lot of texture stuff when I get a chance, mainly reorganizing UVs and redoing the heat tiles (again) so I'd look at it around then.

Same with the elevons but I'm looking at doing a 1-part option with both flaps instead of adding another two mostly stock parts.

[drtedastro]

Sounds great.

Pak's mod pack just keeps getting better and better.

Cheers.

[Frednoeyes]

2 hours ago, Pak said:

Yeah I'll consider it. I'm planning on redoing a lot of texture stuff when I get a chance, mainly reorganizing UVs and redoing the heat tiles (again) so I'd look at it around then.

Same with the elevons but I'm looking at doing a 1-part option with both flaps instead of adding another two mostly stock parts.

That's an interesting option.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Frednoeyes

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

Just had a look at the roadmap, and I'm curious about the offset flight computer. Is that for the orientation of the OMS, and would it make MechJeb able to fly the shuttle better on-orbit? Additionally, is there a way to make it switch between the views with one cockpit, as opposed to having another part? About the flaps part you're working on, will it have an attachment node, similar to the KSO Super 25?

Secondly, does anyone know of a good way to balance the AB Energia to fly the the CA Buran better? It flies well with stock parts, but with the additional mass it tends to fall over a bit.

@Pak, while you're still working on texturing the LV parts, I found something that might help. This PDF details some of the markings on the ET and the SRBs, and it's quite detailed.

For other interesting shuttle reading, here is another PDF by the same person outlining all of the distinguishing markings between the orbiters.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Z3R0_0NL1N3

[DrLicor]

So @Pak, I was just watching some news about NASA had seen an 'insect' on mars with there rovercamera. But at the end of the video, your spaceshuttle(parts) appears, what the hell does your mod in a dutch news video 

Here's the link: your shuttle appear at 2 minutes and 31 seconds.

http://upload.kijk.nl/ingezondenoverig/videos/qiKanIEtjQZY/ingezonden-overig

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by DrLicor
wrong link

[Avalon304]

2 hours ago, DrLicor said:

So @Pak, I was just watching some news about NASA had seen an 'insect' on mars with there rovercamera. But at the end of the video, your spaceshuttle(parts) appears, what the hell does your mod in a dutch news video 

Here's the link: your shuttle appear at 2 minutes and 31 seconds.

http://upload.kijk.nl/ingezondenoverig/videos/qiKanIEtjQZY/ingezonden-overig

 

Thats not a CA shuttle... that just... you know a 3D model of a US space shuttle...

[DrLicor]

@Avalon, crap, I really thought it was the mod. I feel so stupid right now haha

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

Hey, does anyone know how to use a FStextureSwitch2 config? I've been trying to figure it out with no luck; I'd like to make a tiled landing gear as a workaround until Pak makes his. Or at least a better thread for me to ask questions in.

Additionally, what program do you use to edit textures? I don't have Photoshop and Paint.NET can't handle the alpha channel transparency.

[Pak]

On 10/21/2016 at 10:35 PM, Z3R0_0NL1N3 said:

Just had a look at the roadmap, and I'm curious about the offset flight computer

 

@Pak, while you're still working on texturing the LV parts, I found something that might help. This PDF details some of the markings on the ET and the SRBs, and it's quite detailed.

For other interesting shuttle reading, here is another PDF by the same person outlining all of the distinguishing markings between the orbiters.

Thanks, those PDFs are great.

 

On the flight computer, it's just a little box where you can plug in probe cores so you can easily 'Control from here" for different orientations. It's just an idea right now and I have a feeling it won't actually happen. I don't know if it's worth the part count. I'm not aware of a way to adjust nodes or mesh switch in flight, so that's probably the simplest way to do it.

 

12 hours ago, DrLicor said:

@Avalon, crap, I really thought it was the mod. I feel so stupid right now haha

Can't win 'em all.

[Wahgineer]

@Pak, I saw at the bottom of the roadmap it said "Retro Shuttles". I have an udea on how you can get one out of the way right now: Saturn Shuttle. All you have to do is add a node to the bottom of the ET butt tank (the rounded ET tank).

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

16 hours ago, awsumindyman said:

@Pak, I saw at the bottom of the roadmap it said "Retro Shuttles". I have an udea on how you can get one out of the way right now: Saturn Shuttle. All you have to do is add a node to the bottom of the ET butt tank (the rounded ET tank).

Should be doable with the stock 3.75m parts for now, at any rate the Saturn-Shuttle ET was smaller in diameter than the SI, and I assume Pak's ET will be 5m.

For other late-roadmap suggestions, I would love to see the shuttle's engine fairings, like the one on Enterprise.

 

[NeoFatalis]

What about a MAKS style shuttle? I haven't seen any mod that has it

[Wahgineer]

2 hours ago, NeoFatalis said:

What about a MAKS style shuttle? I haven't seen any mod that has it

That would be the Boeing ALSV, MAKS American counterpart (which actually predates MAKS)

3 hours ago, Z3R0_0NL1N3 said:

Should be doable with the stock 3.75m parts for now, at any rate the Saturn-Shuttle ET was smaller in diameter than the SI, and I assume Pak's ET will be 5m.

For other late-roadmap suggestions, I would love to see the shuttle's engine fairings, like the one on Enterprise.

 

The ET for Saturn Shuttle was exactly the same one used for the regular shuttle. As far as Saturn V's go, BDB has a 5.625m Saturn V, which is more accurate to real life while being compatible with stock.

[DrLicor]

7 minutes ago, awsumindyman said:

2 hours ago, NeoFatalis said:

What about a MAKS style shuttle? I haven't seen any mod that has it

That would be the Boeing ALSV, MAKS American counterpart (which actually predates MAKS)

And a quite different nose, the MAKS nose is more pointy

[frencrs]

On 10/21/2016 at 8:35 PM, Pak said:

a 1-part option with both flaps instead of adding another two mostly stock parts.

 

This is the best solution IMHO.

Possible pros:

• Instead of stock wing models you could combine the delta wing and strakes into one.
• You could possibly have nodes on the sides of the main body that attach them flush.
• If you decide to do landing gear you could make a slot in the wing part that fits the gear (along with a slot in the nose part).

Possible cons:

• Way more extra modelling.
• Wing position wouldn't be adjustable, meaning it would have only one possible aerodynamic configuration.

This is basically the way KSO went with their shuttle design.

Edited October 26, 2016 by frencrs

[Wahgineer]

33 minutes ago, frencrs said:

 

This is the best solution IMHO.

Possible pros:

• Instead of stock wing models you could combine the delta wing and strakes into one.
• You could possibly have nodes on the sides of the main body that attach them flush.
• If you decide to do landing gear you could make a slot in the wing part that fits the gear (along with a slot in the nose part).

Possible cons:

• Way more extra modelling.
• Wing position wouldn't be adjustable, meaning it would have only one possible aerodynamic configuration.

This is basically the way KSO went with their shuttle design.

He isn't talking about the wings, he's talking about the flaps that attach to the back of the shuttle wing.

 

 

[Pak]

@frencrs Yeah I just mean the elevons. I don't like largely node attach designs as they're way too limiting. Especially things like wings and gear placements.