[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)

[CobaltWolf]

[quote name='Sgt.Shutesie']Are you considering making a Proton perhaps? I know Tantares has one, but I like the spin you put on your rocket textures.[/QUOTE]

Likely not. Personally I am a big fan of Tantares, and I am generally content to like the overseas things to him. BDB mostly focuses on 'Murican inspired rockets, but I suppose eventually I'll run out of those. On a side note, I find it somewhat ironic that that is the groove I've fallen in, considering the mod name was inspired by the various design bureaus of the soviet space program.

There are some textures that I'm really proud of (the XL thor tank, vanguard engine and the castor in the latest update come to mind) while others I struggle with (the AJ10s... and, well, most of the last update's fuel tanks). I would like to make them more consistent, but I supposed that is part of the reason why I started doing this in the first place, nyeh?

[A1Ch1]

[quote name='CobaltWolf']BDB mostly focuses on 'Murican inspired rockets, but I suppose eventually I'll run out of those.[/QUOTE]

If you ever feel like you're running out of Atlases... there's [URL="http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_2/United_States_4/Atlas-Vega/Description/Frame.htm"]always[/URL] [URL="http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas-vega-card.jpg"]Atlas-Vega[/URL], the cancellation of which drove GE out of the rocket business :) Edited November 25, 2015 by A1Ch1

[CobaltWolf]

[quote name='A1Ch1']If you ever feel like you're running out of Atlases... there's [URL="http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_2/United_States_4/Atlas-Vega/Description/Frame.htm"]always[/URL] [URL="http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas-vega-card.jpg"]Atlas-Vega[/URL], the cancellation of which drove GE out of the rocket business :)[/QUOTE]

Very cool! I was planning on doing something Vega-inspired for a 1.5m upper stage.

[CobaltWolf]

Test test? Are we back?

Hi guys! So, good news and bad news. Good news is I have gotten some stuff done.

New AJ10 nozzle textures. A lot of the stuff from the rocket part expansion was lacklustre and I'd like to go back and fix them.

Mercury is coming along nicely.

As well as Fenris

One the probe part front, the solar battery got knocked out Thursday.

 

Time for the bad news. This week is my lead up to finals, which are next week. I also have a lot of interviews lined up for internships over this coming spring / summer. I tell you all this because it's probably in out collective best interests for you to yell at me if you see me around here over the next two weeks.

Cheers!

[Sgt.Shutesie]

Shouldn't the Mercury retrograde package have 3 nozzles and not 1?

[CobaltWolf]

21 minutes ago, Sgt.Shutesie said:

Shouldn't the Mercury retrograde package have 3 nozzles and not 1?

Technically, yes. But the Mercury parts are based on PassingLurker's Bloeting Corp parts pack, which he passed to me to include in BDB. There's no real reason in KSP to make it have three nozzles instead of one, so I left it as-is.

[VenomousRequiem]

Heh heh... welcome back, guys. And as a welcome back gift, I come baring this:

New and updated RP configs! They work like... 100%. (Looking at you, Davidy12...)

This is just for those who don't want to wait, as the next update will include these.

[komodo]

Looking good, those parts! I would say I can't wait, but I can, cause... finals. Blah. I understand entirely. 

 

 

[RaendyLeBeau]

 

- GREAT !  - textures and parts looks very  professional. Exellent work to bluedog desing bureau

Edited December 1, 2015 by RaendyLeBeau
quote edit -

[komodo]

Showerthought for a moment... The explorer probe core + remotetech (My preferred masochism, but I digress): the built in omni is a nice feature, but apparently i'd thought it enabled from the start node. I just updated/reinstalled my addon folder, and went to launch a probe... right into the ground! ><

Apparently i'd made this tweak myself at some point and forgot about it, but I wondered... What would your guys' thoughts be on adjusting the tech requirement ? It is a advantage I think to be able to launch an unmanned craft near the start, but a disadvantage to need half the tree unlocked to use the short range omni.

Or, am I just remoteteching wrong? it wouldn't be the first time ><

Cheers

[CobaltWolf]

34 minutes ago, komodo said:

Showerthought for a moment... The explorer probe core + remotetech (My preferred masochism, but I digress): the built in omni is a nice feature, but apparently i'd thought it enabled from the start node. I just updated/reinstalled my addon folder, and went to launch a probe... right into the ground! ><

Apparently i'd made this tweak myself at some point and forgot about it, but I wondered... What would your guys' thoughts be on adjusting the tech requirement ? It is a advantage I think to be able to launch an unmanned craft near the start, but a disadvantage to need half the tree unlocked to use the short range omni.

Or, am I just remoteteching wrong? it wouldn't be the first time ><

Cheers

I mean... it's supposed to work at Tech 0. It doesn't?

EDIT: So, Agena. How do y'all want this thing set up? My thought was to have:

1) 1.25m tanks (long and short) in the Agena style.

2) 0.9375m tank w/ 1.25m adapter on top

3) Agena engine, would include a 1.25m autofairing

4) I was thinking of making the secondary thrusters, along with the fuel supplies, into a single part OMS, that could be radially attached. Some Agenas had none, some had two, some had 4.

Which leaves us with the question of how to do the fairings for the whole setup. There's no way to autoshroud it all without making the shroud for the engine longer than it should be, which would inconvenience anyone that wants to use the engine elsewhere. I could make the engine and the adapter tank all one unit, but that means that you'd be able to radially attach to the engine. Or I could just say use PFairings.

The alternate idea would be to make the adapter tank + engine into a single piece, with its own adapter fairing, and include the engine and tank separately. No extra textures used, so essentially ram free, but it adds two extra parts to your catalog. Thoughts?

Edited December 2, 2015 by CobaltWolf

[davidy12]

Looks gorgeous,  can't wait to get my hands on the Mercury.

Also, thank you Venom for the RP configs

Edited December 2, 2015 by davidy12

[CobaltWolf]

Another Mercury shot.

[Kartoffelkuchen]

24 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Another Mercury shot.

*likes this* VERY MUCH

[curtquarquesso]

30 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Another Mercury shot.

Wow. That looks completely fantastic. Amazing work. As mentioned by you already, big credit to @passinglurker for the initial capsule and retropack model, as well as the IVA.

1. What components are composite and individual? Can you show all the parts separated?

2. How do the support parts work with the stock Mk1 Pod? I assume the 0.625m connection will be wonky because the Mk1 Pod top node isn't actually 0.625m.

3. The size ratio between the capsule and the parachute/rcs compartment looks a bit off. Could the slope of the capsule be elongated at all? I kinda dig the cute and stubby capsule shape, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

4. Does the horizon scanner/antenna module animate at all? Might be nice to put some basic science modules in it for early game science. I like that better than strapping thermometers and barometers to the outside of the Mk 1 Pod. 

I was studying the black panels, and couldn't figure out why they didn't look quite right. Something just looks the tiniest bit off, but I figured it out. They're missing rivets. That's it. It doesn't need a ton, just a few in some of the corners. 

Some of your best work yet. Great job. 

[CobaltWolf]

42 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

Wow. That looks completely fantastic. Amazing work. As mentioned by you already, big credit to @passinglurker for the initial capsule and retropack model, as well as the IVA.

1. What components are composite and individual? Can you show all the parts separated?

2. How do the support parts work with the stock Mk1 Pod? I assume the 0.625m connection will be wonky because the Mk1 Pod top node isn't actually 0.625m.

3. The size ratio between the capsule and the parachute/rcs compartment looks a bit off. Could the slope of the capsule be elongated at all? I kinda dig the cute and stubby capsule shape, but I just thought I'd throw it out there.

4. Does the horizon scanner/antenna module animate at all? Might be nice to put some basic science modules in it for early game science. I like that better than strapping thermometers and barometers to the outside of the Mk 1 Pod. 

I was studying the black panels, and couldn't figure out why they didn't look quite right. Something just looks the tiniest bit off, but I figured it out. They're missing rivets. That's it. It doesn't need a ton, just a few in some of the corners. 

Some of your best work yet. Great job. 

Thank you! Is that how you tag people here now? Yes, a big thanks to @passinglurker for his Bloeting Corp parts. They still show up in game as Bloeting, which also appears as a contractor. As for your questions,

1)

 

2) The top node and the RCS are exactly 0.625m. I don't know about the stock pod but they should function with the other things I've been working on, like the two man pod.

3) The pod is a bit squat for Mercury. That's part of the original design of the Hermes, and I can't change it without completely remaking the pod geometry, which I didn't want to do. I already remade the RCS (since it doesn't have the Tantares one now), parachute, and LES. At any rate, I kinda like it. I like my Kerbal replicas slightly squat + cute.

4) As you can see in the screenshot, it does indeed work. They're part of the parachute module, which splits right below the white stripe. I know that's not where the real parachute goes, but it was the best way I could split it up for KSP. I was planning on putting some science in the RCS module. Perhaps a goo pod? Materials bay? I'm not sure. It's a bit late now to make it have an animation, but the science is more of an afterthought. I'm also hesitant to include too much science in parts that aren't science modules, just because that's not how the game works and so it makes the parts feel slightly cheaty IMO. Bear in mind I usually just clip my science parts into the pod haha.

5-ish) Which panels? If you could highlight them in paint or something that'd be really helpful haha.

EDIT: Have a screenshot from a suborbital hop.

 

Edited December 2, 2015 by CobaltWolf

[curtquarquesso]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

Thank you! Is that how you tag people here now? Yes, a big thanks to @passinglurker for his Bloeting Corp parts. They still show up in game as Bloeting, which also appears as a contractor. As for your questions,

1)

 

2) The top node and the RCS are exactly 0.625m. I don't know about the stock pod but they should function with the other things I've been working on, like the two man pod.

3) The pod is a bit squat for Mercury. That's part of the original design of the Hermes, and I can't change it without completely remaking the pod geometry, which I didn't want to do. I already remade the RCS (since it doesn't have the Tantares one now), parachute, and LES. At any rate, I kinda like it. I like my Kerbal replicas slightly squat + cute.

4) As you can see in the screenshot, it does indeed work. They're part of the parachute module, which splits right below the white stripe. I know that's not where the real parachute goes, but it was the best way I could split it up for KSP. I was planning on putting some science in the RCS module. Perhaps a goo pod? Materials bay? I'm not sure. It's a bit late now to make it have an animation, but the science is more of an afterthought. I'm also hesitant to include too much science in parts that aren't science modules, just because that's not how the game works and so it makes the parts feel slightly cheaty IMO. Bear in mind I usually just clip my science parts into the pod haha.

5-ish) Which panels? If you could highlight them in paint or something that'd be really helpful haha.

EDIT: Have a screenshot from a suborbital hop.

1. Sweet! Very logical choices. Exactly like it should be. 

2. GOOD. It's the Mk1 pod that has the problem. 

3. Stick with the squat. If people want scale accuracy, they can just use the Mk1 Pod. The squat is great.

4. Here is a solution:

a. Make the RCS block function like the Tantares Gemini RCS/Parachute block, and give it a ModuleDecouple definition to jettison the science part at the top.

b. Give the science/antenna part both the ModuleScienceExperiment, ModuleScienceContainer and ModuleDataTransmitter, but make the transmission science return low using xmitDataScalar. I think there's a restriction on Kerbal EVA in the tech tree, or in the astronaut complex so it'd give an incentive to upgrading your astronaut complex, and using a Gemini type craft, where you could EVA to recover and store that science inside your capsule, rather than transmitting it back to KSC for half science or so. 

5. I tried drawing them, and they looked stupid, so I found an example on Beale's Gemini:

Rivets on some of the corners, and down some, not all of the panels would look nice. They'd look more attached, and less painted on. As far as where to put them, I'd consider doing them on some of the vertical panel-butts, maybe every other panel. Play around with it, see how it looks.

Other thing I notice is that the corners of the panels are a bit overly rounded. It leaves what looks like a large void in-between. 

If you drop me a beta, I could look into configuring the science module for balance depending on what you decide to do with it, plus, I gave in and tried the 64-bit workaround, so I have a really pretty build of the game I could take some nice promo shots in:

Spoiler

 

[davidy12]

@CobaltWolf, At first I thought the Bloeting pod wouldn't fit well with Stock parts but I stand corrected, she's a beauty.  Also, does this mean you're going to make a Titan now that we have a gemini sometimes in the future.

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, curtquarquesso said:

1. Sweet! Very logical choices. Exactly like it should be. 

2. GOOD. It's the Mk1 pod that has the problem. 

3. Stick with the squat. If people want scale accuracy, they can just use the Mk1 Pod. The squat is great.

4. Here is a solution:

a. Make the RCS block function like the Tantares Gemini RCS/Parachute block, and give it a ModuleDecouple definition to jettison the science part at the top.

b. Give the science/antenna part both the ModuleScienceExperiment, ModuleScienceContainer and ModuleDataTransmitter, but make the transmission science return low using xmitDataScalar. I think there's a restriction on Kerbal EVA in the tech tree, or in the astronaut complex so it'd give an incentive to upgrading your astronaut complex, and using a Gemini type craft, where you could EVA to recover and store that science inside your capsule, rather than transmitting it back to KSC for half science or so. 

5. I tried drawing them, and they looked stupid, so I found an example on Beale's Gemini:

Rivets on some of the corners, and down some, not all of the panels would look nice. They'd look more attached, and less painted on. As far as where to put them, I'd consider doing them on some of the vertical panel-butts, maybe every other panel. Play around with it, see how it looks.

Other thing I notice is that the corners of the panels are a bit overly rounded. It leaves what looks like a large void in-between. 

If you drop me a beta, I could look into configuring the science module for balance depending on what you decide to do with it, plus, I gave in and tried the 64-bit workaround, so I have a really pretty build of the game I could take some nice promo shots in:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Whoa that's a nice screenshot. Those antennas are from Bloeting, correct? I don't think I have source files for them (at least, I haven't come across them in the files I have) but I'll make sure to grab them from the last release of Bloeting.

Yes, I need to fix the panel corners.

Look for a beta some time later this week. I have to sort some stuff out still. However, I am not sure if you understand how the parts are laid out. The parachute is in the base of the antenna part. The science would have to go in the RCS. I don't want to redo the textures / models at this point. I'm ok with how its set up.

49 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

@CobaltWolf, At first I thought the Bloeting pod wouldn't fit well with Stock parts but I stand corrected, she's a beauty.  Also, does this mean you're going to make a Titan now that we have a gemini sometimes in the future.

Titan is going to happen at some point, yes. In the mean time CONTARES has one that is scaled correctly. Don't expect a normal Gemini though, I'm not making the OMS for it. I don't want to make a giant cone ship haha. It's going to be closer to the HGR Radish.

EDIT: Eh. If anyone wants to take a look at it, here.

Edited December 3, 2015 by CobaltWolf

[curtquarquesso]

26 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Whoa that's a nice screenshot. Those antennas are from Bloeting, correct? I don't think I have source files for them (at least, I haven't come across them in the files I have) but I'll make sure to grab them from the last release of Bloeting.

Yes, I need to fix the panel corners.

Look for a beta some time later this week. I have to sort some stuff out still. However, I am not sure if you understand how the parts are laid out. The parachute is in the base of the antenna part. The science would have to go in the RCS. I don't want to redo the textures / models at this point. I'm ok with how its set up.

Titan is going to happen at some point, yes. In the mean time CONTARES has one that is scaled correctly. Don't expect a normal Gemini though, I'm not making the OMS for it. I don't want to make a giant cone ship haha. It's going to be closer to the HGR Radish.

• The antenna might actually be from OMSK I think. I thought initially they were from BDB, but if you don't recognize them, then that's not the case. Heh.

• I think I understand the part layout, my solution would have required remodeling, as you'd have to have a deployment animation for the RCS block. It'd be a fair bit of work, but not impossible. The current setup is a perfectly fine solution. I'll just have to see it in action. 

• Gemini has always been a major pain. I have yet to see someone come up with a decent one besides the FASA replica. Good luck if you ever attempt it. Let me know if you need help with part layout or scaling. 

[davidy12]

No IVA for Gemini You know you could just use the HGR one.

[CobaltWolf]

27 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

• The antenna might actually be from OMSK I think. I thought initially they were from BDB, but if you don't recognize them, then that's not the case. Heh.

• I think I understand the part layout, my solution would have required remodeling, as you'd have to have a deployment animation for the RCS block. It'd be a fair bit of work, but not impossible. The current setup is a perfectly fine solution. I'll just have to see it in action. 

• Gemini has always been a major pain. I have yet to see someone come up with a decent one besides the FASA replica. Good luck if you ever attempt it. Let me know if you need help with part layout or scaling. 

It might be from OMSK. The download of Bloeting I have doesn't have it. I'll assume OMSK. Which means I still need to make flippy antennas...

I mean, the current solution isn't much different than having it attached to the RCS. Depending on how I do the parts for the 2 man pod, there may be another 0.625m parachute, and the RCS would be reused.

On that note, I am really hesitant to call it Gemini just because then there's an expectation that I make the other parts.

13 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

No IVA for Gemini You know you could just use the HGR one.

Huh. I just realized this hasn't come up yet. I'll lay it out, this once:
I WILL NOT BE DOING IVAs FOR THIS MOD.

(That's not directed at you in particular Davidy :P)

Simply put, I don't really want to do them. They seem like tremendously hard word, and for every IVA I could most likely do several other parts in the time, which is what I'd rather be doing. This is not necessarily permanent, but it is until further notice. Also, there's no point until 1.1 comes along with the new shaders. Either way, the idea isn't very attractive to me. If anyone wants to do one I will gladly include it, with attribution.

[curtquarquesso]

48 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Huh. I just realized this hasn't come up yet. I'll lay it out, this once:
I WILL NOT BE DOING IVAs FOR THIS MOD.

Hear, hear. It's basically pointless with 1.1 around the corner. What about the existing IVA for the Bloeting pod? Does it still work just fine?

[CobaltWolf]

1 minute ago, curtquarquesso said:

Hear, hear. It's basically pointless with 1.1 around the corner. What about the existing IVA for the Bloeting pod? Does it still work just fine?

I. Uh. Didn't think of that.

[komodo]

19 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I mean... it's supposed to work at Tech 0. It doesn't?

I. Uh. Don't know. I thought it was too. The code looks like this currently:

@PART[bluedog_explorerprobe]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] //Sienno Probe Core
{

	%MODULE[ModuleSPU] {}
	
	%MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive]
	{
		%TechRequired = unmannedTech
		%OmniRange = 300000
		
		%TRANSMITTER 
		{
			%PacketInterval = 0.3
			%PacketSize = 2
			%PacketResourceCost = 15.0
		}
	}
	!MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] {}

	@MODULE[ModuleAnimateGeneric]
	{
		%allowManualControl = false
	}
	
	%TechRequired = start
	%MODULE[ModuleRTAntenna] 
	{
		%Mode0OmniRange = 0
		%Mode1OmniRange = 1500000
		%EnergyCost = 0.15
		%MaxQ = 6000
		
		%DeployFxModules = 0
		
		%TRANSMITTER 
		{
			%PacketInterval = 0.3
			%PacketSize = 2
			%PacketResourceCost = 15.0
		}
	}

}

It's the first TechRequired that counts, apparently. I think the second TechRequired applies to the whole part(?) if I can read MM-ese correctly. Changing that first one to = start seems to have adjusted it.

I looked at the config in an old download and its the same... So I must have adjusted that myself at some point and forgotten about it. (Twice in two days, doh!) Or my MM is insane. That's happened too.

RE: Agena: I'm not certain of my feedback. It's a little hard to picture, but what i'd say is that ... as for the OMS packages, your solution sounds like it would work well. More options is generally better, within reason. So we'd have... ENGINE--0.9375|1.25 tank--1.25 tank(s)--payload? With the OMS radially mounted to the adapter tank?

Fairings?... There is the USI sounding rockets idea, where there are floating nodes to hook fairing halves onto... but that's still kinda clunky. I think FASA did that as well? I never used their fairings.

I went looking for Agena pictures... but there aren't a whole lot, are there? Although this came up... One man space station they called it.

As for the pods, looking good! I understand about the IVAs. Probe IVAs tend to be dark and boring, besides