[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.14.0 "металл" 30/Sep/2024)

[kspbutitscursed]

39 minutes ago, Zorg said:

This is planned in the not too distant future.

any plans for a SEP like frost mod for atlas?

[Entr8899]

@CobaltWolf Do you think we could have a 0.9375m switch for the ETS Apollo 2.5m and 1.875m mission modules, so they can be used with the APAS-75, please? The AARDV endcap part, which is nearly identical to the 2.5m mission module's endcap, has a 0.9375m switch...

Edited July 20 by Entr8899

[Zorg]

1 hour ago, kspbutitscursed said:

any plans for a SEP like frost mod for atlas?

No

[GoldForest]

4 hours ago, Entr8899 said:

@CobaltWolf Do you think we could have a 0.9375m switch for the ETS Apollo 2.5m and 1.875m mission modules, so they can be used with the APAS-75, please? The AARDV endcap part, which is nearly identical to the 2.5m mission module's endcap, has a 0.9375m switch...

IIRC, the modules have a 0.9375m ring and a 1.25m ring built in. 

Edit, nevermind. I forgot the Module III only has 0.625 and the Module IV has 0.625 or 1.25. 

There is the 1.25 to 0.9375 mercury lab adapter though. Just use that. Yeah, it's in white, but we have white Apollo, so not a big deal imo. 

Edited July 20 by GoldForest

[Cheesecake]

7 hours ago, kspbutitscursed said:

any plans for a SEP like frost mod for atlas?

Is that what you mean?

[Rodger]

Longstanding bug fixed, the SLA panels actually shield the contents:

Also a new closed wide variant:

Also updated the textures for less dds artifacts (no  pink/green tinge), and they now have new normals so there's no more weird lighting at the part seams.

[Taco Salad]

9 minutes ago, Rodger said:

Longstanding bug fixed, the SLA panels actually shield the contents:

Also a new closed wide variant:

Also updated the textures for less dds artifacts (no  pink/green tinge), and they now have new normals so there's no more weird lighting at the part seams.

Oh thank you, I've been wanting a capped variant of that fairing forever

[GoldForest]

10 minutes ago, Rodger said:

Longstanding bug fixed, the SLA panels actually shield the contents:

Also a new closed wide variant:

Also updated the textures for less dds artifacts (no  pink/green tinge), and they now have new normals so there's no more weird lighting at the part seams.

No drag with a hole in the fairing? Unrealistic, uninstalling! 

lol, jk. Great work on fixing that bug! 

[Rodger]

1 minute ago, GoldForest said:

No drag with a hole in the fairing? Unrealistic, uninstalling! 

lol, jk. Great work on fixing that bug! 

Haha, yeah it was this or having drag even with an Apollo on top.

The fix is kinda funny - there's now an invisible nose cone on all variants (it even still has a meshrenderer and texture, it's just on layer 21) , without any new colliders. The cargo bay module still sees it though, so it thinks it's shielded. Spent so long trying different combinations of extra colliders and cargo bay module settings, was such a relief when something finally worked lol

[biohazard15]

30 minutes ago, Rodger said:

Longstanding bug fixed, the SLA panels actually shield the content

Nice!

BTW: any chance looking at another long-standing bug with Gemini-B retro motor mount? Currently, you can't mount retro motors in 6x symmetry, which throws a wrench into sequential firing.

It seems that KSP can't handle the proper 6x symmetry in case of nodes being off-center, so IIRC Cobalt just made it to auto-4x. One CAN fix this by a simple MM patch - and I indeed made said fix for myself - and putting the "initial" motor at the node adjacent to the black box. But I kinda want to see if it's possible to fix it once and for all.

Said fix:

	@PART[bluedog_GeminiB_RetroModule]:AFTER[Bluedog_DB]
{
  stackSymmetry = 5
}
	

[jacks]

idk if this really is an issue but the gemini heat shield doesnt seem to work properly. 

during reentry it should be using the ablative heat shield, but the heat just ignores the heat shield and goes for the gemini capsule insted

 

[Rodger]

3 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

BTW: any chance looking at another long-standing bug with Gemini-B retro motor mount? Currently, you can't mount retro motors in 6x symmetry, which throws a wrench into sequential firing.

It seems that KSP can't handle the proper 6x symmetry in case of nodes being off-center, so IIRC Cobalt just made it to auto-4x. One CAN fix this by a simple MM patch - and I indeed made said fix for myself - and putting the "initial" motor at the node adjacent to the black box. But I kinda want to see if it's possible to fix it once and for all.

This is already like that on dev, but it doesn't seem to work very well like this either. The center-line SRMs point away from the CoM in 6x symmetry, while it's correct when individually placed. If the main advantage of symmetry is allowing the auto-sequential firing, you can at least replicate that by manually firing each engine manually. I might be able to set up a B9PS module to allow for correct setup... but no promises at this point. Looks like I can't fix this with B9PS

6x:

Vs individual:

1 hour ago, jacks said:

idk if this really is an issue but the gemini heat shield doesnt seem to work properly. 

during reentry it should be using the ablative heat shield, but the heat just ignores the heat shield and goes for the gemini capsule insted

Do you have FAR installed perhaps? Would probably need a log to look into it more, but it's unlikely to be something we can do much about on our end.

Edited July 21 by Rodger

[DaveyJ576]

@Pappystein For your Hypergolics patch, you stated previously to defuel the Titan stages to 90% to get realistic performance. Is this because of a weight issue when fully fueled? I have not used the patch before and was curious. I wanted to make sure I understood it properly.  I fly on KSRSS at 2.5x. Thanks.

[GoldForest]

9 minutes ago, DaveyJ576 said:

@Pappystein For your Hypergolics patch, you stated previously to defuel the Titan stages to 90% to get realistic performance. Is this because of a weight issue when fully fueled? I have not used the patch before and was curious. I wanted to make sure I understood it properly.  I fly on KSRSS at 2.5x. Thanks.

Fully fueled titan still has positive TWR. I always fully fuel my titans. 

[jacks]

18 hours ago, Rodger said:

This is already like that on dev, but it doesn't seem to work very well like this either. The center-line SRMs point away from the CoM in 6x symmetry, while it's correct when individually placed. If the main advantage of symmetry is allowing the auto-sequential firing, you can at least replicate that by manually firing each engine manually. I might be able to set up a B9PS module to allow for correct setup... but no promises at this point. Looks like I can't fix this with B9PS

6x:

Vs individual:

Do you have FAR installed perhaps? Would probably need a log to look into it more, but it's unlikely to be something we can do much about on our end.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15PkOC-lCqGmdxa3m1-oHr67ZZ7AM2i_L?usp=sharing

here is my log i can also get a few pictures 

[jacks]

https://imgur.com/a/fV0Q6hR

 

here is a image for context

[Neil Kerman]

I'm having an odd issue and first noticed it with some Bluedog DB parts, though I am unsure if the issue is related to Bluedog DB. Certain parts have very high volumes, much higher than they ought to be, while other parts have values which are much smaller than they ought to be, and in some cases negative values. Does anyone have an explanation? I have some screenshots of the problem and my log on this post

https://imgur.com/a/PnkGjVa

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ouZt-T9nX3dM00QB-npOOdI-FhNX5Ebh/view?usp=sharing

If you guys have any idea what could be causing this I'd greatly appreciate your input.

[Rodger]

4 hours ago, jacks said:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15PkOC-lCqGmdxa3m1-oHr67ZZ7AM2i_L?usp=sharing

here is my log i can also get a few pictures 

I can't really see much that might be causing this, I can only really suggest installing KSP Community Fixes and testing again.

You also have some minor installation mistakes for the BDB extras patches - they should all live within a folder called 'Bluedog_DB_Extras' inside gamedata, instead of directly in gamedata. It doesn't matter much, but it will break some texture replacements in the methalox patches, which do rely on file paths.

2 hours ago, Neil Kerman said:

I'm having an odd issue and first noticed it with some Bluedog DB parts, though I am unsure if the issue is related to Bluedog DB. Certain parts have very high volumes, much higher than they ought to be, while other parts have values which are much smaller than they ought to be, and in some cases negative values. Does anyone have an explanation? I have some screenshots of the problem and my log on this post

https://imgur.com/a/PnkGjVa

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ouZt-T9nX3dM00QB-npOOdI-FhNX5Ebh/view?usp=sharing

If you guys have any idea what could be causing this I'd greatly appreciate your input.

Looks like KSP PartVolumes isn't recognizing that it shouldn't patch parts with ModuleGroundPart, so is overriding the volumes we set with it's automatically generated ones. Should be able to blacklist the affected parts, though I'll also report to KSPPV. Not sure how you ended up with negative volumes with those stock parts though...

[Rodger]

@Neil Kerman If you want to fix this asap, you can place this file in your gamedata. Should also be fixed next update anyway too.

[Kellanium]

checking in to share more screencaps, now that i've gotten JNSQ Volumetrics and EVE PBR working

 

Kinda beefed the skirt separation picture but 'm just kinda floored how pretty this is.

[CobaltWolf]

I must apologize on behalf of @Pappystein, who bought me a copy of BATTLETECH and then convinced me to install the BTA:3062 mod. Any delays or lack of progress on my end is solely his fault.

 

On 7/20/2024 at 9:38 AM, Entr8899 said:

@CobaltWolf Do you think we could have a 0.9375m switch for the ETS Apollo 2.5m and 1.875m mission modules, so they can be used with the APAS-75, please? The AARDV endcap part, which is nearly identical to the 2.5m mission module's endcap, has a 0.9375m switch...

Noted, don't know when I'll get to it, would likely require entirely new tops for those parts.

 

 

[Blufor878]

2 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I must apologize on behalf of @Pappystein, who bought me a copy of BATTLETECH and then convinced me to install the BTA:3062 mod. Any delays or lack of progress on my end is solely his fault.

 

Noted, don't know when I'll get to it, would likely require entirely new tops for those parts.

 

 

Battletech/Mechwarrior is worth it. Unless you choose house Liao, then you're doing it wrong. LONG LIVE THE PRINCE!

Real talk, you're not alone. I've just been accepted into my local model railroad club. This has led to my first additions to my collection in, like, 10 or so years. So you guys know why I haven't posted a lot recently. In any case, y'all always deliver.

[Pappystein]

On 7/21/2024 at 1:56 PM, DaveyJ576 said:

@Pappystein For your Hypergolics patch, you stated previously to defuel the Titan stages to 90% to get realistic performance. Is this because of a weight issue when fully fueled? I have not used the patch before and was curious. I wanted to make sure I understood it properly.  I fly on KSRSS at 2.5x. Thanks.

Actually it is because of the VOLUME as calculated for BDB with LFO (and the balances that then occurs)   When switching to a DENSER fuel of similar ISP (well Hypergolices are lower then Kerolox but not by a huge amount with the tech level we are talking)

So basically the Titan Tanks are actually TOO BIG volume wise internally.   So during the building of the Hypergolic BDB patch we defueled them to 80% of ideal (it should be 88% Ideal)  90% ideal didn't allow certain Historical launches to occur (Titan IIIA with payload for example.)   That 80% is a Default setting for the Titan tanks and was still active in my last attempt to build a Titan (with updated Dev build from a week ago)

To get as close as I can to that 88% fuel load without going to far over,  On a Standard Titan III or aTItan IV tanks I turn the First stage LOWER section to 90% fuel.   The Upper Stage to 90% fuel and leave the Upper tank for the lower stage at 80%

For a Titan IIIM (Titan 34x series) I also bump the upper tank to 90% for the first stage and lower the 2nd stage tank back to 80%   (yes it is weird but it gives more "life like" flight profiles)

 

[Taco Salad]

Getting a strange bug. The verniers on the Pele SRB are INCREDIBLY over tuned. They also don't vector correctly and send the rocket careening.
 

[Rodger]

1 hour ago, Taco Salad said:

Getting a strange bug. The verniers on the Pele SRB are INCREDIBLY over tuned. They also don't vector correctly and send the rocket careening.
 

You might just need to update, there was a short period where the majority of the thrust from the inline variant was coming from one of the verniers instead of the main bell. You probably downloaded dev between the 13th and 15th of July?