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

[Publius Kerman]

14 minutes ago, Rodger said:

There should be some BDB RO patches out there, though from what I’ve heard they are unfinished. (The only help I can offer is if you try them and get a missing resource definition error on startup, you can press esc to skip the error instead of closing ksp)

Do you mean RSS patches? The patches that make BDB work with RSS are all contained in RO not RSS.

[Publius Kerman]

On 4/6/2024 at 8:06 AM, Gupyzer0 said:

Uhmmm . . . What's you hardware? I run BDB in a very very bad PC (I5 + 5GB ram + GeForce 710 1GB) and can launch a Saturn V without problems or significant lag using JNSQ + Kerbalism.

Do you get a B9PartSwitch "supplies" warning when you have BDB and Kerbalism installed, and if so do you just ignore it; or do you have a custom patch to make them work?

Edited April 8 by Publius Kerman
Typo

[Rodger]

If you’re using RSS without RO, you could try this 

It should work fine in 1.12 still.

We’re unlikely to be providing part scaling patches for 10x on our end though, especially as SMURFF exists.

There also shouldn’t be a b9ps warning with kerbalism, there are patches that should be allowing them to work without error. @Publius Kerman if you want to post a link to your zipped ksp.log I can check if somethings wrong in that regard.

[Publius Kerman]

40 minutes ago, Rodger said:

There also shouldn’t be a b9ps warning with kerbalism, there are patches that should be allowing them to work without error. @Publius Kerman if you want to post a link to your zipped ksp.log I can check if somethings wrong in that regard.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1in7e0wnhhkcjk913t6gl/KSP_log.zip?rlkey=m71f7c493qlmvnkb27wv4icz5&dl=0

P.S. I totally forgot about SMURFF, will use in custom RSS install. Thx a ton

Edited April 8 by Publius Kerman
PS

[Rodger]

Looks like it's because Kerbalism Simplex is incorrectly causing BDB to think stock Kerbalism is installed due to some incorrect syntax.

For a temporary fix, you should be able to change the first line in GameData/Bluedog_DB/Compatibility/Kerbalism/KerbalismCargo.cfg

@PART[bluedog*,Bluedog*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch]:HAS[#switcherDescription[Cargo]]]:NEEDS[B9PartSwitch,KerbalismDefault,!LRTR,!Profilesimplex]:AFTER[Bluedog_DB_1]

 

[Entr8899]

Is there any progress on SeaSat?

[Gupyzer0]

1 hour ago, Entr8899 said:

Is there any progress on SeaSat?

I read somewhere here that invaderchaos was developing it. Maybe he's been busy, anyways we need to wait for Zorg to finish his Atlas revamp as we need  E/F to launch seasat "properly".

[CobaltWolf]

On 4/5/2024 at 9:12 AM, Taco Salad said:

We have the SNAP-29. The S-IVB tank-wrapper RTG.. But could we get a parts-switch for a radiator less version for general use? Rather like the flat form-factor of it.
 

Super belated answer, but the existing SNAP-29 wouldn't work as a standalone I think? Since it's made to fit to the 4.25m cylinder. I'd have to make a completely separate part I think.

 

1 hour ago, Entr8899 said:

Is there any progress on SeaSat?

No, Invader is too busy making real rockets in real life

 

[Blufor878]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

 

No, Invader is too busy making real rockets in real life

 

I'm sorry, what?

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

No, Invader is too busy making real rockets in real life

See SOME of us are not just pretend Rocket Scientists!   Or Rocket Engineers,   Or Rocket Fabricators,  Or Rocket Mechanics!

 

[Adam-Kerman]

@Zorg
Question, Idk if been asked on your New Atlas's , but how it handle decals or do know / figured yet ?

[Gupyzer0]

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

No, Invader is too busy making real rockets in real life

Now that's amazing!

Guess we won't have seasat for a while  but feels good to know he's in his dream job.

 

[AdrianDogmeat]

Comet HLLV - First Lunar Outpost

[GoldForest]

5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

No, Invader is too busy making real rockets in real life

Okay, you can't drop that on us and not tell us what rocket!

[Blufor878]

2 hours ago, GoldForest said:

Okay, you can't drop that on us and not tell us what rocket!

Careful, we should avoid War Thundering the KSP community.

That is really cool that we have actual irl rocket folks among us, though.

[GuessingEveryDay]

46 minutes ago, Blufor878 said:

Careful, we should avoid War Thundering the KSP community.

That is really cool that we have actual irl rocket folks among us, though.

I think the only thing we have to worry about on this community, about breaking ITAR, is blueprints for the fuel pumps and guidance programming. Otherwise, we should be fine with classified information that shows that the TX-657 booster, used in the AGM-114 K2 "Hellfire" missile, has the same amount of thrust as the Castor I. In other words, we should add Hellfires to the game. It'll be a smaller version of the Mite booster.

[Zorg]

12 hours ago, Adam-Kerman said:

@Zorg
Question, Idk if been asked on your New Atlas's , but how it handle decals or do know / figured yet ?

The issue of how to handle surface attach hasnt been decided yet. On one hand the no surface attach concept was something that helped distinguish the balloon tanks and worked as a balancing factor given how much better the mass fraction is compared to other tanks. On the other hand we do know a lot of users like decals and there is a lot of scope for fun decals on the Atlas series especially the various test launches. I'm probably leaning towards allowing surface attach. Even on the current base tank model you can surface attach to the LR101 mounting points and slide things up whether its decals or other things so maybe it doesnt matter so much other than making things awkward.

Edited April 10 by Zorg

[Pudgemountain]

7 minutes ago, Zorg said:

The issue of how to handle surface attach hasnt been decided yet. On one hand the no surface attach concept was something that helped distinguish the balloon tanks and worked as a balancing factor given how much better the mass fraction is compared to other tanks. On the other hand we do know a lot of users like decals and there is a lot of scope for fun decals on the Atlas series especially the various test launches. I'm probably leaning towards allowing surface attach. Even on the current base tank model you can surface attach to the LR101 mounting points and slide things up whether its decals or other things so maybe it doesnt matter so much other than making things awkward.

I don't think decals would be an issue given 90% of the people here tend to make cursed rockets all of the time lol.

But in all seriousness the Atlas rockets are coming along nicely.

[dave1904]

2 hours ago, Zorg said:

The issue of how to handle surface attach hasnt been decided yet. On one hand the no surface attach concept was something that helped distinguish the balloon tanks and worked as a balancing factor given how much better the mass fraction is compared to other tanks. On the other hand we do know a lot of users like decals and there is a lot of scope for fun decals on the Atlas series especially the various test launches. I'm probably leaning towards allowing surface attach. Even on the current base tank model you can surface attach to the LR101 mounting points and slide things up whether its decals or other things so maybe it doesnt matter so much other than making things awkward.

People that want to surface attach things to balloon tanks will find a workaround anyway. The players that appreciate the level of detail and rocket design will refuse to abuse the "overpowered" tanks anyway. 

[GoldForest]

2 hours ago, Zorg said:

The issue of how to handle surface attach hasnt been decided yet. On one hand the no surface attach concept was something that helped distinguish the balloon tanks and worked as a balancing factor given how much better the mass fraction is compared to other tanks. On the other hand we do know a lot of users like decals and there is a lot of scope for fun decals on the Atlas series especially the various test launches. I'm probably leaning towards allowing surface attach. Even on the current base tank model you can surface attach to the LR101 mounting points and slide things up whether its decals or other things so maybe it doesnt matter so much other than making things awkward.

I have a suggestion for that. You could make a colidable mesh on the pipes/raceways that runs up the center of the tank.  That would allow decals while not allowing surface attach to the actual tank itself. 

Of course, the best solution is probably just to allow surface attach on the tank itself. I mean, KSP is about lego-ing rockets and allowing things that IRL wouldn't allow. 

11 hours ago, Blufor878 said:

Careful, we should avoid War Thundering the KSP community.

That is really cool that we have actual irl rocket folks among us, though.

How would knowing what rocket Invader works on be anything like what happens in War Thunder? 

[Blufor878]

5 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

How would knowing what rocket Invader works on be anything like what happens in War Thunder? 

I meant that as a warning for Jeb and Val .

[Pappystein]

5 hours ago, dave1904 said:

People that want to surface attach things to balloon tanks will find a workaround anyway. The players that appreciate the level of detail and rocket design will refuse to abuse the "overpowered" tanks anyway. 

True, But I think the original concept was for NOT THEM

But rather the people who want to abuse the game (and there are a lot of people like that out there.   See any cursed, not an irl concept/designed rocket for a good example

 

**YES I AM MOSTLY JOKING HERE  Dont @ Me**

[OrbitalManeuvers]

8 hours ago, Zorg said:

The issue of how to handle surface attach hasnt been decided yet.

Can this not still be done via the Extras patch?

[CobaltWolf]

On 4/6/2024 at 8:06 AM, Gupyzer0 said:

@CobaltWolf Any pictures of the "extras" (science experiments) you talked about earlier?, the X-15 sure looks fine!

So, there's three main places for experiments:

1) The payload bay behind the cockpit.

 

2) The wingtip pods

 

3) The rear of the plane, above the engine and behind the vertical stabilizer. On X-15A-2 it's a helium tank, but a number of other experiments flew there.

 

 

 

As for what specifically will make the cut? Hard to say quite yet.

[Legolas5533]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

So, there's three main places for experiments:

1) The payload bay behind the cockpit.

 

2) The wingtip pods

 

3) The rear of the plane, above the engine and behind the vertical stabilizer. On X-15A-2 it's a helium tank, but a number of other experiments flew there.

 

 

 

As for what specifically will make the cut? Hard to say quite yet.

The payload bay behind the cockpit would be very useful for general experiment storage, especially if it's a cargo bay of sorts (satelite deployment comes to mind too). Same goes for the rear. The wingtips would be very good mounting points for missiles weather experiments and are especially easy to access and possibly replace on EVA on the ground (or even maybe in space). Just a thought. You do what you think is best, all of the options are great.