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

[nobodyhasthis2]

1 minute ago, CobaltWolf said:

Find me sources and it will probably happen. Inon/Centaur is getting redone anyways. Probably going to two or three variants of the tankage - white painted for Atlas-Centaur and Atlas V, metal for Titan, orange for Atlas 2 / 3. Maybe. 

Though it might make @VenomousRequiem sad since she modeled the RL-10...

oh did you just hit 1000 posts? 

[davidy12]

@CobaltWolf: CONGRATS ON 1000 POSTS!!!

[CobaltWolf]

Eh. 1000 posts is kinda meaningless. 1776 posts is where it's at. 

EDIT: Also, every single time this thread goes 'HOT!' is because I'm sitting at the computer lab trying to ignore my responsibilities...

Edited February 28, 2016 by CobaltWolf

[Sgt.Shutesie]

Shouldn't there be 1738 posts.

[akron]

6 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Eh. 1000 posts is kinda meaningless. 1776 posts is where it's at. 

EDIT: Also, every single time this thread goes 'HOT!' is because I'm sitting at the computer lab trying to ignore my responsibilities...

Go do your work! We can't have you all stressed out with classes later on

[davidy12]

@CobaltWolf: I'm currently at the library and have to work on a essay. However, I'm procrastinating.

Edited February 28, 2016 by davidy12

[VenomousRequiem]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

I don't think the Centaur needs a core? I don't think it ever flew with that sort of independent control. 

 

1 hour ago, davidy12 said:

@CobaltWolf:I beg to differ.

 

Also, it had I believe attitude control thrusters (not shown in the diagram) to either re-ignite/orientate the spacecraft. 

Just modify the fairing  and add thrusters at the bottom of the stage

 

54 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Find me sources and it will probably happen. Inon/Centaur is getting redone anyways. Probably going to two or three variants of the tankage - white painted for Atlas-Centaur and Atlas V, metal for Titan, orange for Atlas 2 / 3. Maybe. 

Though it might make @VenomousRequiem sad since she modeled the RL-10...

I also beg to differ. I know the modern Centaur V(Atlas V second stage) has its own guidance. Most rockets do, don't they? 

And he is right(at least for Centaur V), it does have a very unique set of RCS thrusters. There was a very in depth discussion about Centaur V's RCS thrusters over in the Real Scale Boosters thread. 

 

[CobaltWolf]

4 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said:

I also beg to differ. I know the modern Centaur V(Atlas V second stage) has its own guidance. Most rockets do, don't they? 

And he is right(at least for Centaur V), it does have a very unique set of RCS thrusters. There was a very in depth discussion about Centaur V's RCS thrusters over in the Real Scale Boosters thread. 

So... what are the thrusters? And what am I supposed to do for the avionics then? :\ 

Also I had to wait ten minutes for a test render. In that time I decided that the Juno series' name will be 'Chryslus'. It was manufactured by Chrysler and it doubles as a Fallout reference. For those of you curious what I've been working on, well, here it is. 

 

[123nick]

1 minute ago, CobaltWolf said:

So... what are the thrusters? And what am I supposed to do for the avionics then? :\ 

Also I had to wait ten minutes for a test render. In that time I decided that the Juno series' name will be 'Chryslus'. It was manufactured by Chrysler and it doubles as a Fallout reference. For those of you curious what I've been working on, well, here it is. 

 

10/10 would watch again. oh, and what is it from?

[davidy12]

@CobaltWolf: Fairing Base??? Modify it to have its one torque, mono-prop, command, etc.

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, 123nick said:

10/10 would watch again. oh, and what is it from?

Spy Kids mother-effin 2. In the middle of that awful movie Steve Buscemi delivers one of the best lines ever put on film.

@davidy12 that means I'd have to have a centaur avionics+fairing base, AND make another new 1.875m plain fairing base.

[123nick]

Just now, CobaltWolf said:

Spy Kids mother-effin 2. In the middle of that awful movie Steve Buscemi delivers one of the best lines ever put on film.

@davidy12 that means I'd have to have a centaur avionics+fairing base, AND make another new 1.875m plain fairing base.

omg i just realized YOU have just recently passed 1k posts on the forums!

[VenomousRequiem]

2 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

@CobaltWolf: Fairing Base??? Modify it to have its one torque, mono-prop, command, etc.

I don't know, I feel like if Centaur had a computer core it shouldn't just be built into the fairing base... Make a proper one. 

[CobaltWolf]

Found a good image of the Centaur RCS system...

The question now is... should these be integrated onto the mounting plate, or should they be separate, with spots to mount them (similar to how @hraban has the Briz KM stage set up, with flat blocks to mount the RCS on).

[123nick]

Just now, CobaltWolf said:

Found a good image of the Centaur RCS system...

The question now is... should these be integrated onto the mounting plate, or should they be separate, with spots to mount them (similar to how @hraban has the Briz KM stage set up, with flat blocks to mount the RCS on).

how about have them seperate, but also include on them nodes, stack nodes, too stack attach too the mounting plate, which will also have nodes for the rcs too attach?

[VenomousRequiem]

I say we include them in the mount, but then also have a separate model in case you want them somewhere else. Does that make sense? I didn't know how to word it. 

[123nick]

Just now, VenomousRequiem said:

I say we include them in the mount, but then also have a separate model in case you want them somewhere else. Does that make sense? I didn't know how to word it. 

2 parts? one with rcs built in, one with no rcs, or mounts, and seperate rcs parts?

[VenomousRequiem]

1 minute ago, 123nick said:

2 parts? one with rcs built in, one with no rcs, or mounts, and seperate rcs parts?

No, one mount with RCS in it, then the RCS separate in case you want just the RCS on something else. 

[123nick]

Just now, VenomousRequiem said:

No, one mount with RCS in it, then the RCS separate in case you want just the RCS on something else. 

oh ok. i guess that makes sense.

[TimothyC]

9 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I don't think the Centaur needs a core? I don't think it ever flew with that sort of independent control. 

Centaur D, G, G' (G Prime), T, II (Two), & III (Three) all had control systems. I think I'd go with very low thrust jets, and no torque.

A Centaur IV base would have had IVF replacing the RCS (in game monoprop) with LFO jets and a small fuel cell. The core on a Centaur IV would also be at the bottom. This was not a real thing, but a series of proposed upgrades that were all folded into ACES

If anyone was to do ACES it would have the above listed settings for the Centaur IV plus up to four engine placement nodes at the bottom. ACES would be 3-3.125m in KSP scale. (ACES was considered for  Atlas V launches early in the program).

[CobaltWolf]

1 minute ago, TimothyC said:

Centaur D, G, G' (G Prime), T, II (Two), & III (Three) all had control systems. I think I'd go with very low thrust jets, and no torque.

A Centaur IV base would have had IVF replacing the RCS (in game monoprop) with LFO jets and a small fuel cell. The core on a Centaur IV would also be at the bottom. This was not a real thing, but a series of proposed upgrades that were all folded into ACES

If anyone was to do ACES it would have the above listed settings for the Centaur IV plus up to four engine placement nodes at the bottom. ACES would be 3-3.125m in KSP scale. (ACES was considered for  Atlas V launches early in the program).

That's, uh, food for thought. (I'm going to bed, I'll reread in the morning)

Anyways, sergeants and baby probes are mostly unwrapped but I didn't have time to texture them... I might have spent some time playing around with, uh, stuff... Nothing much new.

 

[CobaltWolf]

14 hours ago, TimothyC said:

Centaur D, G, G' (G Prime), T, II (Two), & III (Three) all had control systems. I think I'd go with very low thrust jets, and no torque.

A Centaur IV base would have had IVF replacing the RCS (in game monoprop) with LFO jets and a small fuel cell. The core on a Centaur IV would also be at the bottom. This was not a real thing, but a series of proposed upgrades that were all folded into ACES

If anyone was to do ACES it would have the above listed settings for the Centaur IV plus up to four engine placement nodes at the bottom. ACES would be 3-3.125m in KSP scale. (ACES was considered for  Atlas V launches early in the program).

I will likely not be doing ACES, for the same reason that I am not doing things like Delta IV or Vulcan. Most modern rocket designs don't interest me. However, I would consider doing IVF because there is only a single LFO RCS unit in the game. Too bad I won't be able to do the blue hydrogen jet for the RCS - the RCS white puff effect is hardcoded.

Anyways, update on my end: The sergeant / baby probe stuff is partially textured. Explorer 1 is almost done, as are the sergeants. The various adapters and decouplers haven't started to receive textures, nor has Pioneer 1. The Pioneer 1 kick motor, Pioneer 4 both need to be UV mapped still. Explorer 11 still needs to be modeled but I probably won't worry about getting that done before a dev release. Jupiter needs more tweaks to it's textures, and the adapters need work.

I made some progress on rectifying the fact that all the structural adapters have tank domes. The current plan is to have a shared texture in a separate folder, and use it for all future adapter ends.

[123nick]

Just now, CobaltWolf said:

I will likely not be doing ACES, for the same reason that I am not doing things like Delta IV or Vulcan. Most modern rocket designs don't interest me. However, I would consider doing IVF because there is only a single LFO RCS unit in the game. Too bad I won't be able to do the blue hydrogen jet for the RCS - the RCS white puff effect is hardcoded.

Anyways, update on my end: The sergeant / baby probe stuff is partially textured. Explorer 1 is almost done, as are the sergeants. The various adapters and decouplers haven't started to receive textures, nor has Pioneer 1. The Pioneer 1 kick motor, Pioneer 4 both need to be UV mapped still. Explorer 11 still needs to be modeled but I probably won't worry about getting that done before a dev release. Jupiter needs more tweaks to it's textures, and the adapters need work.

I made some progress on rectifying the fact that all the structural adapters have tank domes. The current plan is to have a shared texture in a separate folder, and use it for all future adapter ends.

if you dont mind me asking, is there a reason for the apparent lack of dev streams lately?

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, 123nick said:

if you dont mind me asking, is there a reason for the apparent lack of dev streams lately?

There are a bunch of reasons that I don't really care to get into. I will probably start streaming again in the next couple of weeks but nowhere near as often.

Also, I originally thought you were asking about dev releases, so I'll answer that too: Soon. Ish. There hasn't been much worth releasing, because very little has been in a playable state lately. Everything I've worked on since 0.09a has been fairly unpolished and / or broken, so any feedback I got would basically amount to 'you should fix all these things you were already going to'.

[123nick]

Just now, CobaltWolf said:

There are a bunch of reasons that I don't really care to get into. I will probably start streaming again in the next couple of weeks but nowhere near as often.

Also, I originally thought you were asking about dev releases, so I'll answer that too: Soon. Ish. There hasn't been much worth releasing, because very little has been in a playable state lately. Everything I've worked on since 0.09a has been fairly unpolished and / or broken, so any feedback I got would basically amount to 'you should fix all these things you were already going to'.

ok, thanks for replying.