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

[Shadowmage]

14 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Re:RCS, yes, I was trying to break it up into multiple modules so that the player could determine what each axis of thrusters would be used for. Otherwise you have the retrograde thrusters being used for pitch, etc.

Re:Solar panels, I did not think of that! You're saying that instead of using the deployable solar panel module, just have the sunCatchers follow along with the animated parts? That sounds like it would work, but I don't think that there is a separate module for non-deployable panels. IIRC the stock static ones use the same one as the deployables, just with no line for animation.

Solar Panels -- if the stock static panels use the deployable module then that should likely work for you as well; merely omit the animation setup stuff and let the animation be controlled via the ModuleAnimateGeneric.

RCS -- See https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/blob/master/GameData/SSTU/Parts/ShipCore/Series-A/SC-A-SM.cfg for details/examples on the fx-prefix setup.  The misfiring effects threw me off on those initially as well; too taking the part into space and actually trying out the thrusters to figure out that it was only the effects that were messed up.

[Deimos Rast]

@CobaltWolf

Dear Mr. Space Wolf, you've put together quite the impressive parts pack! I really like the shear variety offered, and your spin on historical rockets. Oddly enough though, my favorite part of the pack is the science and antennas section - I think the science parts are really well done (if perhaps a little on the inexpensive side) - oh, and the probes!

I am however, having a problem with the mod, and I would best describe it as either "blurry" or "chalky" textures. I don't know how to describe it, there is just a lack of crispness to the lines and they seem to bleed over the edges. 

Here are two screen shots that I think high light the issue. They might not be entirely fair to your work, as they're from parts packs which are probably considered higher resolution (KW Rocketry and Ven Revamp, although KW is pretty dated), but I tried to pick plainer parts that still showed the contrast. When compared to stock textures, your's are closer in appearance, but still blurry to me (I don't really have any stock textures any more thanks to Ven's or I'd post one); of note is that other part's pack have this issue as well for me, but rarely as widespread; RLA has a few pieces I believe.

Please don't take all these the wrong way, as criticism as such, as I really like everything about your pack - I just can't figure out why this is the way it is. I don't use ATM or any other such graphical wizardry. My gfx card is a Geforce GTX 980 with the latest (non-beta) drivers; Linux 64 bit, highest resolution and graphics settings I can go in game, etc. I've tried this now with this edition (Alter 0.10) and one of the previous versions as well, with similar results. (Only thing I can think of is tweaking stuff out of game, but that would still apply evenly to all parts.)

Thoughts?

Cheers

 

Vulture vs Vesta (KW)

 

Assorted Fuel Tanks vs MK1 Pod (Ven)

[CobaltWolf]

2 hours ago, cxg2827 said:

Not Curt, but what I have done for mine is set up the animation in Blender, with the deployable active ring having its collider a child to it.

In Unity, you dont even have to export the blender file to .fbx since it recognizes the animation from the .BLEND file directly. Remove the mesh render components from the colliders and apply a mesh collider to them(set to convex of course).

I don't work from Blender - will it work from FBX? In any case, thanks!

2 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Solar Panels -- if the stock static panels use the deployable module then that should likely work for you as well; merely omit the animation setup stuff and let the animation be controlled via the ModuleAnimateGeneric.

RCS -- See https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/blob/master/GameData/SSTU/Parts/ShipCore/Series-A/SC-A-SM.cfg for details/examples on the fx-prefix setup.  The misfiring effects threw me off on those initially as well; too taking the part into space and actually trying out the thrusters to figure out that it was only the effects that were messed up.

That's a smart solution. I can even edit the names of the ModuleAnimateGeneric buttons to show the same as a solar panel's IIRC. That's also good considering there is an antenna on the part as well. 

Thanks for the example for the RCS! 

@cxg2827 @Shadowmage thanks for the help! I made those parts on stream and wasn't particularly interested in troubleshooting at the time, but now that I want to start getting DKAP finished I need to clean everything up and get it working.

1 minute ago, Deimos Rast said:

Dear Mr. Space Wolf, you've put together quite the impressive parts pack! I really like the shear variety offered, and your spin on historical rockets. Oddly enough though, my favorite part of the pack is the science and antennas section - I think the science parts are really well done (if perhaps a little on the inexpensive side) - oh, and the probes!

Here are two screen shots that I think high light the issue. They might not be entirely fair to your work, as they're from parts packs which are probably considered higher resolution (KW Rocketry and Ven Revamp, although KW is pretty dated), but I tried to pick plainer parts that still showed the contrast. When compared to stock textures, your's are closer in appearance, but still blurry to me (I don't really have any stock textures any more thanks to Ven's or I'd post one); of note is that other part's pack have this issue as well for me, but rarely as widespread; RLA has a few pieces I believe.

That is normal, thought perhaps not intentional. The textures are not particularly high res, as RAM usage was (and still is) a priority for me. This leads me to cram a bit more into a texture sheet than might be, ah, wise. I would say that things have been getting a bit better, but one of the parts you highlighted was added in the most recent release, so I really can't defend that haha. The Diamant solids came out fairly low res somehow. On the other hand, the Vulture engine along with the other Atlas engines are planned for a major refresh in the near future, as they are some of the worse offenders. 

I actually REALLY appreciate this sort of feedback since it's something that's totally in my wheelhouse (ie art and textures) and something that I hopefully could fix with a bit of elbow grease. If there are other parts that stick out like that I would appreciate an imgur gallery of the more egregious examples.

Also, if you like probes, science, and antennas,  you should check out @akron's CA Probes Plus! My probe parts list has been trimmed significantly and many planned probe parts were passed on to him so I can focus on other parts.

[Deimos Rast]

Yeah, I considered that it might be a memory savings thing. If you want my two sense on how to save memory (and I say this tongue in cheek) get rid of half the hundred fuel tanks! (I hate fuel tanks - Pods and Probes are where it's at).

Thanks for the recommendation on the probes, off to check it out now.

Cheers.

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, Deimos Rast said:

Yeah, I considered that it might be a memory savings thing. If you want my two sense on how to save memory (and I say this tongue in cheek) get rid of half the hundred fuel tanks! (I hate fuel tanks - Pods and Probes are where it's at).

Generally speaking, the fuel tanks are on separate texture sheets! You can safely delete the textures + cfgs for them to save ram. The only thing to be warned of is that those sheets usually also have structural parts and decouplers in them. If you're going straight PP and just want the engines and other unique parts, that won't be a problem.

[Deimos Rast]

Yeah actually I've spent some time (don't cringe) taking the axe to your part pack (sorry!). I long ago discovered that, since I can't use Unity on Linux, I can instead use eMacs to open .Mu files (and .DDS files as well). Most of the file is gibberish, but at the bottom of the file it does tell me which texture files it requires, so I know which ones to save. Works like a charm.

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, Deimos Rast said:

Yeah actually I've spent some time (don't cringe) taking the axe to your part pack (sorry!). I long ago discovered that, since I can't use Unity on Linux, I can instead use eMacs to open .Mu files (and .DDS files as well). Most of the file is gibberish, but at the bottom of the file it does tell me which texture files it requires, so I know which ones to save. Works like a charm.

If I got upset every time someone did that I'd have had to stop modding a long time ago  

If you ever have questions I can probably answer them faster than you having to open stuff up in emacs.

[cxg2827]

46 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I don't work from Blender - will it work from FBX? In any case, thanks!

I'll test exporting it to FBX later tonight after work, and I'll let you know.

[Deimos Rast]

I'll give you another data point of feedback, not that it's of much use as your method is probably best, but it's something that drives me up the wall with your pack, Tantares, and (to a lesser extent) FASA: folder organization and structure. I know next to nothing about rockets or the history of our space program besides "point end goes up" and "one small step." To ya'll (the authors), it seems obvious that the Sienno probe belongs in the Explorer folder, when I'm sitting here looking around for a Sienno folder because there is no probe titled "Explorer" in your entire part pack. The only reason I know the Sienno is the Explorer probe analog is because I have FASA and they look the same.

Yes, this is a really minor issue to be sure, but you seem a friendly Space Wolf (not like those other Space Wolves), so I figured I'd mention it, because I doubt anyone else cares about such things. And I'm not suggesting making any serious changes. Maybe, at most, an included text document or something that says "Rocketry Analogues for the Ignorant" for the important stuff ... you get the idea.

[CobaltWolf]

2 minutes ago, cxg2827 said:

I'll test exporting it to FBX later tonight after work, and I'll let you know.

Awesome! I'd actually really appreciate that - that way if it doesn't work for me I'll know it's something on my end.

1 minute ago, Deimos Rast said:

I'll give you another data point of feedback, not that it's of much use as your method is probably best, but it's something that drives me up the wall with your pack, Tantares, and (to a lesser extent) FASA: folder organization and structure. I know next to nothing about rockets or the history of our space program besides "point end goes up" and "one small step." To ya'll (the authors), it seems obvious that the Sienno probe belongs in the Explorer folder, when I'm sitting here looking around for a Sienno folder because there is no probe titled "Explorer" in your entire part pack. The only reason I know the Sienno is the Explorer probe analog is because I have FASA and they look the same.

Yes, this is a really minor issue to be sure, but you seem a friendly Space Wolf (not like those other Space Wolves), so I figured I'd mention it, because I doubt anyone else cares about such things. And I'm not suggesting making any serious changes. Maybe, at most, an included text document or something that says "Rocketry Analogues for the Ignorant" for the important stuff ... you get the idea.

Gotchu fam.

[Deimos Rast]

And...it's linked on the front page right by the stuff nobody (i.e. me) never reads.

Welp. Ain't that a thing.

(thanks)

[CobaltWolf]

Quick update - I likely won't be streaming tonight. I'm not feeling particularly well. I might still get some work done but no promises.  

[Sgt.Shutesie]

8 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

@shutes did you have to quote the whole thing?

There, fixed.

[Foxxonius Augustus]

So I have just found something that isn't a bug with the MOS parts... Unless I leave a Gemini permanently docked or add a probe core I can't control a MOS since nether the hab nor the lab count as a control point. I know something like a service module is planned. Will it be treated as a control point as well as its other functions?

[TimothyC]

1 hour ago, Foxxonius Augustus said:

So I have just found something that isn't a bug with the MOS parts... Unless I leave a Gemini permanently docked or add a probe core I can't control a MOS since nether the hab nor the lab count as a control point. I know something like a service module is planned. Will it be treated as a control point as well as its other functions?

There is going to be a 1.875m probecore.

[CobaltWolf]

12 hours ago, Foxxonius Augustus said:

So I have just found something that isn't a bug with the MOS parts... Unless I leave a Gemini permanently docked or add a probe core I can't control a MOS since nether the hab nor the lab count as a control point. I know something like a service module is planned. Will it be treated as a control point as well as its other functions?

3

11 hours ago, TimothyC said:

There is going to be a 1.875m probecore.

^ There will be a 1.875m probe core, though I think it would be kind of cool if the 'canon' plan was to launch all the segments with a Leo on top like the real MOL. So a launch consists of Leo+MOS segment which has a docking port on each end, possibly in an interstage type fairing. The Leo provides guidance and control during the docking, and then undocks when it's time to leave, making the docking node open for further expansion. You'd have to have additional Belle-type docking ports in one of the segments in order to have a larger crew up there...

@TimothyC I liked the talk we had on one of the recent streams. For those of you who weren't there, I asked why so many of the US vehicle proposals such as Big Gemini or the updated LEO Apollo models were meant to carry so many crew up to orbit. Many proposals had 6 crew aboard, and some have even more. Essentially the answer he gave was that the engineers still hadn't processed the innovations that would come out of the microchip, with how much computers would be able to automate and make intelligent decisions. Personally, I found that fascinating and I wonder how I could integrate that line of thinking into the mod.

EDIT: Also, for those that have been following MOS development, are there any bits and pieces that you really want that I've missed? In case anyone has similar questions as @Foxxonius Augustus. I'd like to make sure I don't miss any important bits.

Edited May 5, 2016 by CobaltWolf

[Rory Yammomoto]

I was thinking- why not have 187.5 cm or 150 cm docking ports? If you are going to go make Gemini MOl, and the nose of the Gemini cannot hold a person, How does one go inside a second time? The First time is obvious - the Gemini had a hole in the heat shield, which works perfectly fine - but how does one get from a Gemini crew rotation? 

[CobaltWolf]

13 minutes ago, Rory Yammomoto said:

I was thinking- why not have 187.5 cm or 150 cm docking ports? If you are going to go make Gemini MOl, and the nose of the Gemini cannot hold a person, How does one go inside a second time? The First time is obvious - the Gemini had a hole in the heat shield, which works perfectly fine - but how does one get from a Gemini crew rotation? 

There is a 1.875m docking port for joining the modules. For crew, a basic Leo will have to dock on an Belle-type port and EVA over inside.

[akron]

I keep missing the streams, do you have new screenshots of progress from those sessions?

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, akron said:

I keep missing the streams, do you have new screenshots of progress from those sessions?

I will make sure to take some tonight. There hasn't been much significant progress, I've been noodling around in Maya and generally making more work for myself. I actually might take some extra nights off without the stream to get major work done. There are some screenshots here and here. 

Also, I totally want to add thrust curves to SRBs...

EDIT: I have some stuff going on tonight. Depending on what time I get everything done, I might not stream. I'll try and keep y'all posted.

Edited May 5, 2016 by CobaltWolf

[davidy12]

@CobaltWolf: On the roadmap, what does the **** mean?

[CobaltWolf]

8 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

@CobaltWolf: On the roadmap, what does the **** mean?

Was trying to get myself organized. They're things that I want to prioritize. IRL stuff has been a little crazy lately so I'm trying to not get bogged down. I need to focus a bit more and make better use of the time I sit down to work.

EDIT: To explain / vent a little more, I work six days a week now in addition to other commitments. While some days (Mondays, Fridays) I can sneak in work while I wait for videos to render, Tuesdays thru Thursdays all I can do is post here. What happens is I spend the day all wound up and wanting to work on things, and then by the time I get home I'm usually exhausted and don't get as much done as I'd like. Which then leads me to be thinking about things more the next day, which makes me more burnt out by the time I get home, etc. It's just aggravating having to spend the most productive part of my days unable to work on what I really want to work on.

Edited May 5, 2016 by CobaltWolf

[Jso]

4 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Also, I totally want to add thrust curves to SRBs...

Worth exploring. Likely would be cool on the boosters. Less so on the SafeSolid stuff.

[CobaltWolf]

24 minutes ago, Jso said:

Worth exploring. Likely would be cool on the boosters. Less so on the SafeSolid stuff.

Oh wow! That wouldn't even be that hard to set up - they have the thrust curves right there! We can probably infer for everything else. I agree that it would be better for the boosters than the upper stages. 

I love all the inline variants of some of those solids, especially the GEMs. Too bad they're on the Delta texture sheet. 

[akron]

You guys are good at finding reference stuff!