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

[komodo]

1 hour ago, Johnny2000 said:

@komodo Here you go https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzVZN-INX-lqQ2tfNGk4TWlwUkk

Cool, that's great. Learning is always appreciated, contributions even more so!  if you're already on github and such, do check out the issues/discussions. There's a lot of nuts and bolts stuff over there that may be of interest.

As for this issue... Hrm. The values in the WBITankSwitcher.cfg have been changed, yes, but the MM cache doesn't reflect this, nor the output.log. The output.log has a printout at the very end, just before the log goes into cleanup on KSP edit, line 69199, of the resource definition. Which is 594/726/150 LF/O/MP, which I imagine is what you see in game. Curiously, this is a value that was once tried, and is still commented out in the SM config, but it's not the one we have currently in the tank switcher config.

The MM cache is effectively a window into how the game sees its files. It has the same definition loaded, at line 2326 of the cache.

Soooo what's it mean? I don't know exactly. I would try moving/renaming the cache and forcing MM to rebuild it. It shouldn't have missed this, but it wouldn't be the first time the cache didn't get updated, either. I suspect that this is what is up, that a previous edit has gotten jammed up and it isn't seeing the new value.

Incidentally, if you're running at 10x rescale, I highly encourage you to check out the meta issue for rescales on github, #270. I don't think we have anyone who has tried 10x at any length, and any feedback would be extremely helpful.

(The BD_Extras folder has some hints/inspirations for rescaling parts as well, at least saturn and to a lesser extent, titan.)

If the issue persists, please check back. This is a weird one, but it shouldn't be too hard to run down.

Edited December 5, 2016 by komodo

[Johnny2000]

@komodo I willcheck it out later today. The scaling and smurff-thing is a challenge. Read over at Sigma Dimension that the ideal scale for Kerbin should be 10.5somethingsomething. So I tried it and it messed up all values I had on the Apollo system. So have to start over.

What I also want to test, is if I get the correct masses with 10.5xxx scale and bluesmurff, will it work perfectly to switch back 1x scale and still fly to the moon?

I did mess with the bluesmurff file itself. And got it to work quite well with the Mercury-Atlas. Don't remember exact now, but I think it was something like 1.09 or 1.07 for tanks and 1.03 for the pod. So then I decided to try the Apollo system, and everything was either too heavy or too light. So decided to keep the blueSMURFF  at 1 and instead edit the part.cfg.

But I will read up, and try what you suggested.Are there a cache for MM elsewhere than the GameData folder?

[Jso]

4 hours ago, Johnny2000 said:

I have been trying to reduce the volume of LFO in bluedog_Apollo_Block2_ServiceModule but without any luck. Have edited bot the aforementioned .cfg and WBITankSwitcher.cfg (WBI_BDB_FUEL_TEMPLATE_BK2_SM) without any luck. I really can't find anywhere else to edit. I want it to be: LF=270 and Ox=330.

Look in the Saturn_Rescale.cfg in the extras folder.

3 hours ago, Johnny2000 said:

And with BlueSMURFF the mass is almost non with 10x Kerbol.

It's not intended for use above 6.4x. Since each model has different fuel/mass ratios there's no single answer to how to do the mass adjustments for a rescale. What's going on in there is approximations and it will fall apart if you go too far. You would need to adjust each rocket by hand to go all the way to a 10x system. To protect your sanity while you tinker you can prevent the mass adjustments with this (or you can just delete BlueSmurff.cfg):

Spoiler

@PART[bluedog*,Bluedog*]:First
{
    %bdbMassAdjusted = 1
    %bdbSrbAdjusted = 1
}

 

With your full size Saturn you want the real dry mass, and real fuel mass (and real thrust). An Apollo service module holds over 18 tons of fuel. About 1,656 LF and 2024 Oxidizer.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Jso

[minepagan]

14 hours ago, Jay The Amazing Toaster said:

This isn't the Gemini Mars Lander I wanted.....


I want a refund.......

I'm working on a craft file for that....no promises though. Last time I tried it kind of....challenger'd.....

[Johnny2000]

17 hours ago, komodo said:

Incidentally, if you're running at 10x rescale, I highly encourage you to check out the meta issue for rescales on github, #270. I don't think we have anyone who has tried 10x at any length, and any feedback would be extremely helpful.

But, if BlueSMURFF is not intended for use above 6.4, I guess there is no need for testing. But if you would like me to contribute in any other way, let me know. Due to illness I have a lot of time on my hand. I'm not out of my bed everyday, but when I am it would be nice to do something "useful". I can't contribute is many ways as I am starting to learn C. Haven't done any programming since I puzzled with AMOS on my Amiga waaaaay back. My modelling skills are limited to SketchUp, but I have started to look into Blender. Texturing skills are non existent and will probably stay so.

15 hours ago, Jso said:

Look in the Saturn_Rescale.cfg in the extras folder.

Yes, you're right. Somehow I placed that in the Parts/Saturn folder. Need a slap for that

15 hours ago, Jso said:

It's not intended for use above 6.4x. Since each model has different fuel/mass ratios there's no single answer to how to do the mass adjustments for a rescale. What's going on in there is approximations and it will fall apart if you go too far. You would need to adjust each rocket by hand to go all the way to a 10x system. To protect your sanity while you tinker you can prevent the mass adjustments with this (or you can just delete BlueSmurff.cfg):

Yes, you are right. Besides I have noticed a lot of drawback with 10x Kerbol. So I think 6.4x is the sweet spot. But I have wanted to try at least the manned NASA missions and maybe the voyager missions on a real scale, you know, so I can brag to the girls at the local pub about it But I guess it is probably wise to just keep another install of KSP with it and modified part files in it.

[legoclone09]

I think I might work on RSS configs over winter break, I am going to be home most of the time. I hope the parts scale correctly to real scale, so I don't need to mess with different vertical and horizontal scales.

[CobaltWolf]

3 hours ago, Johnny2000 said:

But, if BlueSMURFF is not intended for use above 6.4, I guess there is no need for testing. But if you would like me to contribute in any other way, let me know. Due to illness I have a lot of time on my hand. I'm not out of my bed everyday, but when I am it would be nice to do something "useful". I can't contribute is many ways as I am starting to learn C. Haven't done any programming since I puzzled with AMOS on my Amiga waaaaay back. My modelling skills are limited to SketchUp, but I have started to look into Blender. Texturing skills are non existent and will probably stay so.

Yes, you're right. Somehow I placed that in the Parts/Saturn folder. Need a slap for that

Yes, you are right. Besides I have noticed a lot of drawback with 10x Kerbol. So I think 6.4x is the sweet spot. But I have wanted to try at least the manned NASA missions and maybe the voyager missions on a real scale, you know, so I can brag to the girls at the local pub about it But I guess it is probably wise to just keep another install of KSP with it and modified part files in it.

Honestly, the biggest things that can be helped with would be a) providing/updating MM compatibility configs for other mods (we don't support Kerbalism very well right now, for example), b) playtesting the tech tree updates from Minepagan (if you don't know how to download the github master, I can post a link when I'm not on the throne), and C) just generally calling us out on any bugs/balance issues.

[Johnny2000]

5 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Honestly, the biggest things that can be helped with would be a) providing/updating MM compatibility configs for other mods (we don't support Kerbalism very well right now, for example), b) playtesting the tech tree updates from Minepagan (if you don't know how to download the github master, I can post a link when I'm not on the throne), and C) just generally calling us out on any bugs/balance issues.

I have Github Desktop installed, so I guess I'll figure out how to upload. Just not done it yet. Take your time on the throne. It's the most precious and important time of the day.

I can try to look into Life Support (USI and TAC), I have never used Kerbalism, but it looks cool, so I could try and have a look.

But what values are you looking for? 1 day for Hermes and 11 days for Leo/Kane + 3 for Sina?

[komodo]

The USI-LS configs are in sore need of updating. The 'balance' that is in the existing one (See the comments in said MM config for details) were my musing to myself on what might make for good gameplay. Unfortunately, I never got the knack for USI-LS at least as far as balance goes. I never quite got in line with their (to my sense) rapid resource use, especially on 'long' days, that is, 12 or 24 hour clocks.

With the USI-LS... version 5?... I understand the values have changed from prior versions. I have unfortunately not been able to arc out the time/brain needed to dive into USI land in 1.2. As mentioned above, the existing MM config has notes on "why these values". If the payload/duration is kept the same, it would be just a matter of adjusting the resource ratios to match the new version.

More in depth, would be something more thoughtful than my late night musings, and thus, I throw it open for discussion. Ideally on the github issue for USI-LS, but here is also ok, within reason.

On a similar note, I haven't uploaded or lent it out yet, but I have a mostly working config for Snacks! that mirrors the existing USILS config as far as approximate mission duration. If there is any interest in that, I can get it online somewhere, but ideally I would like to wait to see what happens with the configs for USI, and/or [TAC, Kerbalism] as far as design.

The configs are easy, deciding what to put in them is hard  

On a more technical note: Github has whizzbang features out the wazoo, many of which are pretty helpful, yet entirely perplexing. Grappling/mastering such whizzbangs is not a pre-requisite for working on any of this. The humble code block in a spoiler in a forum post works quite nicely for MM configs like the ones in question, if simplicity is sought. We can figure out the whizzbang after  

Edited December 6, 2016 by komodo
Github things

[komodo]

2 hours ago, Johnny2000 said:

But what values are you looking for? 1 day for Hermes and 11 days for Leo/Kane + 3 for Sina?

The issue with USI that I always ran into was a design decision on their part such that 'short' missions, up to Mun shots and back were considered 'included with the capsule', the last time I played. The grace period/running on fumes after you run out of resources was designed such that short orbital/munar missions didn't require additional supplies. This makes sense when balancing for long duration, system spanning/colonization missions, but is a moderate headache when trying to balance smaller pods. i.e., how to make them meaningly different. My memory is fuzzy, and I don't have it in front of me, but I strongly suspect I said "***** it" to some of the balance and implemented something that made sense internally to BDB. Similarly to the issue of 'stock balance', it may not be possible to cleanly integrate with USI and our own framework is needed, but I strongly suspect something can be worked out. I don't claim to be clever enough to do so though  

[minepagan]

9 hours ago, Johnny2000 said:

But what values are you looking for? 1 day for Hermes and 11 days for Leo/Kane + 3 for Sina?

I'd say about 3 days worth in each pod, with extra in station modules, the Gemini and Apollo bl2 SMs, and the Bl3+ MM.

[legoclone09]

11 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Honestly, the biggest things that can be helped with would be a) providing/updating MM compatibility configs for other mods (we don't support Kerbalism very well right now, for example), b) playtesting the tech tree updates from Minepagan (if you don't know how to download the github master, I can post a link when I'm not on the throne), and C) just generally calling us out on any bugs/balance issues.

Would RO configs be good? I'm thinking of making them sometime.

[CobaltWolf]

11 hours ago, Johnny2000 said:

I have Github Desktop installed, so I guess I'll figure out how to upload. Just not done it yet. Take your time on the throne. It's the most precious and important time of the day.

I can try to look into Life Support (USI and TAC), I have never used Kerbalism, but it looks cool, so I could try and have a look.

But what values are you looking for? 1 day for Hermes and 11 days for Leo/Kane + 3 for Sina?

I suppose? And Kerbalism was just an example I thought of.

21 minutes ago, legoclone09 said:

Would RO configs be good? I'm thinking of making them sometime.

There already are some configs from @Niemand303 but they're not comprehensive.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/tree/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/Bluedog_DB

[PickledTripod]

I don't think explicit support for USI-LS is really necessary. The mod is designed so that you don't need to add supplies to capsules: by default you get a 15-days grace period that is enough for short missions and even going to the Mün. If you want to go to Minmus you can just add a mini supplies pack, and the Kane service module has a convenient cargo bay that is just the right size for that.

[Johnny2000]

@Jso Is the Sina Ascent cockpit supposed to have 90% / 10% LFO/Mono or LH2O/Mono?

Because now it is 80/20 and I have tried to look into B9PartSwitchTanks.cfg but can't see what's wrong. Tried to exclude the Sina from the first statement, but it didn't help (probably didn't do it right either).

 

[Jso]

3 hours ago, Johnny2000 said:

@Jso Is the Sina Ascent cockpit supposed to have 90% / 10% LFO/Mono or LH2O/Mono?

Because now it is 80/20 and I have tried to look into B9PartSwitchTanks.cfg but can't see what's wrong. Tried to exclude the Sina from the first statement, but it didn't help (probably didn't do it right either).

 

There's an @ missing in front of tankType in the second statement.

[Johnny2000]

14 minutes ago, Jso said:

There's an @ missing in front of tankType in the second statement.

I really don't see where that @ is supposed to fit

 

[komodo]

2 hours ago, Johnny2000 said:

I really don't see where that @ is supposed to fit

 

It is one of those subtle MM things you just get used to after looking at them for an age: after 

Service modules. Some need 90% fuel, 10% mp.

the patch is modifying, well, what we just did in the first MM block, but only for the LEM part. @ for MM is a useful mnemonic, literally "At this part of the code, DO (Stuff)". So here, At the B9PartSwitch module that was just added, and at the first two SUBTYPE keys (0 and 1), do something to the tank types... Except without the form "@tankType", it doesn't do anything. With no operator, it tries to add the new value, but as there is an existing one, it fails. (Or more accurately, just ignores it.) The @ operator is needed to edit an existing value. (I also just fixed it on github, so you can see the differences easily.)

@Jso, I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but there is now a dev preview of B9PartSwitch with some of the partial fill options that were talked of previously. I don't think it will precisely help this setup, although it might inform decisions in the future.

Also, headache as that config is, it's also fairly elegant, nicely done.

[Johnny2000]

@komodo I will look into it tomorrow. Too tired now.

I have finished the real-ish Apollo 9 and upwards (I think) if anyone is interested in trying it out. Just PM me and I'll put together the files.

Should be used on a separate install, since I have edited A LOT of files. Don't pester anyone at the Bureau with it.

I have barely tried it but it feels right. I will try it again tomorrow on SASS (Sigma's Stockalike Solar System).

(My computer really sucks, so I can't have all the mods I want installed at the same time.)

And I promise to start working on the LS configs tomorrow

 

 

[Jso]

1 hour ago, komodo said:

@Jso, I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but there is now a dev preview of B9PartSwitch with some of the partial fill options that were talked of previously. I don't think it will precisely help this setup, although it might inform decisions in the future.

Unfortunately not. It will help in another place though.

1 hour ago, komodo said:

Also, headache as that config is, it's also fairly elegant, nicely done.

Well thank you.

20 minutes ago, Johnny2000 said:

That's a Saturn V? The gross mass looks right, but the deltav is low. Should be almost 13,000 up to the S-IVB. I should install KER, did we really put 10 tons of solid fuel in there?

[Johnny2000]

1 hour ago, Jso said:

That's a Saturn V? The gross mass looks right, but the deltav is low. Should be almost 13,000 up to the S-IVB. I should install KER, did we really put 10 tons of solid fuel in there?

He he, no, don't look at that. I've edited everything.  Delta-V is for the S-IC only. 4000kg of the Solidfuel is in the LES I think and the rest spread out across Ullage engines.

This was more of something I wanted to test for myself.

[Jall]

Almost a day without a post??

R.I.P. BDB.

[VenomousRequiem]

21 minutes ago, Jall said:

Almost a day without a post??

R.I.P. BDB.

yep mod's cancelled nothing to see here folks 

Edit:

Real talk, dudes. Cobalt us going through some hard times IRL and will be back momentarily. All I ask is for you all to be patient with him and we'll get back to our regularly scheduled programing soon enough.

Cheers everyone. 

Edited December 8, 2016 by VenomousRequiem

[Rory Yammomoto]

11 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

Real talk, dudes. Cobalt us going through some hard times IRL and will be back momentarily. All I ask is for you all to be patient with him and we'll get back to our regularly scheduled programing soon enough. 

Financial issues? Cause If so, we ( I cant do it, I have no money, so I mean you) have to get the patreon to a sizable amount.

[VenomousRequiem]

3 minutes ago, Rory Yammomoto said:

Financial issues? Cause If so, we ( I cant do it, I have no money, so I mean you) have to get the patreon to a sizable amount.

What? No, don't worry about it.