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

[Pappystein]

7 hours ago, minepagan said:

The "photo" showing the entire family is just a drawing, and the "photo" of the engine test is of such low quality that it's validity is questionable at best. Also, no other records or pictures exist. So yeah....heck, there's more documentation on the M-1!

There is a simple reason, which to fully explain will too far derail the point of this forum....   E-1 was developed for a Nuclear Weapon (Titan I/II) and never produced past prototype.   M-1 was developed by a Civilian authority and had to publicly show a need for funding... That funding for M-1 was then publicly pulled by Congress via reduction in NASA budget.   Beyond that simple explanation and we are going to-far afield for this forum and detracting from the awesomeness that BDB is.   Hmm... Wonder if an FOI request could find more information...

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by Pappystein
cleared up first sentance

[CobaltWolf]

I uploaded some updated textures for Saturn and Apollo to Github.

[Chimer4]

Odd question, I cannot for the life of me find the S-II stage on the VAB. I have the required tech unlocked and have every other part for Saturn but S-II seems to be eluding me. Oddly it doesn't appear to show in the tech tree either. If it makes any difference, I'm using the latest off the github master and CTT

Also those are some tasty looking textures.

[CobaltWolf]

1 minute ago, Chimer4 said:

Odd question, I cannot for the life of me find the S-II stage on the VAB. I have the required tech unlocked and have every other part for Saturn but S-II seems to be eluding me. Oddly it doesn't appear to show in the tech tree either. If it makes any difference, I'm using the latest off the github master and CTT

Also those are some tasty looking textures.

Were you using the github master zip from a couple days ago? I broke the S-II tank reexporting it from Unity. It's fixed in the upload I made just now

 

[Nertea]

8 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I uploaded some updated textures for Saturn and Apollo to Github.

I wanted to write a post with a lot of swears for emphasis about the prettiness of these textures, but they probably would have been filtered out. 

This is what you get when you have senior art people working on KSP mods guys. You get good stuff. Clean, good stuff - just textures, a model, regular KSP shaders... nothing fancy, no elite expensive tools. 

 

[Chimer4]

14 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Were you using the github master zip from a couple days ago? I broke the S-II tank reexporting it from Unity. It's fixed in the upload I made just now

 

Yep that was it, thanks! I was trying to build INT-21 and was completely flummoxed as I had built the full Saturn stack a few days ago. Now I only need the HG-3 for the INT-17

Also any chance of a 5m IU for the INT-21? I'm currently using a scaled one from the S-IVB at the moment so no worries if it's not on the books

Edited April 28, 2017 by Chimer4

[Guest]

Did the performance of the J-2 engines get changed recently? I just tried a launch of the Saturn V configuration I've used for months, and the second stage took off like a bat out of hell.

[Jso]

33 minutes ago, Jack Wolfe said:

Did the performance of the J-2 engines get changed recently? I just tried a launch of the Saturn V configuration I've used for months, and the second stage took off like a bat out of hell.

Not recently. It was doubled back in December to bring it in line with the other upper stage engines.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Jso said:

Not recently. It was doubled back in December to bring it in line with the other upper stage engines.

Interesting. I'll toss another one together from scratch to be sure. It will be 15 minutes well spent.

EDIT: Actually, I'll circle back on this one. I'm busy breaking the back of the Spanish Empire in the Caribbean of the late 1600's. Vive la France!

Edited April 29, 2017 by Jack Wolfe

[Poodmund]

5 hours ago, Nertea said:

I wanted to write a post with a lot of swears for emphasis about the prettiness of these textures, but they probably would have been filtered out. 

This is what you get when you have senior art people working on KSP mods guys. You get good stuff. Clean, good stuff - just textures, a model, regular KSP shaders... nothing fancy, no elite expensive tools. 

 

I came from the Reddit post and just have to agree wholeheartedly... these textures are pretty stunning.

[Pappystein]

8 hours ago, Chimer4 said:

Yep that was it, thanks! I was trying to build INT-21 and was completely flummoxed as I had built the full Saturn stack a few days ago. Now I only need the HG-3 for the INT-17

Also any chance of a 5m IU for the INT-21? I'm currently using a scaled one from the S-IVB at the moment so no worries if it's not on the books

err you mean INT-18 since 18 is better than 17 or 19?      Sorry just kidding since I tend to fly INT-18s to launch my station parts.

RE IUs,   I had a thought the other day.   Probably not a good one but I will air it out for reaction/comments anyway.   Instead of making hundreds of different IUs for the various parts.   Why not make a single one that upgrades throughout your career.   One that has texture switching and re-scale to all sizes, including Mk2, Mk3, Firespitter and whatever other fuselage/tank form factor you wish to support.  Yes that would require model switching but there are lots of mods out there that are already taking advantage of that.   Then in the future, lets say you have an accurate design graphic for the new Oval shaped rocket stage, you only have to make a simple artwork part and not spend time setting up the new CFG for all the control modules.   Also less Command CFGs to have to edit when new internal changes happen to the game.

Points in favor:

• This does NOT rely on SQUAD upgrade capability since Mechjeb has been able to do it via a simple script much longer
• Reduces maintenance overhead for CFGs.  
• Fits all sizes the Mod creator/maintainer wishes to support
• can replaced all unmaned Command units with one part.
• Sizes and shape functionality can be integrated into  nodes on the tech tree..   IE you don't unlock the Mk2 aerospace-plane form factor until you unlock the Mk2 parts.

Drawbacks against:

• Mod Artist has to keep up with all the various projects and formats to be supported, IE the textures and form factors would have to be maintained by the artist to match the rest of the parts and this is slightly more complicated than stand alone parts
• The single CFG to enable all of this will rely on a DLL(s) for part and texture switching, and is much more complicated than stand alone parts
• A large mod like BDB would be slow to transition to such a device (due to the large amounts of existing Control units) mostly due to rebuiliding the other part's CFGs.

 

 

 

[Chimer4]

6 hours ago, Pappystein said:

err you mean INT-18 since 18 is better than 17 or 19?      Sorry just kidding since I tend to fly INT-18s to launch my station parts.

RE IUs,   I had a thought the other day.   Probably not a good one but I will air it out for reaction/comments anyway.   Instead of making hundreds of different IUs for the various parts.   Why not make a single one that upgrades throughout your career.   One that has texture switching and re-scale to all sizes, including Mk2, Mk3, Firespitter and whatever other fuselage/tank form factor you wish to support.  Yes that would require model switching but there are lots of mods out there that are already taking advantage of that.   Then in the future, lets say you have an accurate design graphic for the new Oval shaped rocket stage, you only have to make a simple artwork part and not spend time setting up the new CFG for all the control modules.   Also less Command CFGs to have to edit when new internal changes happen to the game.

Points in favor:

• This does NOT rely on SQUAD upgrade capability since Mechjeb has been able to do it via a simple script much longer
• Reduces maintenance overhead for CFGs.  
• Fits all sizes the Mod creator/maintainer wishes to support
• can replaced all unmaned Command units with one part.
• Sizes and shape functionality can be integrated into  nodes on the tech tree..   IE you don't unlock the Mk2 aerospace-plane form factor until you unlock the Mk2 parts.

Drawbacks against:

• Mod Artist has to keep up with all the various projects and formats to be supported, IE the textures and form factors would have to be maintained by the artist to match the rest of the parts and this is slightly more complicated than stand alone parts
• The single CFG to enable all of this will rely on a DLL(s) for part and texture switching, and is much more complicated than stand alone parts
• A large mod like BDB would be slow to transition to such a device (due to the large amounts of existing Control units) mostly due to rebuiliding the other part's CFGs.

 

 

 

Ah no, the INT-17 uses 7 HG-3 engines whereas 18 and 19 use 5 J-2s aided by either Titan solids on the 18 or minuteman solids on the 19 to get off the ground. 

Also re the IU, I like that suggestion. I don't quite understand where you said it as a drawback it would require a dll for the part switching however, doesn't BDB already come bundled with b9 part switch for a couple of adapters (Kane ones I think)

Edited April 29, 2017 by Chimer4

[Jso]

9 hours ago, Pappystein said:

RE IUs,   I had a thought the other day.

Get Tweakscale.

Fairing bases would be a natural place for general purpose IUs.

[minepagan]

11 hours ago, Pappystein said:

RE IUs,   I had a thought the other day.... [snipped]

SSTU has tweakable probe cores, and this lets them use BDB textures

[RaendyLeBeau]

21 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

I uploaded some updated textures for Saturn and Apollo to Github.

Gorgeous textures and models as always - great work mate ! - What RSS graphics mod do you use?

Edited April 29, 2017 by RaendyLeBeau

[NeoFatalis]

1 minute ago, RaendyLeBeau said:

Gorgeous textures and models as always - great work mate ! - What RSS graphics mod do you use?

I'm pretty sure that this is the stock system

[RaendyLeBeau]

2 minutes ago, NeoFatalis said:

I'm pretty sure that this is the stock system

Do you mean ? I do not think so..   look here

Spoiler

 

 

Edited April 29, 2017 by RaendyLeBeau

[CobaltWolf]

29 minutes ago, RaendyLeBeau said:

Gorgeous textures and models as always - great work mate ! - What RSS graphics mod do you use?

26 minutes ago, NeoFatalis said:

I'm pretty sure that this is the stock system

I used EVE, SVE, scatterer, SVT, Realplume, Planetshine and probably some other stuff I can't remember.

[Stone Blue]

8 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I used EVE, SVE, scatterer, SVT, Realplume, Planetshine and probably some other stuff I can't remember.

SooperComputer, you must have...

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, Stone Blue said:

SooperComputer, you must have...

@PickledTripod sent me a dank GTX 780ti.

[500Motels]

Flight hardware performed flawlessly

[CobaltWolf]

@500Motels nice little probe!

Keeping up the progress updates, here's some work I've done on the LEM. Thoughts, especially on the last picture?

 

[Jall]

5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Keeping up the progress updates, here's some work I've done on the LEM. Thoughts, especially on the last picture?

Honestly, I'd say make the back a bit more subtle. Also could you think about maybe making the descent stage look more like the foil it was? It just seems too flat.

[rasta013]

10 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Keeping up the progress updates, here's some work I've done on the LEM. Thoughts, especially on the last picture?

On that last pic I understand where you're trying to go with it and the back panels are good for now even though they were historically a lot more f'd up by the time they land.  The one thing for me is the foil.  It seems kind of flat and dull looking from this angle.  I don't know if that's a simple product of the lighting angle that it's sitting at though.  One other thing, the shadows in the folds of the foil look a bit too dark...again that may be a product of lighting angle but those are the things that jump at out me.

EDIT: Flat isn't the right word...dull sheen and less "pop" than it does in other lighting situations hence the reason I'm not entirely sure it isn't just a product of the screenie...

Edited April 30, 2017 by rasta013

[Pappystein]

14 hours ago, minepagan said:

SSTU has tweakable probe cores, and this lets them use BDB textures

@Shadowmage's Awesome SSTU Mod is where I got the Idea:)   Unfortunately his only allows ROUND cores (no luv for my aerospace planes ) and does not unlock separate from the SSTU specific size unlocks.    Asside from BDB, SSTU is one of my REQUIRED mods to play KSP

 

16 hours ago, Jso said:

Get Tweakscale.

Fairing bases would be a natural place for general purpose IUs.

Have Tweakscale,  Does not address the multiple shapes I was suggesting above.    I don't agree on the Fairing base being  the natural place because most of my rockets are designed to plunge back to launching planet for recovery.  So heat-shield is below the fairing base.... then the core.     THAT is the reason I made the suggestion because My centaur and Vega IUs from BDB are not protect-able.... without making ugly rocket stages.

20 hours ago, Chimer4 said:

Ah no, the INT-17 uses 7 HG-3 engines whereas 18 and 19 use 5 J-2s aided by either Titan solids on the 18 or minuteman solids on the 19 to get off the ground. 

Also re the IU, I like that suggestion. I don't quite understand where you said it as a drawback it would require a dll for the part switching however, doesn't BDB already come bundled with b9 part switch for a couple of adapters (Kane ones I think)

RE Part switching, I am not certain how far B9 part switcher is but I don't think it will completely replace one mesh with another.

RE Saturn-II.   I don't think the 7 HG-3s would have fit under the S-II and still provide for adequate cooling.   Since this is a game we can let you get away with that cheaty rocket   however    After all that was part of the reason for INT-18 and -19    Cheaper rockets with = or more payload depending on exact build.

 

 

12 minutes ago, rasta013 said:

EDIT: Flat isn't the right word...dull sheen and less "pop" than it does in other lighting situations hence the reason I'm not entirely sure it isn't just a product of the screenie...

I will second the too dull in the photos for the foil in the last picture.   The foil looks like construction paper rendition of foil.  IE rough, dull and lacking any depth.    But Unity shaders being what they are it is a tough row to hoe to make foil look good, without a "heavy hitter" plug-in similar to what @Nertea was alluding to the other day.     Beyond the lack of luster and polish to the foil sections, I would say over all picture quality is go for launch.