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

[Pappystein]

9 hours ago, notJebKerman said:

About the TexturesUnlimited thing... There is a few things I have no idea what to do with. Apollo CM should definitely have a shiny metal texture and the SM should just keep the texture it already has. But what about the Skylab and Spacelab modules? And AARDV? And Apollo engines (SPS, APS, DPS)?

Also, Agena, versions of Centaur, Atlas, Vega and Star SRMs will have the metal texture too.

1) are you planning on posting the Textures unlimited cfgs?  

2) the Polish of the CSM was in part to make it pretty for the media.  Also it would aid in visibility for docking.  There are other reasons for the polish which include to help with heat management etc...  I do not think the AARDV, nor the engines need such a treatment.  Every AJ-10 I have seen for the CSM had an oxidized or matte look.  Something Cobalt has done an amazing job of reproducing.  

3) While there may be an exception or two, Agena almost exclusively flew either White and black or Bare metal (non polished) and Black color schemes.   The exception is the Gemini Docking target Agena.  This was polished for several reasons once of which again is visibility in space for docking.  Any chance of having it switch back and forth between the TexturesUnlimited Texture and CobaltWolf's?

4) Skylab, only had a few parts that were a bare metal (not painted.) Space Lab however is an ETS and I would defer to E of Pi.

Over 2/3rds of Atlas Rockets were polished  But again not all (although there was a far higher percentage of Atlas's launched with polished tanks than not.)   So Atlas is a SURE as it was the most commonly flown variant.   A lot of Atlas Rockets early on had Day-glow Orange on the plumbing fairings (the side structures)   IIRC DayglowOrange is still the brightest pigment Humankind has used in Paint. 

I would ASSUME that the Vega upper stage would have received the same polish treatment.

VERY few STAR rockets have a polished metal case.  First off most of the metal cased STAR rockets are Titanium and that metal does not lend itself to polishing the same way rolled sheet steel or rolled stainless steel does.   Actually a goodly percentage of the STAR motor cases were painted, Gloss black, Gloss White, Matte British Racing Green (dk green) or left raw with only a simple (matte finish) clear coat.   Specificly the STAR-37 and STAR-48 family can be found here:

https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/propulsion-systems/docs/2016 OA Motor Catalog.pdf

You can clearly see the STAR-37 and Star-48 are mostly raw and steel reinforcement straps are the only part that have any sort of polish to them (IE not the Titanium hull, just the attachments to it are polished.)

 

[TiktaalikDreaming]

12 hours ago, theaveragepxtseryu said:

The fairing is from bdb. Anways, what did you think of the screenie apart from that?

Oh, it's still a great screen shot, with great looking parts. 

[notJebKerman]

11 hours ago, Pappystein said:

1) are you planning on posting the Textures unlimited cfgs?  

2) the Polish of the CSM was in part to make it pretty for the media.  Also it would aid in visibility for docking.  There are other reasons for the polish which include to help with heat management etc...  I do not think the AARDV, nor the engines need such a treatment.  Every AJ-10 I have seen for the CSM had an oxidized or matte look.  Something Cobalt has done an amazing job of reproducing.  

3) While there may be an exception or two, Agena almost exclusively flew either White and black or Bare metal (non polished) and Black color schemes.   The exception is the Gemini Docking target Agena.  This was polished for several reasons once of which again is visibility in space for docking.  Any chance of having it switch back and forth between the TexturesUnlimited Texture and CobaltWolf's?

4) Skylab, only had a few parts that were a bare metal (not painted.) Space Lab however is an ETS and I would defer to E of Pi.

Over 2/3rds of Atlas Rockets were polished  But again not all (although there was a far higher percentage of Atlas's launched with polished tanks than not.)   So Atlas is a SURE as it was the most commonly flown variant.   A lot of Atlas Rockets early on had Day-glow Orange on the plumbing fairings (the side structures)   IIRC DayglowOrange is still the brightest pigment Humankind has used in Paint. 

I would ASSUME that the Vega upper stage would have received the same polish treatment.

VERY few STAR rockets have a polished metal case.  First off most of the metal cased STAR rockets are Titanium and that metal does not lend itself to polishing the same way rolled sheet steel or rolled stainless steel does.   Actually a goodly percentage of the STAR motor cases were painted, Gloss black, Gloss White, Matte British Racing Green (dk green) or left raw with only a simple (matte finish) clear coat.   Specificly the STAR-37 and STAR-48 family can be found here:

https://www.orbitalatk.com/flight-systems/propulsion-systems/docs/2016 OA Motor Catalog.pdf

You can clearly see the STAR-37 and Star-48 are mostly raw and steel reinforcement straps are the only part that have any sort of polish to them (IE not the Titanium hull, just the attachments to it are polished.)

 

Thank you! The cfgs are already available on the Electrocutor's thread. However, they require setting the texture type prior to launch and have to be manually set for each part. I will probably add more different types of metal (but of course they will be preset) so for example, the CM will be more reflective than Agena or Star. But those will still be affected but have a less polished look. The problem with Skylab was the adapter but that was because I was assuming that it had a similar look as CM. However, I could add a texture switch or an additional config to give some other Apollo parts and upper stages a metal look.

[CobaltWolf]

Will respond to posts in the thread later, but for now I just want to say that I forgot to post last night that I had uploaded the LEM IVA to Github. It requires @Nertea's Near Future Props, which is being added as a dependency to BDB. We could have just copied and renamed the couple of props we used to avoid conflict, but decided that we might need more in the future. Once again, massive thanks to @bcink for not only making the amazing IVA, but also putting up with my constant requests and changes, as well as working with me to fix a major issue that caused quite a bit of frustration the last couple of days (incidentally, partially the reason the update has not been released!).

Edited January 29, 2018 by CobaltWolf

[JEB'S DESTINY]

Well, if you have ASET PROPS installed, there are a few instruments you could interact with.

Edited January 29, 2018 by JEB'S DESTINY

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, notJebKerman said:

Thank you! The cfgs are already available on the Electrocutor's thread. However, they require setting the texture type prior to launch and have to be manually set for each part. I will probably add more different types of metal (but of course they will be preset) so for example, the CM will be more reflective than Agena or Star. But those will still be affected but have a less polished look. The problem with Skylab was the adapter but that was because I was assuming that it had a similar look as CM. However, I could add a texture switch or an additional config to give some other Apollo parts and upper stages a metal look.

 

I forgot to mention earlier that on Atlas ONLY the Tanks are polished.  None of the engine mounting hardware is polished and only a few Centaur adapters were polished.

 

[CobaltWolf]

On 1/27/2018 at 6:40 PM, Mike` said:

I asked ferram about it, here's what he had to say: "There's probably a random transform floating somewhere far from the rest of the mesh that's screwing it up".

If you haven't done so already, would you be so kind to recheck the model for that?

Mike, I looked yesterday and indeed there was a 'random transform' floating ~20m above the part. It was the transform for the skinned mesh renderer used for the flexible piping. I had no idea why, but I moved it to be in the middle of the part and everything seemed to work. Thanks to @slaintemaith for testing it for me real quick.

However, he brought up another issue. Instead of playing forum tag, I'll just ask @ferram4 - is there any reason that fuel consumption would be affect by FAR? @slaintemaith said during testing that the Atlas consumed significantly more fuel when these verniers they were attached, but only in FAR. Though, one thing I forgot to ask him was if the burn times were the same - if he was judging only by distance achieved with a given fuel amount, that would make some amount of sense if it was a drag issue. @slaintemaith can you confirm for us how you determined the fuel consumption was increased?

On 1/28/2018 at 2:44 AM, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Wow, nothing brought home the significant disconnect between regular parts and procedural fairings to me as much as this screen shot.  And I don't want this to sound like I'm picking on anyone, least of all whomever did the fairing in use (and I really can't tell, it is procedural after all).  But there's just so much that limits the texture/normal maps when you make things procedural.  And when everything else is at the "best achievable with Unity/KSP", it just stands out.

The vanilla fairings are... weird. The UVs are messed up like crazy, and the shaders do not behave the same as other parts. The white of the fairing bases is supposed to be the same as other parts, but for some reason they appear darker. The 1.4 KSP update is supposed to fix at least some of the issues, in addition to giving us texture switching for the fairings! (which I am looking forward to )

2 hours ago, JEB'S DESTINY said:

Well, if you have ASET PROPS installed, there are a few instruments you could interact with.

??? There is no ASET config for this IVA

[JEB'S DESTINY]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

??? There is no ASET config for this IVA

For some reason, I don't know why, there are instruments that I could interact with when I had aset props installed. You try and see if it works or not.

 

[Mike`]

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Mike, I looked yesterday and indeed there was a 'random transform' floating ~20m above the part. It was the transform for the skinned mesh renderer used for the flexible piping. I had no idea why, but I moved it to be in the middle of the part and everything seemed to work.

Thanks, glad you found it!

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

However, he brought up another issue. Instead of playing forum tag, I'll just ask @ferram4 - is there any reason that fuel consumption would be affect by FAR? @slaintemaith said during testing that the Atlas consumed significantly more fuel when these verniers they were attached, but only in FAR. Though, one thing I forgot to ask him was if the burn times were the same - if he was judging only by distance achieved with a given fuel amount, that would make some amount of sense if it was a drag issue. @slaintemaith can you confirm for us how you determined the fuel consumption was increased?

That sounds weird. If you want, i can take a look and test it aswell (in a Realism Overhaul install though). FAR allows you to analyze the drag of your rocket directly in the VAB including debug voxels etc, so i could try to check if drag is still higher than it should be.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Mike`

[Xander930]

@CobaltWolf: Great mod! Nice work on the Apollo and Skylab modules! Love it!

[Xander930]

@CobaltWolf Just a minor question. What program do you guys use for making part files? I've been thinking about making some engines for a stockalike version of ESA's Ariane 1. 

[CobaltWolf]

3 minutes ago, Xander930 said:

@CobaltWolf Just a minor question. What program do you guys use for making part files? I've been thinking about making some engines for a stockalike version of ESA's Ariane 1. 

I use Maya for modelling and UV unwrapping, and Photoshop for texturing. I usually preview all my textures in Unity as I go. PM me with what you have so far, I'll take a look.

[bcink]

4 hours ago, JEB'S DESTINY said:

For some reason, I don't know why, there are instruments that I could interact with when I had aset props installed. You try and see if it works or not.

 

@CobaltWolfs original release has ASET props in it. The new one will not, but will have Near Future props in addition to stock for added feel.

[slaintemaith]

I determined fuel consumption was increased by (using the same Atlas rocket and Gravity Turn profile) disabling FAR and being able to make it to orbit.  Then enabling FAR and ...not.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by slaintemaith

[CobaltWolf]

4 minutes ago, slaintemaith said:

I determined fuel consumption was increased by (using the same Atlas rocket and Gravity Turn profile) disabling FAR and being able to make it to orbit.  Then enabling FAR and ...not.

So then, fuel consumption wasn't increased. The rocket had more drag or something.

[slaintemaith]

Fuel consumption was increased.  Fuel wasn't.  i.e., both rockets had the same amount of fuel.  One made it to orbit, the other didn't.  Lack of fuel being the issue.
I think I see what you're getting at, however.  Yes, I looked at the .cfg files for the deprecated 101, which works, and the 'new' 101, which has the issue.  The numbers in both files appear to be the same unless I'm missing something.  So I don't think the problem lies with the consumption specified in the .cfg.

[CobaltWolf]

1 minute ago, slaintemaith said:

Fuel consumption was increased.  Fuel wasn't.  i.e., both rockets had the same amount of fuel.  One made it to orbit, the other didn't.  Lack of fuel being the issue.
I think I see what you're getting at, however.  Yes, I looked at the .cfg files for the deprecated 101, which works, and the 'new' 101, which has the issue.  The numbers in both files appear to be the same unless I'm missing something.  So I don't think the problem lies with the consumption specified in the .cfg.

Unless burn times are different, fuel consumption has not changed. This isn't a good metric for judging the cause of the issue, or rather, I think you focused in on it being a lack of fuel but the issue is that the same amount of fuel isn't getting you as far. It sounds like there is significantly more drag on the rocket. I don't really know what to do about that, since I don't use FAR and am not sure what our options are for fixing it. @ferram4 is there like a way of overriding the drag profile? I already fixed the mysterious transform that was moving the COL.

[slaintemaith]

I didn't focus on any issue.  If I use the deprecated 101s and FAR: I get into orbit.  If remove the new 101s and use FAR: I get into orbit.  If I add the new 101s and use FAR, I don't.  If I add them and disable them and use FAR: I don't.  If I add them and disable FAR: I do.  If I'm honest, I don't understand the rocketry aspects of it as much as "do thing: thing works/thing doesn't work: note result."  I leave it to smarter heads to interpret the data.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by slaintemaith

[notJebKerman]

TU config is here. I was planning on adding multiple texture types but the current preset for metal is fine for both Apollo CM and steel balloon tanks of Centaur, Atlas, Vega and (I'm assuming) some versions of Agena. Most of the time I was working on this was just experimenting with changing different properties so this is just a modified version of the original config by @Electrocutor.

@REFLECTION_CONFIG[default]:NEEDS[TexturesUnlimited] {
	%enabled = true
}
@PART[bluedog_Apollo_Block2_Capsule,bluedog_Apollo_Block2_Parachute,bluedog_Apollo_Block2_ParachuteMount,bluedog_Apollo_Block2_ActiveDockingMechanism,bluedog_Apollo_Block1_Nose,bluedog_LEM_Descent_Tanks,bluedog_Apollo_Block3_Capsule,bluedog_CentaurT_ShortTank,bluedog_CentaurT_AdapterTank,bluedog_CentaurT_WideTank,bluedog_Vega_Tankage,bluedog_Vega_EngineMount,bluedog_Vega_Avionics,bluedog_Agena_MaterialsBay,bluedog_agenaLongTank,bluedog_agenaPort,bluedog_agenaProbeCore,bluedog_Atlas_AdapterFuelTank,bluedog_Atlas_LongFuelTank,bluedog_Atlas_MediumFuelTank,bluedog_Atlas_ShortFuelTank]:NEEDS[TexturesUnlimited&Bluedog_DB] {
	MODULE
	{
		name = KSPTextureSwitch
		sectionName = Appearance
		currentTextureSet = Bluedog_Metal

		TEXTURESET {
			name = Bluedog_Metal
		}
	}
}

KSP_COLOR_PRESET:NEEDS[TexturesUnlimited] {
	name = rgb_gray
	title = RGB Gray
	color = 127,127,127
	specular = 0
	metallic = 0
}

KSP_TEXTURE_SET:NEEDS[TexturesUnlimited] {
	name = Bluedog_Default
	title = Default
	recolorable = false

	TEXTURE {
		shader	= SSTU/PBR/StockMetallicBumped

		PROPERTY {
			name = _Color
			color = 1.0,1.0,1.0,1.0
		}
		PROPERTY {
			name = _Metal
			float = 0.0
		}
		PROPERTY {
			name = _Smoothness
			float = 1.0
		}
	}
	COLORS {
		mainColor = rgb_gray
		secondColor = rgb_gray
		detailColor = rgb_gray
	}
}
+KSP_TEXTURE_SET[Bluedog_DefaultMetal]:NEEDS[TexturesUnlimited] {
	@name = Bluedog_Metal
	@title = Metal
	@TEXTURE,0 {
		@shader = SSTU/PBR/Metallic
		@PROPERTY[_Smoothness] {
			@float = 0.75
		}
	}
}

 

[Mike`]

4 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Unless burn times are different, fuel consumption has not changed. This isn't a good metric for judging the cause of the issue, or rather, I think you focused in on it being a lack of fuel but the issue is that the same amount of fuel isn't getting you as far. It sounds like there is significantly more drag on the rocket. I don't really know what to do about that, since I don't use FAR and am not sure what our options are for fixing it. @ferram4 is there like a way of overriding the drag profile? I already fixed the mysterious transform that was moving the COL.

If you could provide me with the updated lr101 i'll load it up in far and try to see if the debug view will work now and might give a clue where the problem is.

 

3 minutes ago, slaintemaith said:

Another way of saying that is, "fuel consumption is increased." 

Well, the fuel consumption of your rocket increases to reach a certain orbit, but the fuel consumption per second didn't increase - so talking about fuel consumption when in fact it looks to be a drag issue can be misleading. But i guess we all got it now so it's fine.

[Xander930]

@CobaltWolf Will do! Might be a while, I've still got to make the engines and a few fuel tanks. I have a very busy weekend ahead of me. 

[Damon]

Are you tired of wasting all that on a Saturn 5, to only use it once? Say hello to Saturn 5 FT, A fully reusable first, second and third stage rocket!

[Xander930]

So far so good! Ten minutes of work, and I've got a preliminary model of the Ariane 1's fuel tank. Inventor is being really annoying today.

[Dafni]

Re-discovering this awesome mod right now. Thanks for all the work. The Apollo stuff is what I appreciate the most right now, I just love your CM, it is beyond awesome!

Edited January 30, 2018 by Dafni

[CobaltWolf]

22 minutes ago, Xander930 said:

So far so good! Ten minutes of work, and I've got a preliminary model of the Ariane 1's fuel tank. Inventor is being really annoying today.

Be careful using Inventor. You need a faceted polygon model, not a solid CAD model.

6 minutes ago, Dafni said:

Re-discovering this awesome mod right now. Thanks for all the work. The Apollo stuff is what I appreciate the most right now, I just love your CM, it is beyond awesome!

Thank you, you're welcome!