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

[MinimumSky5]

3 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I believe it was a 6-3 burn http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_2/United_States_5/Delta_II/Flight/sequence.htm

No, sorry, i wasn't clear, i was asking about the Bluedog Daleth, not the ULA Delta! There aren't any GEM boosters in BDB that have nozzles optimized for air ignition, so i wasn't sure if the intended design of the modded rocket had a break from reality with the booster sequence.

[CobaltWolf]

4 minutes ago, MinimumSky5 said:

No, sorry, i wasn't clear, i was asking about the Bluedog Daleth, not the ULA Delta! There aren't any GEM boosters in BDB that have nozzles optimized for air ignition, so i wasn't sure if the intended design of the modded rocket had a break from reality with the booster sequence.

Oh, no. Now, at the time I originally made the Delta parts (crazy to think since it's one of the later 'original' parts in BDB, but it was made only a couple short months after I started modding) I didn't know that much about rockets, and certainly didn't care nearly as much about attempting to communicate the real world functionality through KSP-style parts. While I'm certainly more sensitive to things behaving realistically now, I also hesitate to add what is essentially a very slight modification of an existing part (since bloating the part catalogue unnecessarily is actually something I'd like to avoid). Now, @Jso and/or @blowfish correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we still can't have model+stats changed using B9PartSwitch? Creating the alternate nozzle is trivial.

Really stinks since I already touched up the GEM-40 textures some months ago (shown in the screenshots on the previous page), but since I need to redo the UVs for a new texture sheet, I might as well remake the models as well. And in that case... anyone have any comments? I'd like to make them more realistic, but unfortunately the real GEMs are quite... plain. So, the question is, how plain should the new BDB ones be? I think I want to remove the vertical seams, since they go *completely* against the construction technique of the boosters, which is so integral to the design that they're named after it. The overall proportions need to be updated; the GEM-46 was particularly short. Does everyone like the red, green, blue color coding on the boosters? Personally I think its helpful.

[Mudwig]

16 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Oh, no. Now, at the time I originally made the Delta parts (crazy to think since it's one of the later 'original' parts in BDB, but it was made only a couple short months after I started modding) I didn't know that much about rockets, and certainly didn't care nearly as much about attempting to communicate the real world functionality through KSP-style parts. While I'm certainly more sensitive to things behaving realistically now, I also hesitate to add what is essentially a very slight modification of an existing part (since bloating the part catalogue unnecessarily is actually something I'd like to avoid). Now, @Jso and/or @blowfish correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we still can't have model+stats changed using B9PartSwitch? Creating the alternate nozzle is trivial.

If you wan't to cut down on part bloat, you could probably also use part switch for tanks with multiple variants or stretched versions ( like Atlas, Diamant, Thor, Saturn I... etc ).

[CobaltWolf]

28 minutes ago, Mudwig said:

If you wan't to cut down on part bloat, you could probably also use part switch for tanks with multiple variants or stretched versions ( like Atlas, Diamant, Thor, Saturn I... etc ).

B9PartSwitch can't change stats like that, unfortunately. Just had my (recurring) discussion with blowfish about it since I seem to forget every couple of weeks.... or assume that he worked some magic to enable it and I just didn't hear about it.

[Mudwig]

1 minute ago, CobaltWolf said:

B9PartSwitch can't change stats like that, unfortunately. Just had my (recurring) discussion with blowfish about it since I seem to forget every couple of weeks.... or assume that he worked some magic to enable it and I just didn't hear about it.

Bummer.

With the extras installed ( the ETS stuff, basically ) the abundance tanks and engines is a bit overwhelming sometimes.

Built-in part/stat switching functionality would be a great quality of life update for modders and mod users alike.

[CobaltWolf]

33 minutes ago, Mudwig said:

With the extras installed ( the ETS stuff, basically ) the abundance tanks and engines is a bit overwhelming sometimes.

Built-in part/stat switching functionality would be a great quality of life update for modders and mod users alike.

Yeah, @Beale once made some photoshop'd screenshot mockups of a potential system using part families. So like the example was the stock 1.25m tanks, there would just be one icon in the part catalog, you right click it and the other 1.25m tanks slide out from behind it. Would be especially great for stuff like the Titan SRBs for which there are approximately 4 billion variants with... like, 4 more planned for whenever this new update gets released.

Also, the extras shouldn't have any ETS stuff anymore. Bespoke assets (read: new model/textures, not fan-made reskins/rescales) for all those parts were made... about 6 months ago or so.

[Mudwig]

5 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Yeah, @Beale once made some photoshop'd screenshot mockups of a potential system using part families. So like the example was the stock 1.25m tanks, there would just be one icon in the part catalog, you right click it and the other 1.25m tanks slide out from behind it. Would be especially great for stuff like the Titan SRBs for which there are approximately 4 billion variants with... like, 4 more planned for whenever this new update gets released.

Also, the extras shouldn't have any ETS stuff anymore. Bespoke assets (read: new model/textures, not fan-made reskins/rescales) for all those parts were made... about 6 months ago or so.

You're right. It's the Pafftek stuff from the extras folder that I was thinking of.

[Nnimrod]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Oh, no. Now, at the time I originally made the Delta parts (crazy to think since it's one of the later 'original' parts in BDB, but it was made only a couple short months after I started modding) I didn't know that much about rockets, and certainly didn't care nearly as much about attempting to communicate the real world functionality through KSP-style parts. While I'm certainly more sensitive to things behaving realistically now, I also hesitate to add what is essentially a very slight modification of an existing part (since bloating the part catalogue unnecessarily is actually something I'd like to avoid). Now, @Jso and/or @blowfish correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we still can't have model+stats changed using B9PartSwitch? Creating the alternate nozzle is trivial.

Really stinks since I already touched up the GEM-40 textures some months ago (shown in the screenshots on the previous page), but since I need to redo the UVs for a new texture sheet, I might as well remake the models as well. And in that case... anyone have any comments? I'd like to make them more realistic, but unfortunately the real GEMs are quite... plain. So, the question is, how plain should the new BDB ones be? I think I want to remove the vertical seams, since they go *completely* against the construction technique of the boosters, which is so integral to the design that they're named after it. The overall proportions need to be updated; the GEM-46 was particularly short. Does everyone like the red, green, blue color coding on the boosters? Personally I think its helpful.

I am in complete support of lengthening your parts to make them the same L:D as their real world versions. And of having some larger nozzle GEMs. 

[HooHungLow]

5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Oh, no. Now, at the time I originally made the Delta parts (crazy to think since it's one of the later 'original' parts in BDB, but it was made only a couple short months after I started modding) I didn't know that much about rockets, and certainly didn't care nearly as much about attempting to communicate the real world functionality through KSP-style parts. While I'm certainly more sensitive to things behaving realistically now, I also hesitate to add what is essentially a very slight modification of an existing part (since bloating the part catalogue unnecessarily is actually something I'd like to avoid). Now, @Jso and/or @blowfish correct me if I'm wrong but I believe we still can't have model+stats changed using B9PartSwitch? Creating the alternate nozzle is trivial.

Really stinks since I already touched up the GEM-40 textures some months ago (shown in the screenshots on the previous page), but since I need to redo the UVs for a new texture sheet, I might as well remake the models as well. And in that case... anyone have any comments? I'd like to make them more realistic, but unfortunately the real GEMs are quite... plain. So, the question is, how plain should the new BDB ones be? I think I want to remove the vertical seams, since they go *completely* against the construction technique of the boosters, which is so integral to the design that they're named after it. The overall proportions need to be updated; the GEM-46 was particularly short. Does everyone like the red, green, blue color coding on the boosters? Personally I think its helpful.

I say go for realism. I personally am not a fan of the color scheme, unless they are on the inside of the rocket where they can't be seen when attached (like Space Y does with their SRBs). I like the nozzle idea as well. Also if the catalog ever becomes too bloated ( I don't think it's there yet) you can easily do what Contares did. He separated his packs by Country but you can separate BDB into generations (e.g. 50s-60s,70s-80s, 90s-Present). Your work has been progressively moving towards realism in the last year as far as appearance goes, so I think it's a natural progression. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by HooHungLow

[notJebKerman]

4 minutes ago, HooHungLow said:

I say go for realism. I personally am not a fan of the color scheme, unless they are on the inside of the rocket where they can't be seen when attached (like Space Y does with their SRBs). I like the nozzle idea as well. Also if the catalog ever becomes too bloated ( I don't think it's there yet) you can easily do what Contares did. He separated his packs by Country but you can separate BDB into generations (e.g. 50s-60s,70s-80s, 90s-Present). Your work has been progressively moving towards realism in the last year as far as appearance goes, so I think it's a natural progression. 

If we're talking about separating it into packs I would prefer separation by launcher family. (f.e. Saturn, Titan, Delta, Atlas, common upper stages, early rockets, spacecraft. Or maybe just pack the spacecraft with the most likely launcher family (Apollo->Saturn, Gemini->Titan, Mercury->Atlas/early rockets).

But at least for now, this kind of separation isn't yet needed since the part count is way lower than that of Contares and the whole mod is focused on a specific country and era. And you know... You can always just use the Janitor's closet. 

[HooHungLow]

6 minutes ago, notJebKerman said:

If we're talking about separating it into packs I would prefer separation by launcher family. (f.e. Saturn, Titan, Delta, Atlas, common upper stages, early rockets, spacecraft. Or maybe just pack the spacecraft with the most likely launcher family (Apollo->Saturn, Gemini->Titan, Mercury->Atlas/early rockets).

But at least for now, this kind of separation isn't yet needed since the part count is way lower than that of Contares and the whole mod is focused on a specific country and era. And you know... You can always just use the Janitor's closet. 

I agree. But in theory separation of the parts by specific rockets brings it's own issues. I.E. Atlas spans over 40 years of rockets and they are all very different. Also, Generational packs work better for noobies who don't know all of the actual rockets. And if someone wants to say recreate the Gemini missions, they need both the Atlas, and the Titian.  So I think three packs would work best. 

1. Early Space Program (50s-60s) Vanguard - Mercury - Gemini
2. Lunar Missions/Space Exploration (70s-80s) Apollo - Skylab...etc.
3. Modern/ Mars Probes (90s-Present) Atlas V - Delta III...etc.

I know this is all speculation but I figured I would put in my 2cents

[DeltaDizzy]

I think the GEM's should keep the color coding.

[Saltshaker]

48 minutes ago, HooHungLow said:

I agree. But in theory separation of the parts by specific rockets brings it's own issues. I.E. Atlas spans over 40 years of rockets and they are all very different. Also, Generational packs work better for noobies who don't know all of the actual rockets. And if someone wants to say recreate the Gemini missions, they need both the Atlas, and the Titian.  So I think three packs would work best. 

1. Early Space Program (50s-60s) Vanguard - Mercury - Gemini
2. Lunar Missions/Space Exploration (70s-80s) Apollo - Skylab...etc.
3. Modern/ Mars Probes (90s-Present) Atlas V - Delta III...etc.

I know this is all speculation but I figured I would put in my 2cents

Or do it like Tantares, and split it into spacecraft and rockets. Though the issue is mostly non-existent at this point, I hope that will change for the better. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Saltshaker

[MinimumSky5]

All I wanted was an answer to a small question, not an overhaul of the entire rocket!

But, just to throw my opinion out, I really like the look of the boosters as they are. Yes, it isn't realistic, but if I wanted hard realism, I'd play RO/RSS. I feel that if the boosters looked like the real ones, they'd just look, well, boring. They need something to break up their surfaces, and i think that you got the balance right with them.

And definitely keep the RGB colour scheme!

[THUNDERBIRD_7]

IMHO, I think you should keep the stripes on the Delta II GEM's there, but make them a more neutral color like gray or maybe blue to match the main tank. Then, instead of color, have the number of stripes correspond to the class of booster.

[HooHungLow]

4 hours ago, MinimumSky5 said:

..."But, just to throw my opinion out, I really like the look of the boosters as they are. Yes, it isn't realistic, but if I wanted hard realism, I'd play RO/RSS"

One of the great things about BDB is the realism that comes with it. It also scales with Sigma so it can get pretty close to RSS-like builds. I don;t mind the color scheme as much but I would like the rockets to be more realistic than their current versions. 

[Pappystein]

Cobalt,  I will state as well, COLOR CODE AWAY

 

<SNIPED a mini novel suggesting multiple models be made for GEMs....   TOO MUCH WORK>

 

 

[Pappystein]

On 5/1/2018 at 8:25 AM, CobaltWolf said:

I'll loop back to it... eventually! Been waiting for 'inspiration' on the missing parts. sorry

Goes watch Always from 1989...   If Hap doesn't inspire you then Peter Saint Peter might

And no need to apologize!

BTW I kind of imagine a Truncated cone like Saturn S-II with the skirt attached.   Only the end of the engine bell extending in profile past the skirt.

[Zorg]

Once again dropping in to say how great this mod is and with some pics! I'm even learning a fair bit of rocket history after coming across the more obscure rocket parts. I've known for a long time about the Agena Target Vehicle for the Gemini program for instance but the use of the Agena as an integrated satellite bus was news to me. Decided run my own analogue of the KeyHole spy satellite program which used the Agena bus.

Pics in spoiler

Spoiler

Launching the KH-7 "Kambit" on a Muo Belle. (The real KH-7s also launched on Atlas Agena)

Uprated electrics on the Belle satellite bus. DMagic parts integrate nicely with the Belle although they are a bit wider so I needed an adapter. Still looks good and I didn't want to tweak scale.

Deploying the undersize SIGINT dish to drop some eaves on the Krussians. Some disturbing chatter about a large delivery of "staged combustion engines" from the Tantares Design Bureau is overheard...

(The real KH satellites were of course all optical)

Following up on the intel with the all new KH--8 Kambit 3 launching atop a Prometheus II

Surveilling the Dessert Kosmodrome. The little brother reconnaissance camera from DMagic seems directly inspired by the KeyHole satellites. 

The real KH-8 had two recovery capsules in the nose cone. Here we are just using a single probe core with science storage devices from Tarsier Space technologies to transfer the film canisters/science. De-orbit using mini SRBs mounted radially. (cone chute from realchute)

Procedural heat shield scaled to the probe diameter. It might have survived on its own, not sure but didn't take any chances. IRL the capsules were captured mid air with a special C-130 aircraft.

Time to develop the film and see what the Krussians are up to.

Dessert Kosmodrome is quite fancy with multiple launch pads

(this is from my testing install, using the Kerbal Konstructs and Kosmodrome mods. Wont be bringing into my main game as it seemed a bit buggy. its a shame as the Kosmodrome looks great)

The close ups are grainy but they reveal a truly kollosal rocket being built. Such a rocket can only mean one thing. Funding for the Sarnus V has been quadrupled in response.

Bonus real image of the N1 taken by a KH-8 Gambit 3

 

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Zorg

[CobaltWolf]

On 5/7/2018 at 6:02 PM, HooHungLow said:

I say go for realism. I personally am not a fan of the color scheme, unless they are on the inside of the rocket where they can't be seen when attached (like Space Y does with their SRBs). I like the nozzle idea as well. Also if the catalog ever becomes too bloated ( I don't think it's there yet) you can easily do what Contares did. He separated his packs by Country but you can separate BDB into generations (e.g. 50s-60s,70s-80s, 90s-Present). Your work has been progressively moving towards realism in the last year as far as appearance goes, so I think it's a natural progression. 

On 5/7/2018 at 6:15 PM, notJebKerman said:

If we're talking about separating it into packs I would prefer separation by launcher family. (f.e. Saturn, Titan, Delta, Atlas, common upper stages, early rockets, spacecraft. Or maybe just pack the spacecraft with the most likely launcher family (Apollo->Saturn, Gemini->Titan, Mercury->Atlas/early rockets).

But at least for now, this kind of separation isn't yet needed since the part count is way lower than that of Contares and the whole mod is focused on a specific country and era. And you know... You can always just use the Janitor's closet.

On 5/7/2018 at 6:30 PM, HooHungLow said:

I agree. But in theory separation of the parts by specific rockets brings it's own issues. I.E. Atlas spans over 40 years of rockets and they are all very different. Also, Generational packs work better for noobies who don't know all of the actual rockets. And if someone wants to say recreate the Gemini missions, they need both the Atlas, and the Titian.  So I think three packs would work best. 

1. Early Space Program (50s-60s) Vanguard - Mercury - Gemini
2. Lunar Missions/Space Exploration (70s-80s) Apollo - Skylab...etc.
3. Modern/ Mars Probes (90s-Present) Atlas V - Delta III...etc.

I know this is all speculation but I figured I would put in my 2cents

I've looked into splitting the mod up a number of times, and each time I looked into it, it seemed like it would generate a lot more work and still wouldn't please everybody. (Since, as y'all can see, there's a lot of different ways you could split up the mod!). And, since the stuff here kind of is intertwined (Agena is associated with 3 different boosters, for example) and heavily use texture atlas'ing (meaning generally BDB uses fewer, larger textures containing multiple parts for efficiency) it just didn't seem worth it.

Like @notJebKerman said, Janitor's Closet, or going into Bluedog_DB/Parts/ and deleting any folders you don't want.

3 hours ago, Zorg said:

Once again dropping in to say how great this mod is and with some pics! I'm even learning a fair bit of rocket history after coming across the more obscure rocket parts. I've known for a long time about the Agena Target Vehicle for the Gemini program for instance but the use of the Agena as an integrated satellite bus was news to me. Decided run my own analogue of the KeyHole spy satellite program which used the Agena bus.

Awesome! Could have sworn we included a MM config that rescaled the 1.25m spy parts to 0.9375m (Agena size) and the 2.5m to 1.875m (Gemini/MOL size)... at one point I had started making BDB-alike retextures of the DMagic parts but it was a large undertaking. Agena was indeed used as a satellite bus for quite a few missions, including non spysat stuff like Snapshot. There's a lot of obscure stuff in BDB that maybe is *too* obscure, so if you have questions about something feel free to ask here and I'll geek out about them a bit.

RE: GEMs, here's what I think we'll do:

• Remade with realistic proportions - the existing ones are all a bit short.
• Closer to the real ones, but definitely not a bunch of white tubes
• Color coding will remain, but optionally - colored bands will be switchable on/off using B9PS.
• No high-altitude variants, at least until we have the ability to add them without further cluttering up the part list. A minor hit to ISP can be compensated for in other ways.

[Jso]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Could have sworn we included a MM config that rescaled the 1.25m spy parts to 0.9375m (Agena size) and the 2.5m to 1.875m (Gemini/MOL size)

I don't think we ever had that. You might be thinking back to when Agena was 1.25 meter. Or somebody tweakscaled DMagics parts.

[Rory Yammomoto]

Sorry for the dumb request, but any chance we could get a way to extend the length of the BLAM panels? I'm having issues fitting any AARDVark Block II I make in the standard BLAM or the standard LAM. I was thinking a sort of 'extension panel', that fits onto the BLAM base on a bottom node and can have the current Lander Adapter Segment on a top node (Or another 'extension panel' on either node, leading to truly ridiculous lengths of 3¾ m fairings). And it could simply be a quarter of a cylinder, probably reusing the texture for the current BLAM/LAM, reducing the amount of effort needed to make it.

 

If it were implemented, it would make the 'extended fairing' shown here possible.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Rory Yammomoto

[Kerbal01]

What's the name of the config file for the Apollo Venus antenna? its non obvious. I need to rescale it for... reasons.

Edit: found it, it was in the Saturn folder.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Kerbal01

[HooHungLow]

Titan IV & Delta II

Edited May 11, 2018 by HooHungLow

[PickledTripod]

Been a while since I posted anything here... Anyway little gift for @CobaltWolf and everyone:

Standalone Delta fairing ring! You can hang any 0.9375m tankage under it and even 1.25m parts will fit in the interstage. As pictured above the Ablestar tankage and a LM Descent Engine makes for a good approximation of the Delta-P stage used on Delta 1000, 2000 and 3000 series, with 75% the fuel load of Delta-K. Should be available on the dev github.