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

[Drakenex]

After countless retires managed to dock the science module "Eurolab" just using the canadarm and the alternate Skylab is finished!

 

[MikeO89]

I have a request to cobaltwolf. Your csm engine for the Apollo craft is really weak on the thrust. It has about 1/10th the thrust of other command service module engines. Makes for super long burns to do stuff. Could you make a second csm engine to be more in line with the others? Choice is a good thing. Thanks for listening.

Edited June 5, 2018 by MikeO89

[notJebKerman]

3 hours ago, MikeO89 said:

I have a request to cobaltwolf. Your csm engine for the Apollo craft is really weak on the thrust. It has about 1/10th the thrust of other command service module engines. Makes for super long burns to do stuff. Could you make a second csm engine to be more in line with the others? Choice is a good thing. Thanks for listening.

Imo it's pretty well balanced. It's meant to be used in orbit, so efficiency is more important, but if you want more thrust out of it, you can just change the value in .cfg file

Edited June 5, 2018 by notJebKerman

[CobaltWolf]

On 6/3/2018 at 7:32 PM, drtedastro said:

what did you catch???

Mostly walleye and northern pike.

 

On 6/3/2018 at 9:32 PM, Kerbal01 said:

Can we get a tweakscale cfg for those new SRMU's?

I'm not going to make one right now - I'm very close to just redoing the Titan SRBs from scratch along with the engines in the near future. The current models/UVs/textures really don't support any further improvement.

 

11 hours ago, Drakenex said:

After countless retires managed to dock the science module "Eurolab" just using the canadarm and the alternate Skylab is finished!

Very cool!

 

10 hours ago, MikeO89 said:

I have a request to cobaltwolf. Your csm engine for the Apollo craft is really weak on the thrust. It has about 1/10th the thrust of other command service module engines. Makes for super long burns to do stuff. Could you make a second csm engine to be more in line with the others? Choice is a good thing. Thanks for listening.

Basically, after doing some complicated math for converting real world values, we (meaning @Jso) found that engines in KSP should be ~25% of their real world thrust - our engines already use real world ISP values, which are generally inline with KSP ISP balancing. Vacuum engines (including LH2 engines) are already bumped to 50% to reduce burn time (as you noted), which caused issue when we added the J-2-SL (sea level variant). So, whatever thrust it has is about twice as much thrust as it should have to perform accurately.

 

 

Was able to work briefly on the Atlas V 4xx fairing base a bit more, shown here with Porkjet's 1.25m fuel tank for comparison. This goes on the Centaur V, on top of a new fuel tank and below the current avionics core. It's also useful for stuff like Titan 3s, or really any 1.875m rocket you want an expanded payload fairing for - the Atlas 2/3 series for example, which used the same fairing. This is still fairly early WIP, the ribs are probably going to be redone again and there's some more greebling to be done, plus I think having the inside be nicely detailed will add a lot to the part.  

[Drakenex]

33 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Was able to work briefly on the Atlas V 4xx fairing base a bit more, shown here with Porkjet's 1.25m fuel tank for comparison. This goes on the Centaur V, on top of a new fuel tank and below the current avionics core. It's also useful for stuff like Titan 3s, or really any 1.875m rocket you want an expanded payload fairing for - the Atlas 2/3 series for example, which used the same fairing. This is still fairly early WIP, the ribs are probably going to be redone again and there's some more greebling to be done, plus I think having the inside be nicely detailed will add a lot to the part.  

Detailed parts is what makes BDB excellent. Don't forget about the tutorial, I'm improving my texturing and no one better that from the master

[HooHungLow]

14 hours ago, Drakenex said:

Detailed parts is what makes BDB excellent. Don't forget about the tutorial, I'm improving my texturing and no one better that from the master

I agree. @CobaltWolf and @benjee10 are by far the best KSP "Texture-ers" (is that a word) I know. They do an excellent job mixing realism and pork-alike styling.

Edited June 6, 2018 by HooHungLow

[MikeO89]

On 6/4/2018 at 11:06 PM, notJebKerman said:

Imo it's pretty well balanced. It's meant to be used in orbit, so efficiency is more important, but if you want more thrust out of it, you can just change the value in .cfg file

Changing the .cfg is a bit over my head. I don't even know where/what to look at and what to change.

Edited June 6, 2018 by MikeO89

[SomeGuyNamedDave]

2 hours ago, MikeO89 said:

Changing the .cfg is a bit over my head. I don't even know where/what to look at and what to change.

 

go to KSP\GameData\Bluedog_DB\Parts\Apollo

find the engine you want.

It will be bluedog_Apollo_Block5_ServiceEngine.cfg the 5 will change to 2/3 for the other two

right click open with notepad++ find the line that says maxThrust and change that value to what you want.

 

the line will look like this:

maxThrust = 33

 

generic notepad will do, i also think that if you go in to KSP and press alt+12 then go to database and reload you can the parts database without reloading KSP, this does provide some isues with TweakScale though 

 

[Barzon]

Could we get Old School Fairing support?

[TheRedTom]

On 6/5/2018 at 3:59 AM, MikeO89 said:

I have a request to cobaltwolf. Your csm engine for the Apollo craft is really weak on the thrust. It has about 1/10th the thrust of other command service module engines. Makes for super long burns to do stuff. Could you make a second csm engine to be more in line with the others? Choice is a good thing. Thanks for listening.

If you mean the making history service module engine, that is a known bug/balance faux pas. The BDB one is balanced to the rest of the mod and the wider stock parts, its the MH one that's off.

[CobaltWolf]

3 hours ago, Barzon Kerman said:

Could we get Old School Fairing support?

That would require modeling and texturing fairing shells for... well, every rocket and payload in the mod.

 

[StarStreak2109]

1 minute ago, CobaltWolf said:

That would require modeling and texturing fairing shells for... well, every rocket and payload in the mod.

 

That sounds like a bit of work. Although I must admit that I still miss those old school hard fairings.

[CobaltWolf]

25 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said:

That sounds like a bit of work. Although I must admit that I still miss those old school hard fairings.

Would be. Maybe a good side project for someone?

Like, anyone. Another thing I've mused on is the potential of having an add-on mod with includes palettes for the CSM bay. Not like Universal Storage, but like full size racks with different configurations. There's a lot of stuff that people could make to add on to BDB stuff if there's anything that interests them.

Edited June 6, 2018 by CobaltWolf

[Barzon]

@StarStreak2109 if you miss hard fairing you can use:

 

[StarStreak2109]

12 hours ago, Barzon Kerman said:

@StarStreak2109 if you miss hard fairing you can use:

 

Thanks I know about these and use them regularly. Unfortunately they do not match the  BDB level of quality regarding the art work. They fit in better with stock-alike parts...

Maybe one could repaint them... Let them have more BDB-alike textures...

[Barzon]

You should have a go at making new textures! 

[StarStreak2109]

Never made a texture in my life... Well that's not true, I recently removed a NASA logo from the Chaka Orion side fairings.
I guess I could have a look at it, if I have the chance.

 

[CobaltWolf]

Very slow WIP...

Edited June 8, 2018 by CobaltWolf

[CobaltWolf]

What's this? A wild dev stream appears?

Edited June 8, 2018 by CobaltWolf

[TimothyC]

Stream is go

And I got sniped Edited June 8, 2018 by TimothyC

[Gordon Dry]

Hmm. How much dV should the Apollo LEM ascent module have normally?

With Kerbalism but no heavy radiation shielding I got 525m/s and this is definetely not enough ...

[CobaltWolf]

13 hours ago, Gordon Dry said:

Hmm. How much dV should the Apollo LEM ascent module have normally?

With Kerbalism but no heavy radiation shielding I got 525m/s and this is definetely not enough ...

idk ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Next is the 4xx Interstage, still early WIP...

EDIT:

Dropping the interstage for a bit to get the new Centaur tanks mocked up - will post once I have something. I want to be able to see the whole upper assembly; the older tank clashes a bit and might need some more adjustments.

Edited June 9, 2018 by CobaltWolf

[Gordon Dry]

@CobaltWolf I reintroduce my closed Github issue patch thing into my own patch and try some numbers.

This all is because of the increased weight by added Kerbalism life support.

 

GameData\zFinal\zzz_BDB_BlueSmurff.cfg

Actually (last session):

@BDBRESCALECONFIG:HAS[#systemScale[<3.1]]:NEEDS[Kerbalism,!RealismOverhaul]:AFTER[zzzBluedog_DB_0]
{
	@systemScale += 0.01
	@podFactor = 0.5
	%apolloPodFactor = #$podFactor$
	@engineFactor = 0.5
}

//@PART[bluedog*,Bluedog*]:HAS[#CrewCapacity[>0]]
//{
//	@mass *= 0.5
//}

Last attempt was 0.8 for the factors, that was nearly 600 m/s and not enough to just get to a 25 km apoapsis (Apollo Block II orbits at 30 km) from Mun surface (~2,300 m altitude where the lander touched down).

I think I need way more, just to get up and circularize + do rendesvous transfer + match velocity.

And I do not try to do a one-burn-rendesvouz from ground, that is unrealistic and ... well, safety first.

 

Update:

With that setup it works, but I still have to do an unusual approach - because there is still fuel inside the lander I use that one as well to profit from the higher TWR it provides before I jettison it and proceed with the ascent module alone.

This way I had 443 m/s left after I reached the initial parking orbit at 20 km before matching inclination and rendezvous.

I will set all values to 0.6 for the next session, then later on another landing I will see...

Edited June 9, 2018 by Gordon Dry

[Jso]

17 hours ago, Gordon Dry said:

Hmm. How much dV should the Apollo LEM ascent module have normally?

With Kerbalism but no heavy radiation shielding I got 525m/s and this is definetely not enough ...

1200+ m/s. Setup a Stock+BDB install so you can compare and figure out what's different.

[Gordon Dry]

@Jso when I found fitting numbers for that patch which is a %SMURFFExclude = true and also fitting numbers for SMURFFable parts from other mods (only engines's and pod's masses) I will report them on the Kerbalism thread together.

@N70 @PiezPiedPy @Kerbas_ad_astra