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

[CobaltWolf]

On 7/30/2018 at 6:19 AM, notJebKerman said:

Amazing (as always). Btw, is this on GH yet? It seems like the last update there was 3 days ago...

They were uploaded last night.

[LTMG]

@linuxgurugamer

My KSP version is 1.4.2.2110, yet in CKAN this mod does not show up, and is not compatible when looking for it under "all". How can that be? Or did this mod actually skip version 1.4.2, and just went from 1.3.1 compatibility to 1.4.3, without including 1.4.2? Because none of the older versions are compatible either, according to CKAN. So is it actually incompatible with KSP 1.4.2, or did something went wrong with the CKAN configs?

 

[linuxgurugamer]

7 hours ago, LTMG said:

@linuxgurugamer

My KSP version is 1.4.2.2110, yet in CKAN this mod does not show up, and is not compatible when looking for it under "all". How can that be? Or did this mod actually skip version 1.4.2, and just went from 1.3.1 compatibility to 1.4.3, without including 1.4.2? Because none of the older versions are compatible either, according to CKAN. So is it actually incompatible with KSP 1.4.2, or did something went wrong with the CKAN configs?

 

First, which mod are you talking about?  This mod isn't mine, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you are asking me about it.

Second, if you ARE referring to this mod (Bluedog Design Bureau), then it IS compatible, but there haven't been any updates for a while, so the only listing for it in the CKAN meta data is for 1.4.3.  However, it IS compatible with 1.4.2, so follow these steps to see it:

In CKAN, go to the menu item:

     Settings->Compatible KSP Versions

This will bring up a dialog where you can tell CKAN to show mods which are specifically compatible with other versions of KSP.  In the center of the dialog, there is a place to enter new versions, it is labeled "Add version to list:"

• Enter 1.4.1 and click Add
• Enter 1.4.2 and click Add
• Enter 1.4.3 and click Add

Now, in the list box, click the checkbox to the left of the versions you just entered and click Save

Bluedog will now show up, along with some other mods which might have the same problem.

[Kerbal01]

@CobaltWolf 
What tanks should I use for the IIAS and IIIA/B? The big one plus two mediums for the IIAS and add a short for the IIA/B?

[Jso]

30 minutes ago, Kerbal01 said:

@CobaltWolf 
What tanks should I use for the IIAS and IIIA/B? The big one plus two mediums for the IIAS and add a short for the IIA/B?

Atlas variants cheat sheet

3 mediums for Atlas II, 4 mediums for Atlas III.

[Kerbal01]

2 hours ago, Jso said:

Atlas variants cheat sheet

3 mediums for Atlas II, 4 mediums for Atlas III.

thanks!

[Daedalus451]

FAR (I'm using a version recompiled for 1.4.5) really seems to hate the verniers for the Muo/Bossart (Atlas) rocket. The voxels are all over the place and it drags like hell. Not coming across the problem with anything else.

[JPGSP]

Does this mod work in RO/RSS?(I mean if the parts are scaled to real life)

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by JPGSP

[Pappystein]

On 8/3/2018 at 6:41 PM, Daedalus451 said:

FAR (I'm using a version recompiled for 1.4.5) really seems to hate the verniers for the Muo/Bossart (Atlas) rocket. The voxels are all over the place and it drags like hell. Not coming across the problem with anything else.

1) What version of BDB are you using?   Are you using the Latest release like on this Thread?   Or are you using one of the Master copies from the Github?   Did you downloaded it with CKAN or another Mod downloader?  Or did you install it manually?

2)  WHAT Vernier is messing up  Cobaltwolf et al will need the ACTUAL file name or at-least the full part name (in game) to alter anything that could be wrong with it.   Depending on how you have updated BDB will depend on HOW MANY different Verniers you have for the Atlas/Bossart.

BDB does NOT support FAR.   That is to say most of the parts SHOULD work OK but FAR does too much "approximation" which causes complicated models to not reflect real world values (eg no stock wing in this game has Any sort of CAMBER a key component to calculating out a lift/drag coefficient let alone lift vector.)  It works fairly good to represent SOME (well quite a few actually) parts of the space world but I does not work well with ALL parts.  

Now to your concern/issue.   As has been posted previously in this thread THIS WAS an ISSUE SEVERAL versions back almost a year ago in fact.   Basically, delete your ENTIRE BluedogDB folder and re-download from the Github and don't use 3rd party mod down-loaders to get your updates.  If that does not work then I would suggest you talk on the FAR boards about it because @CobaltWolf spent a lot of time to solve this issue and bring the part CLOSE to FAR specifications.  If it is broken now it is likely an issue in the re-compile of FAR or you have an old version (old files) of the BDB mod as installed on your computer.  

On 8/4/2018 at 12:15 PM, JPGSP said:

Does this mod work in RO/RSS?(I mean if the parts are scaled to real life)

 

Not really because many parts would need to be built anew.  And lots of Textures would appear distorted.

Design choices have limited the usefulness of many of the parts to the RO/RSS world.   Those design choices result in a superior Stock or 2.5x re-scale Mod  Not a true to life scale mod.  That being said others have tried to make BDB work 100% reliably with RSS/RO.   You would have to search this thread to find there experiences.

 

[Daedalus451]

17 hours ago, Pappystein said:

1) What version of BDB are you using?   Are you using the Latest release like on this Thread?   Or are you using one of the Master copies from the Github?   Did you downloaded it with CKAN or another Mod downloader?  Or did you install it manually?

 2)  WHAT Vernier is messing up  Cobaltwolf et al will need the ACTUAL file name or at-least the full part name (in game) to alter anything that could be wrong with it.   Depending on how you have updated BDB will depend on HOW MANY different Verniers you have for the Atlas/Bossart.

BDB does NOT support FAR.   That is to say most of the parts SHOULD work OK but FAR does too much "approximation" which causes complicated models to not reflect real world values (eg no stock wing in this game has Any sort of CAMBER a key component to calculating out a lift/drag coefficient let alone lift vector.)  It works fairly good to represent SOME (well quite a few actually) parts of the space world but I does not work well with ALL parts.  

 Now to your concern/issue.   As has been posted previously in this thread THIS WAS an ISSUE SEVERAL versions back almost a year ago in fact.   Basically, delete your ENTIRE BluedogDB folder and re-download from the Github and don't use 3rd party mod down-loaders to get your updates.  If that does not work then I would suggest you talk on the FAR boards about it because @CobaltWolf spent a lot of time to solve this issue and bring the part CLOSE to FAR specifications.  If it is broken now it is likely an issue in the re-compile of FAR or you have an old version (old files) of the BDB mod as installed on your computer.  

It is not stated anywhere in the top post that BDB is not compatible with FAR, in fact it says "Bluedog Design Bureau should be compatible with most things". Nor does the top post say not to use CKAN. Also, I'm not an idiot, nor am I denigrating CobaltWolf's excellent work, so there is absolutely no need for your patronising/aggressive capitalisation. Thanks.

Anyway, in response to the helpful bit of your reply, I'm using version 1.4.2, downloaded from CKAN. The problem part is 'bluedog_Atlas_LR101_Radial' ('Bossart-1E-101 "Crow" Radial Engine'). I will try deleting and reinstalling BDB from GitHub, as you say. Thanks.

[Pappystein]

@Daedalus451   I will start by saying I am sorry, I was not trying to be patronizing and in re-reading my post.. wow I was quite militant/grumpy last night.  I should have not replied while in that frame of mind.  I have no excuse. 

Your query is the 3rd or 4th time (IIRC) this particular issue (Crow not working with FAR) has cropped up since the part's issue was resolved by CobaltWolf.  In every previous case a Mod downloader (CKAN or the other one who's name escapes me) is the cause.  BDB (and several other mods like Probes Plus) are best used via the MASTER download in GitHub as there are lots of changes that don't get tagged as RELEASE but are positive improvements to the mod.  By building out your mod folder this it allows you to do that one part that CKAN does poorly at best IMHO... Delete obsolete content.  

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by Pappystein

[CobaltWolf]

On 8/3/2018 at 6:41 PM, Daedalus451 said:

FAR (I'm using a version recompiled for 1.4.5) really seems to hate the verniers for the Muo/Bossart (Atlas) rocket. The voxels are all over the place and it drags like hell. Not coming across the problem with anything else.

Alright, just got back to my PC and I think I have an answer for you. Back on Feb 1st (the most recent release), I had to make a change to the model file that appears to have partially fixed it. However, several days later, a user ( @Pappystein, as it turns out) pushed a fix for the part's config that seems to have completed the fix. At the time I remember thinking that the upcoming dev cycle would be short, sweet, and restrained (oh how I was wrong), but anyways - yes, the answer is to download the Master file from github and use that version of BDB for the time being

On 8/4/2018 at 12:15 PM, JPGSP said:

Does this mod work in RO/RSS?(I mean if the parts are scaled to real life)

No, the parts are 62.5%/64% scaled to fit with other stockalike parts

[Daedalus451]

Thanks @CobaltWolf and @Pappystein for your helpful answers. Downloading the master from GitHub has solved the issue with the Crow vernier. 

Unfortunately though, this seems to have thrown up a new problem. None of the BDB antennas function anymore - there is no range information when you hover over them in the VAB, for example, and they don't transmit. This wasn't a problem in the previous version I was using. Integrated antennas on probe cores are fine.

I am using RemoteTech, so I wonder if that could that be the problem? I have noticed that there is a Compatibility folder on the Github with patches for RT and various other things (including SETI Rebalance, which I also use), but which isn't in the GameData folder. Do I need to add the relevant patches to my install? If so, can you tell me where to put them so I don't mess up?

Many thanks.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Daedalus451
Clarified point about probe cores

[CobaltWolf]

Small WIP update, because of all the work that got put into the other radial solids, we wanted to do some touchups to the radial Castor IV (from the Scout, we use it to represent a Castor 4 due to its over scaled nature)... one thing led to another, Scout is desperately in need of revamp and I don't see much of a point in putting off necessary things if I have the drive to do them. The new Algol will have correctly functioning thrust vanes, and the new fins that go with it will have moving tips like the real ones. If you look at the Centaur interstage -  those three spots are three of the six RCS jets! The inline version will include them, and they will stay part of the booster after the lower part of the shroud is jettisoned. The Castor itself is mostly from Scout, with some influence taken from the Maxus sounding rocket for how the mouth of the nozzle should look.

The larger-than-real-life size difference between the boosters is rectified by having the Algol represent the larger Algol-III variant, which was wider. The black line on the Castor interstage is the 'correct' diameter of the first stage, so this is a great compromise. It essentially means the BDB scouts only represent the later operation variants, which have a much more meaningful payload anyways. The little hump to adapt the size is now the autoshroud for the Castor. The radial version of the Algol will have a more traditional, Castor-like nozzle, as of course the radial Castor will as well.

Please note all of these textures are very WIP.

 

 

[JPGSP]

On 8/6/2018 at 2:59 PM, CobaltWolf said:

 

On 8/4/2018 at 6:15 PM, JPGSP said:

Does this mod work in RO/RSS?(I mean if the parts are scaled to real life)

No, the parts are 62.5%/64% scaled to fit with other stockalike parts

Thank. I asked this because I built the Saturn V and it only had ~9000 delta v and I thought to get to orbit you need that amount in RO/RSS 

Any similar mods I could use in RO/RSS?

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, Daedalus451 said:

Thanks @CobaltWolf and @Pappystein for your helpful answers. Downloading the master from GitHub has solved the issue with the Crow vernier. 

Unfortunately though, this seems to have thrown up a new problem. None of the BDB antennas function anymore - there is no range information when you hover over them in the VAB, for example, and they don't transmit. This wasn't a problem in the previous version I was using. Integrated antennas on probe cores are fine.

I am using RemoteTech, so I wonder if that could that be the problem? I have noticed that there is a Compatibility folder on the Github with patches for RT and various other things (including SETI Rebalance, which I also use), but which isn't in the GameData folder. Do I need to add the relevant patches to my install? If so, can you tell me where to put them so I don't mess up?

Many thanks.

The compatibility folder IS inside the gamedata, specifically Gamedata/Bluedog_DB/Compatibility. Unfortunately, neither myself or my co-author maintain any of the compatibility files at this point - we're pretty reliant on community uploads, which is why we hold on to them ourselves in the first place - easier for someone to come along and make a fix to them if they don't have to build a full compatibility setup from scratch. I've seen other mods where such compatibility files are linked in a single post and afterwards are bery hard to find. It looks like lately there has been some tinkering on the RemoteTech and SETI Rebalance configs, but again I frankly don't know what their status is.

But, maybe I should hold my tongue - I just looked at the recent issues on the Github, and it looks like the syntax for our remotetech configs was recently edited to properly activate only when SETIRebalance is *not* detected - ie, the configs are disabling themselves. I don't know why that is, since it sounds like it just means our antennas just don't do anything with SETI installed. I think opening up your copy of the remotetech_Antennas.cfg file in something like Notepad++, and then running a find and replace to change all instances of NEEDS[RemoteTech,!SETIRebalance] to NEEDS[RemoteTech].

In the mean time, if anyone else here uses those mods and knows what is up, please reach out on Github with some suggestions.

And now, for something completely different...

As you might tell from the previous post, I am currently sidetracked from the Atlas V (artist blocked!) and a would-be-small revamp on the radial Castor/Algol's nose cones has grown in size somewhat. As excruciating a dev cycle as this has been, I tend to try and be a 'If I'm going to do it, I'm going to do it right' type person (when I can be). After all, I did list revamping all the solid-based LV parts as one of the goals for this update some months ago on Github. To me, that includes the Scout, the Castor-120/MX-based parts (Athena/Minotaur/Carrack stuff), the various STAR motors and other upper stage solids, the "PIBS" and "Super PIBS" stages, etc. These parts have aged fairly poorly IMO, and there is some opportunities for new additions to these families. However, I want to know - Who actually uses the various solid motors (besides the radial Titan SRBs)? Does anybody in the community actually bother dealing with solid kick stages? Does anybody use 1.5m or 1.875m launchers that primarily use the existing BDB solids like the Castor-120?

I know that, personally, they are fairly interesting to model/texture, and there's a certain appeal to their use. But, I feel that its likely many players do not make use of them, and would rather see me spend time on other parts. That's completely fine, I just want to give people a chance to speak up so I know if that is the case. If anyone is wondering what sort of new stuff we would get (in addition to the existing parts getting significantly improved, and more accurate, art):

• Orbus 21 and Castor 30 would be correctly differentiated, I'm not quite sure how yet. Currently the one we have is something of a combination of the two. If nobody cares then we'll just sort of default to a better version of what we have. I had to think for a moment, but the reason why we have a Castor 30 and not an Orbus 21 is the IRL Athena was supposed to use a Castor 30 if I even flew again (it didn't).
• Castor 30XL, along with Castor 30, would have a black paint scheme like the ones used on Antares. If Orbus-21's 'Athena 2' configuration is dropped, then only the XL would be black.
• Orbus 21 is, for those that don't know, also the first stage of the Inertial Upper Stage. If I make an 'Athena 2' version it might not be possible to have them in the same. And then there's TOS to worry about...
• The Athena 2 OAMS system, basically a 1.5m version of the Super PIBS, for post burn orbit corrections. Pictured here and here.
• MX Peacekeeper Post Boost Vehicle. Basically, a fully integrated 1.5m upper stage including a small main engine. Pictured here and here.
• The MX Peacekeeper 2nd and 3rd stages would be on the to-do list. This is something I promised to @Pappystein and @Jso over a year ago now, and honestly, they're kinda dope. Why do you ask? Because they're SRBs with extending nozzles.
• Since this also would involve the STAR motors getting redone, a Burner 2 stage might be appropriate. Burner 2 is basically taking an off the shelf STAR-37 and adding enough hardware (full attitude control and guidance systems, for starters) to make it an independent upper stage, mostly for launching small weather satellites using surplus Thor and Atlas missiles as a first stage.

If anyone has any particular feelings on the above, please let me know!

4 minutes ago, JPGSP said:

Thank. I asked this because I built the Saturn V and it only had ~9000 delta v and I thought to get to orbit you need that amount in RO/RSS 

Any similar mods I could use in RO/RSS?

FASA is still the go-to mod for American stuff in Realism Overhaul, with some of the less notable/small launchers being covered by Raidernick's US Launchers pack.

[JPGSP]

2 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

FASA is still the go-to mod for American stuff in Realism Overhaul, with some of the less notable/small launchers being covered by Raidernick's US Launchers pack. 

Thanks!!

I have both of them but I still acept sugestions.

[Barzon]

Misinterpreted question - Ignore.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Barzon Kerman

[StarStreak2109]

Hi, Cobalt,

I use lower stage SRBs, either radially or inline, quite extensively. However on the other side, I only ever rarely use orbital kickstages. This mostly due to the fact that I lack the knowledge and tools to calculate the exact dV needed beforehand nor do I do detailed missions planning like NASA would do. Hence I prefer liquid upper stages as they are more flexible (i.e. I can turn them on/off as required).

Hope that helps.

[Barzon]

I use a lot of SRBs, but I have never used the orbital kickstages, for the same reasons as @StarStreak2109 .

[CobaltWolf]

11 minutes ago, Barzon Kerman said:

You could maybe make some of the proposals for Apollo?

Should I take that as a vote against the expansions I outlined? Yes, they are always a 'some day' thing that I hesitate to get to for some reason, even though they're probably what I actually should be working on at this point in the mod's life... if anything, just more 'payloads' and less launch vehicles...

10 minutes ago, StarStreak2109 said:

I use lower stage SRBs, either radially or inline, quite extensively. However on the other side, I only ever rarely use orbital kickstages. This mostly due to the fact that I lack the knowledge and tools to calculate the exact dV needed beforehand nor do I do detailed missions planning like NASA would do. Hence I prefer liquid upper stages as they are more flexible (i.e. I can turn them on/off as required).

4 minutes ago, Barzon Kerman said:

I use a lot of SRBs, but I have never used the orbital kickstages, for the same reasons as @StarStreak2109 .

Mmhmm. I think that is the hang up many users have. Generally the idea is to use a combination of the ability for BDB's upper stage solids to be turned off (I wish I could make it easier, I personally always wind up hot-keying them) and the orbital adjustment modules (HAPS/PIBS, and the proposed larger OAMS and PBV stages) to correct your orbit/trajectory for however much you need before releasing the payload. This alleviates the issue somewhat, and long as you have a general idea how much delta V your mission needs you can do some additional tailoring to the fuel loads for stack. For Scout-class payloads I think you're mostly just aiming for any LEO orbit (testing new parts, primitive comm relays, contracts) so it isn't as big a deal there.

Edited August 7, 2018 by CobaltWolf

[Tiankay]

I use both the booster solids aswell as kickstages quite alot when (and thats often) im trying to to missions with accurate launch vehicles. I just trial and error them or do rough estimates and do fine re-adjustment with the payload itself after seperation^^

 

While recently doing all my subassemblies i noticed that some vehicles were "almost" possible but ultimatly lacked just the right SRB or Kickstage. (Burner Stages come to mind, gib pl0x ) So yes, i would really enjoy a touch up on these parts^^

 

Peace

TK

Edited August 7, 2018 by Tiankay

[RaiderMan]

I myself use srbs in the strap on role, for the same reason of a complete lack of throttle control and inability to shut down and restart an srb. srbs have a tendency when the larger core stage sized ones are used, to push a stack fast enough that if I didnt have kerbal joint reenforcement..I'd see a complete loss of the vehicle.

[notJebKerman]

23 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Who actually uses the various solid motors (besides the radial Titan SRBs)? Does anybody in the community actually bother dealing with solid kick stages? Does anybody use 1.5m or 1.875m launchers that primarily use the existing BDB solids like the Castor-120?

I use both. Kick stages (especially Star-37 & 48) are really useful with any launch vehicle and are some of my most commonly used parts. While I don't use Castor-120 as often as the kick stages, I have flown quite a few Carrack and Delta-Lite rockes.

[CobaltWolf]

15 minutes ago, Tiankay said:

I use both the booster solids aswell as kickstages quite alot when (and thats often) im trying to to missions with accurate launch vehicles. I just trial and error them or do rough estimates and do fine re-adjustment with the payload itself after seperation^^

While recently doing all my subassemblies i noticed that some vehicles were "almost" possible but ultimatly lacked just the right SRB or Kickstage. (Burner Stages come to mind, gib pl0x ) So yes, i would really enjoy a touch up on these parts^^

Were the burner stages used on something else I don't know about? Slash, any other vehicles that are 'almosts'?

 

11 minutes ago, RaiderMan said:

I myself use srbs in the strap on role, for the same reason of a complete lack of throttle control and inability to shut down and restart an srb. srbs have a tendency when the larger core stage sized ones are used, to push a stack fast enough that if I didnt have kerbal joint reenforcement..I'd see a complete loss of the vehicle.

Hopefully the thrust curves help alleviate that somewhat. The upper stages can all be shut down using the action menu.

 

6 minutes ago, notJebKerman said:

I use both. Kick stages (especially Star-37 & 48) are really useful with any launch vehicle and are some of my most commonly used parts. While I don't use Castor-120 as often as the kick stages, I have flown quite a few Carrack and Delta-Lite rockes.

Good to know! I don't see that many screenshots from people so I don't really know what is and isn't getting used in the mod.