Jump to content

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

CobaltWolf

By CobaltWolf
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jso

Jso

Posted
Posted

@blowfish has kindly added node repositioning to B9PartSwitch so I added that to the Atlas RD-180 engine. You should no longer have to remove it and reattach when switching meshes. Please advise if you notice any issues.

The latest version of B9PartSwitch is required. I had to change how the nodes are setup so this is probably save breaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jso

Jso

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, idinmomenzadeh said:

having a problem with this mod.. tried it before trying to try it again... but................... i cant find the part "Sarnus-SIVB-LAM Lander Adapter Module" Has it been renamed or something? because i cant find it

Career game? It's unlocked in Specialized Construction.

In the part list it's in the Payload category, or you can type S4B in the search bar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pappystein

Pappystein

Posted
Posted

Ok so a couple of "Fun" aka loaded question.   

  1. Are we going to see the new multi-Engine CFG via B9PartSwitch with the upcoming release?   EG the USRM 1, 2 and 2.5segment switching?
  2. How does the ATTACHMENT location change as we re-size the USRM?   Is it the same or do I have to detatch it and move it to re-attach in the correct spot after a resize?

Ok so it is 2.75 questions :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jso

Jso

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

The point of Attachment of the SRB to whatever it is mounted too... you know like on a Titan Rocket.   If I place the Part, Change it's type do I need to Take it off and place it back on is what I am asking.

 

You mean inline and radial? No, that shouldn't effect nodes.

There's no multi engine config in B9 if that's what you're referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CobaltWolf

CobaltWolf

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Apologies for the inactivity - I forgot to say I'd be out of town and (basically) off the grid the last 5 days...

 

On 11/16/2018 at 12:40 PM, gooddog15 said:

YESSS! I use scout for alot of missions. It'll be great to finally to use normal 0.9375m fairings rather than using the 0.625 to 0.9375m vangaurd fairing adapter.

This is shaping up to be an amazing update :D

Glad to know someone uses it, out of curiosity do you play with a stock scale system or one of the more 'balanced' ones? I imagine 0.9375m rockets are a lot more useful in the former.

 

On 11/17/2018 at 9:18 AM, damonvv said:

~Titan pad snip~

Very nice! Hopefully it won't have to be changed too much once Titan is remade with correct proportions.

 

On 11/17/2018 at 4:14 PM, Vahnskir said:

danke my lad

Any eta when the next release might be?

As @Jso said I'm shooting for Christmas. It should be a pretty big update though, so there's that.

 

On 11/16/2018 at 7:27 PM, AlphaMensae said:

Launching Vanguard....IRL-style ;)

~snip~

That's with my WIP American Launch Stand and service tower....I did  a normal launch too, but this was too fun to pass up. :D 

On 11/18/2018 at 7:45 PM, AlphaMensae said:

Now working on the rectangular version of the round American Launch Stand, this one was mainly designed to handle the BDB Atlas:

~snip~

Those are looking so awesome dude!

 

On 11/19/2018 at 7:34 AM, Jso said:

@blowfish has kindly added node repositioning to B9PartSwitch so I added that to the Atlas RD-180 engine. You should no longer have to remove it and reattach when switching meshes. Please advise if you notice any issues.

The latest version of B9PartSwitch is required. I had to change how the nodes are setup so this is probably save breaking.

Thank you so much @blowfish for adding that feature and @jso (why won't it let me tag? ah well...) for implementing it.

 

14 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Ok so a couple of "Fun" aka loaded question.   

  1. Are we going to see the new multi-Engine CFG via B9PartSwitch with the upcoming release?   EG the USRM 1, 2 and 2.5segment switching?
  2. How does the ATTACHMENT location change as we re-size the USRM?   Is it the same or do I have to detatch it and move it to re-attach in the correct spot after a resize?

Ok so it is 2.75 questions :)

1) No, the development on those features are a bit stalled I believe. That reminds me how much I wanted to redo the Titan solids since I think I actually made them worse in this current dev cycle. Would be a good way to break in that feature once it is finished.   

2) That is what the above quote from Jso was referring to - B9 is now smart enough to move parts around in a stack when node positions move.

Edited by CobaltWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gooddog15

gooddog15

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Glad to know someone uses it, out of curiosity do you play with a stock scale system or one of the more 'balanced' ones? I imagine 0.9375m rockets are a lot more useful in the former.

I use stock scale. Scouts quite a bit powerful for the payloads its intended for, but for larger 0.625m LEO payloads it's perfect. Having 0.9375 fairing diameters allows me to launch bigger satellites without the rocket becoming too unweildy. 

Edited by gooddog15
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pappystein

Pappystein

Posted
Posted

Thanks Jso and Cobaltwolf for the clarifications!

So the new Agol Rocket.     Stock Scale with a few other part mods in addition to BDB.   Launched a KH-9 derived Satellite (Agena, Bunch of Science and a return capsule.) with just the Agol 1st and 2nd stage below Agena.  Achieved stable circular orbit at 300km.   I DO love the OP nature in Stock scale :)  In fact I was too high and my retro on the self built return capsule was not powerful enough for my Mini-Airbrakes to grab Atmo and slowly de-orbit my return capsule.  This is now my Gemini Target Vehicle launcher of choice!   But it is not accurate/powerfull enough for an Agena derived resupply to any sort of Space Station (all are over 500km)   
 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jso

Jso

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

@CobaltWolf Is the vacuum optimized version of the prometheus X250 intentionally like twice as heavy and powerful as the first stage version of it? seems rather weird to me...

10 minute burns for upper stages are undesirable, so for game play purposes we give a petty big (sometimes huge) buff to vacuum engines. It leads to weirdness when you have an engine with upper and lower stage versions. For balance the mass and thrust are linked, so it gets heavier with the buff. I think on the J2's we kind of met in the middle when the SL version was added. In this case removing the buff from the vacuum engine entirely might be appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BRAAAP_STUTUTU

BRAAAP_STUTUTU

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Jso said:

10 minute burns for upper stages are undesirable, so for game play purposes we give a petty big (sometimes huge) buff to vacuum engines. It leads to weirdness when you have an engine with upper and lower stage versions. For balance the mass and thrust are linked, so it gets heavier with the buff. I think on the J2's we kind of met in the middle when the SL version was added. In this case removing the buff from the vacuum engine entirely might be appropriate.

"huge" is an understatement when the vac version has the stats of two sea level lifter versions, if anything the lifter version could use more thrust and weigh heavier since its gotta carry a far heavier load, upper stage engines don't really have to punch the rockets through atmospheres and directly fight with gravity so you don't really need em to be monstrously powerful, i dont really think having a vacuum titan-2 gemini with nearly 3.0 TWR as upper stage is err, logical, unless you wanna take off from a vacuum supertylo or something

i'd rather have a lower weight on upper stage engines so i can squeeze out more deltaV

Edited by BRAAAP_STUTUTU
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CobaltWolf

CobaltWolf

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

"huge" is an understatement when the vac version has the stats of two sea level lifter versions, if anything the lifter version could use more thrust and weigh heavier since its gotta carry a far heavier load, upper stage engines don't really have to punch the rockets through atmospheres and directly fight with gravity so you don't really need em to be monstrously powerful, i dont really think having a vacuum titan-2 gemini with nearly 3.0 TWR as upper stage is err, logical, unless you wanna take off from a vacuum supertylo or something

The 25% IRL for sea level / 50% IRL for vacuum thrusts makes more sense for engines that arent comparable. The early AJ-10s having, say, 12 thrust instead of 6 is just a nice buff so people dont have to deal with giant burn times. When they have sea level versions it gets weird. Now that I think about it the engines that already have sea level variants don't need a thrust buff just better ISP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BRAAAP_STUTUTU

BRAAAP_STUTUTU

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

The 25% IRL for sea level / 50% IRL for vacuum thrusts makes more sense for engines that arent comparable. The early AJ-10s having, say, 12 thrust instead of 6 is just a nice buff so people dont have to deal with giant burn times. When they have sea level versions it gets weird. Now that I think about it the engines that already have sea level variants don't need a thrust buff just better ISP.

Besides the fact that 4X physics warp exists and can be used to alleviate this quite a lot, it makes more sense to me to just double the amount of vacuum engines if long burns are that much of a concern. Rather than having two visually identical engines that perform nothing alike eachother. Just the classic old ädd Moar boosters/engines strat.

Hmm, that does make me wonder if BDB has thrust plates for multi-engine configurations though?

i guess i could very well just make a small patch to override the buff so my mind doesn't break into an error loop trying to rationalize the stat difference between two visually identical engines.

But i'm honestly curious what kind of whackjobian payload would require a vacuum engine with this much thrust/volume density lol

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CobaltWolf

CobaltWolf

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

Besides the fact that 4X physics warp exists and can be used to alleviate this quite a lot, it makes more sense to me to just double the amount of vacuum engines if long burns are that much of a concern. Rather than having two visually identical engines that perform nothing alike eachother. Just the classic old ädd Moar boosters/engines strat.

Hmm, that does make me wonder if BDB has thrust plates for multi-engine configurations though?

i guess i could very well just make a small patch to override the buff so my mind doesn't break into an error loop trying to rationalize the stat difference between two visually identical engines.

But i'm honestly curious what kind of whackjobian payload would require a vacuum engine with this much thrust/volume density lol

 

Well that's what I'm saying now, I think these engines that already have sea level variants don't need the buff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BRAAAP_STUTUTU

BRAAAP_STUTUTU

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Well that's what I'm saying now, I think these engines that already have sea level variants don't need the buff.

well they need a ''buff'' in the way of them having higher ISP and (lower?) weight but trading that in for a reduction in thrust

Delta V takes a hit the more non-fuel mass you have to propel, and this is especially so on LH2 since it has a really low density, and as such heavier engines aren't worth marginally higher engine ISP when the extra weight offsets the gain in ISP, especially the lighter the load,  you wouldn't put a ship diesel in a truck even if it has higher efficiency because the added weight by far outweighs the engines efficiency 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jso

Jso

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

Ehh, that's admittedly too low, the smallest cryo engines of BDB still need a purpose too

Do whatever makes you happy, KSP is great that way, I don't know what to do with it. The X-250 without upgrades is based on the Titan C second stage engine. Everything else is hypothetical. The vacuum version really needs it's own model and should probably be later in the tech tree so it can get a decent Isp and fill the huge gap between the Rl-10 and J-2. Everything Titan related is due for a rebuild so we'll see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...