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

[CobaltWolf]

[Pappystein]

8 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

 

Um, I keep pressing the Thumbs up button but you are only getting one upvote.  I need Moar Upvotes for that!

You do realize that with the IUS you are going to have a bunch of new people wanting to download BDB for their Space shuttle trash haulers right?   Maybe post pics of that for the next release (or make it prominent in the Titan Pics so they can all see...) 

 

[Rory Yammomoto]

IUS looking good. Can't wait to find a use for it - this may be hard though, since Transtage™ is throttle-able, restart-able, and for trans rights.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Rory Yammomoto

[DriftedCougar]

Neat LR-87 (or is the number different? IDK...), also the hydrogen vacuum one seems a bit long, just saying!

[Friznit]

56 minutes ago, Rory Yammomoto said:

IUS looking good. Can't wait to find a use for it - this may be hard though, since Transtage™ is throttle-able, restart-able, and for trans rights.

Well the answer is obvious!  Put an IUS on top of a Transtage and call it a Titan 35.  More upper stages! More options!  More space points!

(Sanity not included)

[CobaltWolf]

2 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Um, I keep pressing the Thumbs up button but you are only getting one upvote.  I need Moar Upvotes for that!

You do realize that with the IUS you are going to have a bunch of new people wanting to download BDB for their Space shuttle trash haulers right?   Maybe post pics of that for the next release (or make it prominent in the Titan Pics so they can all see...) 

I'm sure everything will be pictured, similar to the release album for the last update.

 

2 hours ago, DriftedCougar said:

Neat LR-87 (or is the number different? IDK...), also the hydrogen vacuum one seems a bit long, just saying!

They're all LR-87s still. And yeah, I wanted it to have a particularly long bell. It's vacuum optimized, after all The vacuum AJ11 has about 20s more ISP than the original but it's still really more of a sustainer.

 

2 hours ago, Rory Yammomoto said:

IUS looking good. Can't wait to find a use for it - this may be hard though, since Transtage™ is throttle-able, restart-able, and for trans rights.

1 hour ago, Friznit said:

Well the answer is obvious!  Put an IUS on top of a Transtage and call it a Titan 35.  More upper stages! More options!  More space points!

(Sanity not included)

I believe IUS has more total impulse. Or should, at least. At the end of the day Transtage is really more of a first-gen orbital tug meant for dispensing multiple satellites than an upper stage focused on imparting a lot of delta V.

 

Sorry for cutting the stream short last night, I was getting pretty tired and I bumped my drink off my desk trying to adjust my pen tablet so I had to go clean it up. The IUS is still basically untextured, the UVs for it are kind of a pain to paint on it turns out. I think I'm going to try the Nertea method - lay in any panel/normal map details I'm going to do, and then add grime and other detail like that on an as-needed basis.

[hieywiey]

11 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

That IUS is gorgeous! Will an adapter be made for Shuttle-like use, or just one for use on Titans?

[DriftedCougar]

@CobaltWolf wait we've been looking at an placeholder texture IUS?

[CobaltWolf]

8 minutes ago, hieywiey said:

That IUS is gorgeous! Will an adapter be made for Shuttle-like use, or just one for use on Titans?

The cradle? I wasn't planning on it if I'm honest. Lot of work for just a weird little structural part.

 

4 minutes ago, DriftedCougar said:

@CobaltWolf wait we've been looking at an placeholder texture IUS?

Yeah that's mostly just an AO bake and some basic colors, some early normal map stuff, a little bit of grime and wear but yeah it's mostly untextured. I have to relearn the right way to do foil.

[Pappystein]

10 minutes ago, DriftedCougar said:

@CobaltWolf wait we've been looking at an placeholder texture IUS?

It is the gold I assume he is referring to given the past two pages comments on reflective shaders in KSP.

The non-polished metal looking areas are awesome, I agree but the reflective portion (gold bell and foil) are.....   pedestrian in color and detail.  

 

EDIT:

As Cobalt just posted as I was typing this "Basic Colors and AO bake"

 

@CobaltWolf

The IUS interstate is pretty, as is, in your photos in my opinion.   Would need a bottom up angle shot for the upper stage for a better comment there but the Foil is my main sticking point.   It either has too many or too few creases in it.... and YELLOW.   I assume a Orange, Sienna or Brown over-tint is going to bring out color variation and details.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Pappystein

[Guest]

Proper gold is not possible without the reflective shader. The placeholder is actually a pretty good approximation, but "gold" without that metallic sheen will always look yellow. Maybe it could be slightly more orange, but keep in mind that old photos tend to mess with colors somewhat.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Guest

[CobaltWolf]

39 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

The IUS interstate is pretty, as is, in your photos in my opinion.   Would need a bottom up angle shot for the upper stage for a better comment there but the Foil is my main sticking point.   It either has too many or too few creases in it.... and YELLOW.   I assume a Orange, Sienna or Brown over-tint is going to bring out color variation and details.

17 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

Proper gold is not possible without the reflective shader. The placeholder is actually a pretty good approximation, but "gold" without that metallic sheen will always look yellow. Maybe it could be slightly more orange, but keep in mind that old photos tend to mess with colors somewhat.

I'm going to try and follow some notes I have on how the Restock foil parts were made and see what I get. I'm still skeptical.

[Guest]

Be sure to post pics. As a devoted ReStock user, I'm much less skeptical.  

[hieywiey]

Are those new probe cores on hold for now?

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, hieywiey said:

Are those new probe cores on hold for now?

Not really on hold, I just haven't gotten back to them. I'd say thanks for reminding me but idk when I'll get to them... I need to get them on my main dev PC, I might do that tonight if I get frustrated with IUS.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

The cradle? I wasn't planning on it if I'm honest. Lot of work for just a weird little structural part.

Missed that point earlier, but with BG released (and Infernal Robotics also updated), this could be far more than a structural part.  There's a few good uses for robotics in BDB, aside from IUS/TOS cradle you could implement spin tables for upper stages, for instance. I researched those devices at one point (even working with Kartoffelkuchen to implement them in KSP), though implementation that came out of this was far from satisfactory due to IR limitations back then. 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Guest

[hieywiey]

2 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

Missed that point earlier, but with BG released (and Infernal Robotics also updated), this could be far more than a structural part.  There's a few good uses for robotics in BDB, aside from IUS/TOS cradle you could implement spin tables for upper stages, for instance. I researched those devices at one point (even working with Kartoffelkuchen to implement them in KSP), though implementation that came out of this was far from satisfactory due to IR limitations back then. 

From personal experience with spin stabilization, it requires you to balance the center of mass with the thrust vector so the object being spun doesn’t experience an off-axis torque and result in cosine losses. It also only really makes sense with PersistentRotation installed, but additionally KSPs OP reaction wheels make spin stabilization less useful than in real life. I guess it could be useful if you’re designing a craft that is not orientation dependent (i.e. doesn’t need to perform burns) and needs to be lightweight and you’re using the probe cores without reaction wheels. Also, I’ve tried using small solid rocket motors (usually the Mercury Posigrade motors) to spin up the table, but it can be a bit finicky. I would however use some kind of payload cradle like the IUS one for payloads in @Well‘s X-20, as I currently have to set the decoupler that attaches the payload to the X-20 to 0% force, and then use RCS to push the Dynasoar away.

[CobaltWolf]

4 minutes ago, hieywiey said:

From personal experience with spin stabilization, it requires you to balance the center of mass with the thrust vector so the object being spun doesn’t experience an off-axis torque and result in cosine losses. It also only really makes sense with PersistentRotation installed, but additionally KSPs OP reaction wheels make spin stabilization less useful than in real life. I guess it could be useful if you’re designing a craft that is not orientation dependent (i.e. doesn’t need to perform burns) and needs to be lightweight and you’re using the probe cores without reaction wheels. Also, I’ve tried using small solid rocket motors (usually the Mercury Posigrade motors) to spin up the table, but it can be a bit finicky. I would however use some kind of payload cradle like the IUS one for payloads in @Well‘s X-20, as I currently have to set the decoupler that attaches the payload to the X-20 to 0% force, and then use RCS to push the Dynasoar away.

You're also missing that KSP doesn't simulate a gyroscopic effect, so all that spin stabilization does is mean incorrect thrust will hopefully be quickly offset and your resulting vector stays more or less correct. And then there's no way to do a yo-yo despin in KSP. (all that is, ofc, just my understanding). Coupled with the stupidly OP reaction wheels (I really need to make some more fiddly little probe parts to make Persistent Rotation better with BDB) and such there usually isn't much of a point to actually trying to spin stabilize. IIRC at one point the thrust vectors of the Explorer SRB clusters were angled slightly to impart a spin, that was cool...

[Drew Kerman]

Just now, CobaltWolf said:

And then there's no way to do a yo-yo despin in KSP. (all that is, ofc, just my understanding).

 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

You're also missing that KSP doesn't simulate a gyroscopic effect, so all that spin stabilization does is mean incorrect thrust will hopefully be quickly offset and your resulting vector stays more or less correct. And then there's no way to do a yo-yo despin in KSP. (all that is, ofc, just my understanding). Coupled with the stupidly OP reaction wheels (I really need to make some more fiddly little probe parts to make Persistent Rotation better with BDB) and such there usually isn't much of a point to actually trying to spin stabilize. IIRC at one point the thrust vectors of the Explorer SRB clusters were angled slightly to impart a spin, that was cool...

Regarding Yo-Yo despin, see above. This works with robotics, too.  Also, I'm not so certain about KSP not doing gyroscopic effect. It's a direct consequence of basic laws of mechanics, which are simulated in KSP. In fact, I think some people are already trying to make CMGs with BG robotics. In fact, when experimenting with adding IR to Juno I, I found that the rocket suddenly started behaving very oddly in flight when the upper composite was spinning (on the other hand, lacking the means to do so before launch, it had to be actively spun all the time). This leads me to believe KSP very much does simulate the gyroscopic effect.

That's a wonderful thing about physics, TBH. You only need to implement a few basics right (conservation of linear and angular momentum, equations of motion), and then all the funny effects like gyros, reaction wheels, yo-yo despin and the like just appear, because they're direct consequences of those simple and intuitive basic laws. All that KSP gets wrong is dumping all angular momentum when warping or unloading a craft. IMO they should have spent some time figuring this part out better.

Edited June 10, 2019 by Guest

[hieywiey]

18 minutes ago, Drew Kerman said:

[Snip]

Yes, you can do that, but it is extremely mass inefficient compared to reaction wheels. I guess that a custom part could be made using KAS like this, but it looks more like a traditional yo-yo despin device, but it is a lot of work for something that will be used for such a small portion of the mission, and can be done using other methods which can be used in other parts of the mission. For small satellites with no reaction wheels and/or RCS, then I guess that yo-yo despin could make sense, though you could do a cheaty approximation of one by not actually using physics to slow it down, but have some kind of plugin that slows down the rotation of the craft to a certain speed, and plays an animation to make an illusion. This would likely be better for performance and consistency than using a KAS-like physics approach.

5 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

As above. This works with robotics, too.  Also, I'm not so certain about KSP not doing gyroscopic effect. It's a direct consequence of basic laws of mechanics, which are simulated in KSP. In fact, I think some people are already trying to make CMGs with BG robotics. In fact, when experimenting with adding IR to Juno I, I found that the rocket suddenly started behaving very oddly in flight when the upper composite was spinning (on the other hand, lacking the means to do so before launch, it had to be actively spun all the time). This leads me to believe KSP very much does simulate the gyroscopic effect.

KSP does simulate a gyroscopic effect. If you take a rapidly spinning craft with RCS thrusters on the nose and tail, and try to pitch it, it will behave like a gyroscope.

Edited June 10, 2019 by hieywiey

[Drew Kerman]

3 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

It's a direct consequence of basic laws of mechanics, which are simulated in KSP

don't think this is directly related to gyroscopic effect but does demonstrate KSP has some emergent physical behaviors

 

2 minutes ago, hieywiey said:

Yes, you can do that, but it is extremely mass inefficient compared to reaction wheels

I'm not here to argue whether it's useful or not I'm just showing that it can be done with actual game physics

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, hieywiey said:

Yes, you can do that, but it is extremely mass inefficient compared to reaction wheels. I guess that a custom part could be made using KAS like this, but it looks more like a traditional yo-yo despin device, but it is a lot of work for something that will be used for such a small portion of the mission, and can be done using other methods which can be used in other parts of the mission. For small satellites with no reaction wheels and/or RCS, then I guess that yo-yo despin could make sense, though you could do a cheaty approximation of one by not actually using physics to slow it down, but have some kind of plugin that slows down the rotation of the craft to a certain speed, and plays an animation to make an illusion. This would likely be better for performance and consistency than using a KAS-like physics approach.

You can do it with robotics just fine. It could be a bit fiddly to model, but all it'd take is a pair of "pistons" (visually, wires) with weight concentrated on one end, and a surface attachment on the other. Just slap one or two to your upper stage, extend when needed, and it works.

As for reaction wheels being more mass-efficient, that's silly KSP engineering for you. If you actually run the maths for reaction wheels, you will find they must be made out of some unobtainium, because you'll get angular rates that will cause a wheel made of any real material to fly apart. And even then, their electrical energy consumption is disproportionate to the torque they produce, at least under reasonable definitions of what 1EC is. 

Edited June 10, 2019 by Guest

[KerBlitz Kerman]

[whispers] 

Free Making History Parts V2!!!

[Guest]

Don't be mean.  Wolfy's far ahead of MH.