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

[Zorg]

FEEDBACK NEEDED

So the dev branch of BDB should have thrust nerfs to some upper stage engines as of today. This is part of an attempt to bring all engines to the same scaling. Right now sea level engines have 25% of the real world thrust and upper stages have 50% of the real world thrust. Meanwhile engines like the J2 and LR87 LH2 which have both sea level and vac versions get 37% thrust scaling for both. The idea is to bring everything into a consistent 25% scaling.

However given the size of KSP planets even 2.5x scaled systems, it may be the case that the nerfed thrust upper stages might end up impractical with excessive burn times so some feedback is needed if the nerfed upper stage engines are still useable in game.

For the moment, the RL10s, Agena engines and, the Able, Ablestar and Delta AJ10s have been nerfed. 

Edit: These commits have been reverted for the moment. Instead if anyone would like to test out the MM patch that does the same thing in BDB extras, and if people are ok with it. We will go ahead with doing it in the main part cfgs.

https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/tree/Development/BD_Extras (No Warranty)/GameData/Bluedog_DB_Extras/UpperStageThrustNerf

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Zorg

[Mudwig]

1 hour ago, Zorg said:

*snip*

 

I tried the patch recently with JNSQ and found that it was very hard to loft payloads to LKO... payloads anywhere near the max  for a given launcher, anyway. Higher orbits were more or less fine, but low orbits just don't have enough time for the low thrust stages to be effective with heavier payloads. The main problem with using a 25% scale thrust setup universally is that payload mass ratios are much higher than IRL, so you end up with far lower upper stage TWR than on the real deal and much less time to burn with it. This isn't as big a problem with the lower stages, since the payload represents a much smaller percentage of the total mass than with the upper stage, where it can easily be half or more of the stage mass.

Ultimately it's up to the BDB team to decide what to do, but if the 25% patch is designated as standard, then I think the current thrust scaling should be available as a patch like the reduced thrust config is now.

[CobaltWolf]

[nasa legolas]

 

5 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

That is just amazing

[blowfish]

8 hours ago, Mudwig said:

I tried the patch recently with JNSQ and found that it was very hard to loft payloads to LKO... payloads anywhere near the max  for a given launcher, anyway. Higher orbits were more or less fine, but low orbits just don't have enough time for the low thrust stages to be effective with heavier payloads. The main problem with using a 25% scale thrust setup universally is that payload mass ratios are much higher than IRL, so you end up with far lower upper stage TWR than on the real deal and much less time to burn with it. This isn't as big a problem with the lower stages, since the payload represents a much smaller percentage of the total mass than with the upper stage, where it can easily be half or more of the stage mass.

Ultimately it's up to the BDB team to decide what to do, but if the 25% patch is designated as standard, then I think the current thrust scaling should be available as a patch like the reduced thrust config is now.

What were you trying with?  For something like a Centaur (especially single engine centaur) you're going to have to loft high on the booster in order to have enough time to get to orbit, and that's true IRL as well.

[Kerbal01]

I have the latest from the Dev branch and used the new MOL panels. The game replaced them with the old models when I took it out to the pad.

edit: uninstalled, reinstalled, no change.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Kerbal01

[Adam-Kerman]

where did the like button go?

[CobaltWolf]

On 9/15/2019 at 9:25 AM, Zorg said:

FEEDBACK NEEDED

So the dev branch of BDB should have thrust nerfs to some upper stage engines as of today. This is part of an attempt to bring all engines to the same scaling. Right now sea level engines have 25% of the real world thrust and upper stages have 50% of the real world thrust. Meanwhile engines like the J2 and LR87 LH2 which have both sea level and vac versions get 37% thrust scaling for both. The idea is to bring everything into a consistent 25% scaling.

However given the size of KSP planets even 2.5x scaled systems, it may be the case that the nerfed thrust upper stages might end up impractical with excessive burn times so some feedback is needed if the nerfed upper stage engines are still useable in game.

For the moment, the RL10s, Agena engines and, the Able, Ablestar and Delta AJ10s have been nerfed. 

Edit: These commits have been reverted for the moment. Instead if anyone would like to test out the MM patch that does the same thing in BDB extras, and if people are ok with it. We will go ahead with doing it in the main part cfgs.

https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/tree/Development/BD_Extras (No Warranty)/GameData/Bluedog_DB_Extras/UpperStageThrustNerf

22 hours ago, Mudwig said:

I tried the patch recently with JNSQ and found that it was very hard to loft payloads to LKO... payloads anywhere near the max  for a given launcher, anyway. Higher orbits were more or less fine, but low orbits just don't have enough time for the low thrust stages to be effective with heavier payloads. The main problem with using a 25% scale thrust setup universally is that payload mass ratios are much higher than IRL, so you end up with far lower upper stage TWR than on the real deal and much less time to burn with it. This isn't as big a problem with the lower stages, since the payload represents a much smaller percentage of the total mass than with the upper stage, where it can easily be half or more of the stage mass.

Ultimately it's up to the BDB team to decide what to do, but if the 25% patch is designated as standard, then I think the current thrust scaling should be available as a patch like the reduced thrust config is now.

13 hours ago, blowfish said:

What were you trying with?  For something like a Centaur (especially single engine centaur) you're going to have to loft high on the booster in order to have enough time to get to orbit, and that's true IRL as well.

I think it's a fair point that you have heavier payloads and less time to do it... but I'm not sure it make as much of a difference as people think? Like the amount of delta V you need to impart is still like half of what it is IRL.

Like Blowfish said, many rockets such as the Atlas V with the single engine, you basically loft it so it actually circularizes past apoapsis, here's a graph of the altitude of an Ariane V on a mission to I believe GTO.

 

 

10 hours ago, Kerbal01 said:

I have the latest from the Dev branch and used the new MOL panels. The game replaced them with the old models when I took it out to the pad.

edit: uninstalled, reinstalled, no change.

So, I apparently had to restart Github for it to realize I had changed the model and fixed it on my end. Blech.

 

2 hours ago, Adam-Kerman said:

where did the like button go?

They disabled it for some reason. My life is now hollow and meaningless.

 

Managed to finish my station last night:

 

 

As a reminder, the tag "MOS" will pull up... as far as I know, all of these new parts. It's ridiculous. 30-something in like 2 weeks.

There's also a number of Github issues we need help / feedback on:

Quote

MOL fork docking port animation issue #614

Throws index out of range log spam when the forks deployed in flight. Causes the the game screen to blink while animation plays. Log spam continues after animation done. Will try to find out more.

Quote

BUG: Ring docking port clips when docked #617

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/39182212/64886532-d7218680-d67f-11e9-9dab-ab79a6efc581.png

Don't know exactly what's causing the issue, will need to open it up in Unity and check the transforms.

Quote

BUG: Airlocks are broken #618

The inflatable docking port says that the hatch is blocked when trying to EVA from it. Believe this may be because the transform is recessed too far in.

The hard airlock needs to have the hatch or ladder on the end rotated 90 degrees.

All the hand holds on these parts need testing.

Quote

BALANCE: New Gemini station parts #619

I've been going through and getting these in game but they have yet to receive any sort of balancing. Could really use help tightening these up and trying to diversify them a little.

Things to look for:
Tech tree placement (maybe this needs to be a separate issue?)
Costs
Mass
Efficiency (for labs)
Crew capacity
Resource capacity
Electrical generation (for solar panels, I can measure the surface area in Maya if it helps)
Antenna power/capabilities (For... antennas)

Quote

Tech tree placement for new parts #620

Tech tree needs to be evaluated so parts can get placed:
Gemini Lander
Gemini station parts
LDC Titan
Helios
The new probe bits
New Gemini bits
The new Titan parts
Atlas SLV-3X
The new part upgrades probably also need to get checked

 

This is probably going to be a slow week compared to the last two; I have friends staying over this coming weekend so I need to make sure the apartment is put back together in one piece before they show up. So probably no streams until next week. In the meantime, please test all these new parts, leave feedback, show me what you can come up with! It really really does help keep me excited and motivated to do all this! I'm trying to wind down this update, but if there's stuff that people find they really want ("oh if I just had X part I could make something super cool...") that isn't too much trouble, I'm all ears.

 

 

 

 

[golkaidakhaana]

3 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I'm trying to wind down this update, but if there's stuff that people find they really want ("oh if I just had X part I could make something super cool...") that isn't too much trouble, I'm all ears.

I can't think of anything to complement superb new MOL parts, but do you plan on adding fairing bases and various adapters for LDC Titan this update? I think those are the only things it's missing.

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

I can't think of anything to complement superb new MOL parts, but do you plan on adding fairing bases and various adapters for LDC Titan this update? I think those are the only things it's missing.

Yes, on the Github issue for LDC I still have these listed:

• 3.125m Short Interstage
• 3.125m-1.875m Interstage
• 3.125m stack decoupler
• 3.125m fairing base
• 3.125m > 2.5m adapter
• 3.125m nose cone
• 3.125M Stage and a half tank for CELV-alike LVs
• 3.125 stage and a half skirt for CELV-alike LVs
• Some nice little fins I made for the stage and a half skirt

For Titan, we still need... well, I need to add a couple things here:

• SOLTAN 1.5m SRB (ignore the nose cones in the image)
• 1.5m Nose cone (would have a mesh switch to a 0.9375m end cap)
• 0.9375m end cap for the UA120 nose cone
• 0.9375m booster recovery parachute (I had a great painting of this I'm sure I posted here but I can't find it...)
• Short 1.5m upper stage tank (basically a cut down Titan 1 second stage, a lot of people liked the old part)
• Full 3-seg SRMU (basically the UA1208 equivalent for the SRMUs)

I also have like... 11 more alt textures written down for Titan? And I'd like to do 1 or 2 for LDC, at least the tanks.

EDIT: Also, at the risk of... promoting myself? Lol. I'm currently looking to upgrade my computer. I don't necessarily need to, but we're still trying to scrape together a desktop so my partner to use to play with me. I've been looking and think I might take the opportunity to upgrade my CPU/mobo and give her my current setup (which is still pretty decent). Unfortunately that means that we'd have to pay a bit more than we budgeted for. If anyone has been enjoying all the work lately and wants to help support development (and help me avoid yellow clocks when I'm playtesting...) you can support development regularly via Patreon or make a one time donation via Paypal. Cheers y'all!

Edited September 16, 2019 by CobaltWolf

[Deltac]

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

My life is now hollow and meaningless.

Just like IVA's  OOOOOOOOOOO

3 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

but if there's stuff that people find they really want

Voskhod?

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

you can support development regularly via Patreon

[/sarcasmEnd]  Heck yes!  I'll go ahead and hop on board.

[CobaltWolf]

5 hours ago, Deltac said:

Just like IVA's  OOOOOOOOOOO

Voskhod?

[/sarcasmEnd]  Heck yes!  I'll go ahead and hop on board.

Yay! Thank you so much!! <3

[golkaidakhaana]

If I wasn't dirt poor, I'd definitely support you on patreon

I've just thought of a part that would be remarkably useful, a 1.875m fairing base with a 0.9375 crew tube through the center that can act similarly to the Skylab airlock/adapter thing. I was fiddling around with the new MOL parts (which are great btw) and realised the Atlas and Titan fairing bases had a sort of awkward gap that makes it look kinda weird. If it isn't too much trouble, could you consider making such a part? Even if it's just an existing fairing base with a crew tube through the center.

[CobaltWolf]

13 hours ago, sslaptnhablhat said:

If I wasn't dirt poor, I'd definitely support you on patreon

I've just thought of a part that would be remarkably useful, a 1.875m fairing base with a 0.9375 crew tube through the center that can act similarly to the Skylab airlock/adapter thing. I was fiddling around with the new MOL parts (which are great btw) and realised the Atlas and Titan fairing bases had a sort of awkward gap that makes it look kinda weird. If it isn't too much trouble, could you consider making such a part? Even if it's just an existing fairing base with a crew tube through the center.

Well I guess you'll just have to pay the screenshot tax, huh?

Hmm... What I actually want to do but am not sure about, is adding a fairing module to... basically all the adapters? I'm just worried it will be a big of a pain in the butt... something worth testing.

 

Did some more playtesting to check if some bug fixes work. The inflatable airlock still needs adjustments, but at least works now.

No pics of a kerbal climbing out of it, for some reason I get a transparent parachute when I EVA? I don't even have Making History...

 

 

I'm also still experimenting with some more parts for this set... here's some conformal radiators that I wanted to make since I figured they'd look cool and make good greebles...

 

I also was experimenting with this... telescoping... lamp post? Yeah, idk. I don't think I'll finish it.

 

One thing I like and probably will finish...

 

 

Another part, or rather series of parts, would be some sort of "Mobility Assistance Device" aka the MAD Poles from Kolyma's Shadow... would serve as some sort of extending or fold out ladder for these station parts. Thoughts?

 

EDIT: Oh, also, realized we need a 45 degree version of the ferry RCS for reasons that should become clear soon

Edited September 17, 2019 by CobaltWolf

[Teobald]

How do I make this work balanced with RSS? Right now my Mercury Atlas only can go suborbital.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Teobald

[Guest]

@Zorg, I checked out the patch and played around a bit. Can't say I did a whole lot with it, but a Centaur D-1T with a Helios-class payload gets TWR of around 1. Seeing as single-engine Centaur variants are dedicated to high orbit missions, I'd say that at least the RL-10 is good.

Very low thrust stages are generally used on missions to high orbits, and I think that it's good if it's so in BDB, as well. No more LKO insertions with a SEC, which really shouldn't be a very good choice for that.  I'll play with it some more later on, but I feel that this change will be good for balance.

[DeltaDizzy]

4 hours ago, Teobald said:

How do I make this work balanced with RSS? Right now my Mercury Atlas only can go suborbital.

You would need some RO configs. There arent any right now but I believe I heard a rumor that some were being worked on. Im sure if you wanted to create some yourself the effort would not go unappreciated.

 

[Pappystein]

6 hours ago, Teobald said:

How do I make this work balanced with RSS? Right now my Mercury Atlas only can go suborbital.

Step 1... Ignore RSS... RSS is a news feed and not appropriate for KSP.

Step 2...  Embrace the BlueDog

Step 3...  Realize this is a Joke and I hope you at least got a smile out of it!

Like DeltaDizzy stated I also have heard rumors and allegations that someone is making RO configurations.    Believe it when I see it and since I don't play RO (and have no plan to)....

===============================

@CobaltWolf  That retractable Lamp post.   What was the idea/inspiration behind it?

ALSO is it possible to have an animation that tracks the planet you are orbiting?  That ESM/ELINT/SIGINT antenna would be a good application if that is a possible thing.....

 

ERR followup Question.   Is the alternate LDC texture going to match Bossart for the SLV-3K (69) proposal?  

 

Edited September 17, 2019 by Pappystein
Followup Question for Cobalt!

[Guest]

@CobaltWolf, any chance of making those little retrorockets on the LDC 1st stage work? The lower tank appears to have a bunch of them in the intertank, they look really nice. I don't know how useful they would be with hot staging, but since it's such a big stage, they might be.

[CobaltWolf]

18 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

@Zorg, I checked out the patch and played around a bit. Can't say I did a whole lot with it, but a Centaur D-1T with a Helios-class payload gets TWR of around 1. Seeing as single-engine Centaur variants are dedicated to high orbit missions, I'd say that at least the RL-10 is good.

Very low thrust stages are generally used on missions to high orbits, and I think that it's good if it's so in BDB, as well. No more LKO insertions with a SEC, which really shouldn't be a very good choice for that.  I'll play with it some more later on, but I feel that this change will be good for balance.

Yeah, this adjustment is sounding better the more I think about it, honestly.

 

15 hours ago, Pappystein said:

 

@CobaltWolf  That retractable Lamp post.   What was the idea/inspiration behind it?

 

Uhm. Nothing really. Just was trying to think of useful utility/greeble parts and was like... uhhhh.... extending light for illuminating EVA work?

 

15 hours ago, Pappystein said:

ALSO is it possible to have an animation that tracks the planet you are orbiting?  That ESM/ELINT/SIGINT antenna would be a good application if that is a possible thing.....

Not possible, I'm afraid. Not without a custom plugin... which, I don't see as being particularly hard to do? Just need a plugin that specifies... I guess you specify a transform name, it points Z+ and rotates around Y, you'd want to be able to set limits on both a positive and negative rotation, and then it just tries to keep Z+ tracking at the body you're around. Preferably make it an extension of the generic animation module? And then maybe have the target be configurable - "currentBody", "sun", idk somehow hook it into the planet code, but that's getting more complex. I'm not a programmer, so doing all that is probably way less intuitive than it sounds. It would be great for dishes of all types though.

 

15 hours ago, Pappystein said:

ERR followup Question.   Is the alternate LDC texture going to match Bossart for the SLV-3K (69) proposal? 

Darn you... you twisted my arm. I thought about it... and realized the only way to do this right is to bash the Bossart texture sheet into a new set of parts one more time... I give you, the start of my 3.125m balloon tanks. These should be capable of providing a reasonable approximation of the SLV-3K and Atlas II CELV tankage - and they'll be balanced as balloon tanks! No radial attachment, less dry mass. The UVs still need work but you should get the idea.

 

 

Oh, for what it's worth - LDC texture variants, I'm considering making a version that is basically a Titan 3C color scheme because that's what the Heavy Lift Titan artwork that I have shows. The other texture variant would essentially be for a white upper stage tankage, with first stage tankage based on the Atlas V CCB's copper coloration. What do people think of that?

(Ignore the... camera? that's being highlighted here)

 

4 hours ago, Dragon01 said:

@CobaltWolf, any chance of making those little retrorockets on the LDC 1st stage work? The lower tank appears to have a bunch of them in the intertank, they look really nice. I don't know how useful they would be with hot staging, but since it's such a big stage, they might be.

So, I intended people to use the Star-5Fs from the Atlas V... honestly just because I thought it was a cool little detail? so that's the intended retro rocket to be used there. Unfortunately they take a little adjusting to get working right.

Also, there's a practical reason for this: If we included the retros in the tank, it messes up the fuel flow and the rocket won't stage properly. It's an unfortunate thing we ran into with the Atlas V tankage as well, which is why the retros became a separate part in the first place.

 

So... I WAS going to work on getting 3-seg SRMU and the short Titan 1 tank in game last night... but Pappy's post got me thinking about 3.125m balloon tanks more... and that got me thinking about a part, which many people have told me is one of the worst in the mod. I agree... so I'm also remaking the Centaur interstage this update. And I UV'd it in a way that it will work with more detailed Centaur parts in the future (the weird "hump" extends down on to the interstage). Right now the plan is to also have a shortened version that replaces the current interstage, and then this longer, more accurate version becomes a new, third B9 switch option. I also made some stopgap texture adjustments to the Centaur tank textures to get rid of the ugly black rims. Deal? (oh god I can feel the planned release date slipping through my fingers...)

[Zorg]

So happy about the interstage! I did think it looked longer when I saw it on your twitter. The proportions look nicer with the longer option in addition to being more accurate.

Spoiler

I wonder if a Kerbal Atomics Eel will fit in there for a nuclear Centaur . Probably not, its kind of long even undeployed.

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Zorg

[CobaltWolf]

15 minutes ago, Zorg said:

So happy about the interstage! I did think it looked longer when I saw it on your twitter. The proportions look nicer with the longer option in addition to being more accurate.

Yeah I'm wondering what will be possible with the longer version... and if it's possible to have an even shorter, and even longer, version...

Also, I just saw when I opened my Paypal, but thank you M and B (don't want to doxx but hey, if one of those is your first initial and you donated recently, you know who you are! ) for donating to BDB!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

Yeah I'm wondering what will be possible with the longer version... and if it's possible to have an even shorter, and even longer, version...

The new interstage is lovely.  It seems a bit long to me, though. According to this, it is about 3.96m IRL:

This would make it 2.37m tall in KSP, using the BDB Atlas scaling. It looks a bit taller than that.

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, Dragon01 said:

The new interstage is lovely.  It seems a bit long to me, though. According to this, it is about 3.96m IRL:

This would make it 2.37m tall in KSP, using the BDB Atlas scaling. It looks a bit taller than that.

Hmm, I'll have to check again then.

[CobaltWolf]