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

[CobaltWolf]

18 hours ago, TheBritishEmpire said:

Hey, I've been having an issue with the BDB mod. Basically, I get this error message:

And none of the parts are installed. If it helps, it occurs in KSP 1.9.1 and 1.9.

8 hours ago, Zorg said:

If none of the parts are showing up that sounds like an installation error. If you are installing manually from spacedock make sure your folder structure is correct:

Gamedata/Bluedog_DB

not

Gamedata/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/Gamedata/Bluedog_DB

Do we support 1.9/1.9.1? I don't know if anyone has tried it...

Anyways, yeah that looks like a textbook case of the directory not being installed correctly.

 

16 hours ago, MashAndBangers said:

Super Mercury:

Required an extended atlas with 4 solids.  Jeb says the solids have quite the kick!

How'd you know?

 

16 hours ago, DiscoSlelge said:

Immediatly jumped on the Git to test this beauty <3

Glad someone found the Porthole variant <3

 

15 hours ago, Dash1310 said:

So I don't understand what exactly is going on but when I load the mercury capsule (the new one from the dev branch), I get a lot of null reference exceptions stating object reference not set to an instance of an object and an error when I added the mercury rcs that says part module 1 doesn't implement IScalarModule. I don't know what any of that means and I'm more concerned by the fact the mercury capsule and the rcs part have textures that looks weird. Like as if the texture was separated and put all over the capsule at random spots. I've tried all sorts of things to fix it including booting up a new install of KSP. Admittedly I have a lot of mods but I don't have a clue what could be causing this. I'm reasonably sure I've done something wrong though seeing as everyone else seems to be loading it fine.

8 hours ago, Zorg said:

You're looking at the old Mercury capsule not the new one (the textures got overwritten).

Two things there. First, yeah, I didn't realize the names of the new textures were the same as the old ones and thus overwrote them... fine by me, if someone accidentally finds the old part they'll hopefully get the message and I don't have to look at them in screenshots And actually, since they aren't overwriting them but rather different formats with the same name (since they haven't been DDS converted yet) they very well could be the new parts attempting to use the old textures. Easiest fix to confirm would just be... deleting the old DDS textures.

But the other null refs and such are worrying, especially if they are happening on the new parts. And if they're on the old parts... well, I'd still be interested what's going on there.

 

3 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

My 2 cents about new Mercury:

- It's AWESOME!

- Main kick motors are misaligned a little (see 1st screenshot). This can be easily fixed with move tool

- Reaction wheels are too powerful for a 800kg craft, IMO.

- Looks like Gus Grissom had a say about new Mercury... (2nd screenshot)

- Thanks!

- I'm not sure I see it - are you saying they need to inset slightly more? I agree.

- Yeah I noticed some weirdness during testing, even with MandatoryRCS/PersistentRotation... I think the RCS also needs to be slightly buffed in addition to nerfing the RCS?

-  Hehe... I think @Jso needs to tweak the buoyancy on the parts, if I remember it should stay upright in the water..?

[Dash1310]

Just thought I'd report back. I'm definitely using the new parts. Anyway, removing the old textures completely fixed it. No more nullrefs and no more weird textures. Thank you.

[biohazard15]

51 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

- I'm not sure I see it - are you saying they need to inset slightly more? I agree.

I mean this:

[MashAndBangers]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

How'd you know?

Oh wow xD  Hmm, if you're interested in the Mercury Agena project, then that must mean there's more info on it besides a couple of drawings and a Wired article!  Could you share your sources with us?

 

And I kept experimenting with the design.  I changed the tube to a structural tube from BDB, added RCS thrusters and some extra monoprop, and then added tiny docking ports.  The tube I was using before must have been a heavy beast (Jeb stored all his waist lead in it >:()  The BDB T.U.B.E.^tm is much lighter and I can probably switch to the Agena A tank size, but I never got around to that.

The Agena station maneuvers to dock with the Mercury, which means a real world counterpart would have needed automatic docking, which I don't think America had in the 60's, but I'd need confirmation/correction on that from someone.

I then fiddled with the design and put the Mercury docking port on the side of the Mercury capsule.

This setup makes more sense/doesn't cover up the periscope.

The main problem now is that the Mercury docking port is uncovered during ascent. 

[biohazard15]

55 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I think the RCS also needs to be slightly buffed in addition to nerfing the RCS?

So buffed or nerfed? 

On a serious note - yes, but only slightly. Currently, on RCS only it feels as if you drive a fully loaded truck - sluggish, but fully controllable.

[dave1904]

Ive been playing 2x5 kerbin lately and honestly think the RL10 doesn't scale that well. I wouldn't be bringing it up if the mod wasn't designed for 2.5 kerbin.

~25Kn of thrust seems to low since the burns can last around 10 min. I am no rocket scientists like some of you guys so I do not know the terms but a 10 min burn around earth is not that bad since the circumference it alot bigger. I think the trust should be around 50kn and not be scaled exactly to 25%. 

[biohazard15]

4 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

Ive been playing 2x5 kerbin lately and honestly think the RL10 doesn't scale that well.

I agree on that. It's not that noticeable on early Centaurs and Common DEC, but DCSS and Common SEC really struggle with heavier payloads, even if you put them on lofting trajectory. 50 kn is a bit too much IMO, but 33% would be just fine.

[dave1904]

12 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

I agree on that. It's not that noticeable on early Centaurs and Common DEC, but DCSS and Common SEC really struggle with heavier payloads, even if you put them on lofting trajectory. 50 kn is a bit too much IMO, but 33% would be just fine.

Correct me if I am wrong but the centaur should be capable of launching a lighter probe into a escape trajectory in one burn right? Kerbin with a radius of 1500km makes that impossible. I honestly think it should be 100% of what it is. The real life version burns for around14 minutes and I think for a 2x5 kerbin it should be around 5-6 minutes. Earth has a circumstance of 40000km compared to a 10000km 2x5 kerbin. 

20 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

DCSS

I did not know the DCSS is in this mod. Whats the ingame term?

Edited March 9, 2020 by dave1904

[Zorg]

2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Do we support 1.9/1.9.1? I don't know if anyone has tried it...

Anyways, yeah that looks like a textbook case of the directory not being installed correctly.

Not officially no, the plugin is compiled against 1.8.1 but I have a 1.9.1 test install and no issues spotted so far though I've not tested a lot. Generally most plugins compiled for 1.8 are fine on 1.9 (with a few exceptions like Scaterrer)

[biohazard15]

23 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

Correct me if I am wrong but the centaur should be capable of launching a lighter probe into a escape trajectory in one burn right? Kerbin with a radius of 1500km makes that impossible.

Escape trajectory - you mean Kerbin escape? Centaurs are perfectly capable of doing that in 2.5x rescale. Kerbol (Sun) escape? Same, except you need more fuel for escape burn (which is the whole point of Titan IIIE). If you hit atmosphere (84 km, I presume?) during the burn, try to put them on a higher park orbit (I find 120 km perfect).

32 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

I did not know the DCSS is in this mod. Whats the ingame term?

Daleth-III-DHSS Cryogenic Upper Stage. Just search "DCSS" to get all relevant parts (tank, interstage, fairing etc).

I tend to use it with light, but wide Delta II-class payloads, which lead to goofy-looking fairings on 1.5m Delta II, but look fine on 2.5m Delta III. Stuff like deep space relay sats with their big dishes, for example. Extra dV is also a bonus, since I tend to place such sats beyond Minmus orbit.

[dave1904]

2 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

Escape trajectory - you mean Kerbin escape? Centaurs are perfectly capable of doing that in 2.5x rescale. Kerbol (Sun) escape? Same, except you need more fuel for escape burn (which is the whole point of Titan IIIE). If you hit atmosphere (84 km, I presume?) during the burn, try to put them on a higher park orbit (I find 120 km perfect)

Thanks about the DCSS and yes I mean Kerbin escape. 

Anyway you might be right that 50kn could be a bit to much but the SEC having a 10 minute burn time is imo far to long even from 120km orbit. I am in the middle of playing around with editing the thrust right now and 50kn feels a bit over the top. Personally I do not really care about how the engines are balanced because I can edit them myself but just think that for a broader audience the RL10 is just to small. I think I will leave them around the 40kn area. Not sure.  

[biohazard15]

43 minutes ago, dave1904 said:

I am in the middle of playing around with editing the thrust right now and 50kn feels a bit over the top. Personally I do not really care about how the engines are balanced because I can edit them myself but just think that for a broader audience the RL10 is just to small. I think I will leave them around the 40kn area. Not sure.

Try 33-35 Kn (i.e. around 33-35% of original). I tried it, and I like it. It gives you that extra bit of oompf you've been looking for, but you still have to consider longer burn times and possible need of lofting trajectory.

[Gremillion]

What if the US and USSR cooperated, instead of competing?

[CobaltWolf]

13 minutes ago, Gremillion said:

What if the US and USSR cooperated, instead of competing?

Love the strategic use of TweakScale!

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by CobaltWolf

[Pappystein]

8 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

 Hehe... I think @Jso needs to tweak the buoyancy on the parts, if I remember it should stay upright in the water..?

Since I don't think I have ever seen the landing bag visible below the Capsule in Ocean (IRW), the Landing bag is likely jettisoned or acts like a sea-anchor (heck could be BOTH as the bag could be on a cable many feet below the bottom of the capsule) to keep the capsule upright.   Just hope the capsule does not land in some weird current (come sail away! come sail away!)  STYX FTW!

Now I need to stop assigning myself extra homework that takes me away from KSP (and Battletech)  

Of-course the extra homework IS for KSP (And also some for Battletech) but that does not matter.   NOT! FLYING! ENOUGH!  (the real meaning of NFE!)

 

Edited March 10, 2020 by Pappystein

[CobaltWolf]

6 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Since I don't think I have ever seen the landing bag visible below the Capsule in Ocean (IRW), the Landing bag is likely jettisoned or acts like a sea-anchor (heck could be BOTH as the bag could be on a cable many feet below the bottom of the capsule) to keep the capsule upright.   Just hope the capsule does not land in some weird current (come sail away! come sail away!)  STYX FTW!

Now I need to stop assigning myself extra homework that takes me away from KSP (and Battletech)  

Of-course the extra homework IS for KSP (And also some for Battletech) but that does not matter.   NOT! FLYING! ENOUGH!  (the real meaning of NFE!)

 

You can see it dangling limp from the capsule in photos of the recovery. The heatshields were recovered, after all.

[Invaderchaos]

10 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

After seeing this I got quite excited to make a Mercury station. I think the Mercury one-man station proposals were absolutely crazy in how they propose to get the astronaut in the mission module around the heat shield/solid motors. As I assumed you were going for the inflatable tunnel option, I opted to go for the even more ridiculous hinge method. I was surprised with how well it turned out! 

 

I am attaching a link to the complete imgur album so I don't clog the forums: https://imgur.com/a/Tzflm8L

Also here's a link to a WIRED article about the Mercury One-Man Station: https://www.wired.com/2014/09/one-man-space-station-1960/

[dave1904]

12 hours ago, biohazard15 said:

Try 33-35 Kn (i.e. around 33-35% of original). I tried it, and I like it. It gives you that extra bit of oompf you've been looking for, but you still have to consider longer burn times and possible need of lofting trajectory.

Will do. Cheers 

[noxeeternal]

The CADS 0.9375 Active Docking Port doesn't dock with it's Passive counterpart. Am I the only one having this issue?

[dave1904]

10 hours ago, Gremillion said:

What if the US and USSR cooperated, instead of competing?

Then we would not have bdb or ksp

We are very lucky in how it all turned out. They were build to deliver nukes to space yet only ever delivered science. Its poetic. Hope it stays like that. 

[adm-frb]

Any advice, I'm trying to adjust the engine flare and plume, so it is similar in appearance  to the J2's plume in a vacuum, barring the colour of course. 

from this

to this

The engine is the Cordelle.

 

MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE
			{
				name = flare
				modelName = Bluedog_DB/FX/PlumeParty/Engines/Tundra/keroSLFlare1
				transformName = thrustTransform
				emission = 0.0 0.0
				emission = 0.01 0.1
				emission = 1.0 2.0
				speed = 0.0 2.0
				speed = 1.0 2.0
				energy = 0.0 0.5
				energy = 1.0 1.0
				localScale = 1.3,1.3,1.3
				//localPosition = 0,0,1.8
			}

			MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE
			{
				name = shock
				modelName = Bluedog_DB/FX/PlumeParty/Engines/Tundra/keroSLMach1
				transformName = thrustTransform
				emission = 0.0 0.0
				emission = 0.01 0.1
				emission = 1.0 2.0
				speed = 0.0 2.0
				speed = 1.0 2.0
				energy = 0.0 1.0
				energy = 1.0 1.0
				localScale = 1.3,1.3,1.3
				//localPosition = 0,0,1.8
			}

 

11 hours ago, Gremillion said:

What if the US and USSR cooperated, instead of competing?

I do this sort of thing all the time... Used to have a rocket uploaded on kerbalX until an KSP update broke it. I called it the White Knight. It was the stand-up guy offspring of a Saturn V and a Soyuz R7 rocket

[Zorg]

11 minutes ago, adm-frb said:

Any advice, I'm trying to adjust the engine flare and plume, so it is similar in appearance  to the J2's plume in a vacuum, barring the colour of course. 

from this

 

to this

 

The engine is the Cordelle.

 

MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE
			{
				name = flare
				modelName = Bluedog_DB/FX/PlumeParty/Engines/Tundra/keroSLFlare1
				transformName = thrustTransform
				emission = 0.0 0.0
				emission = 0.01 0.1
				emission = 1.0 2.0
				speed = 0.0 2.0
				speed = 1.0 2.0
				energy = 0.0 0.5
				energy = 1.0 1.0
				localScale = 1.3,1.3,1.3
				//localPosition = 0,0,1.8
			}

			MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE
			{
				name = shock
				modelName = Bluedog_DB/FX/PlumeParty/Engines/Tundra/keroSLMach1
				transformName = thrustTransform
				emission = 0.0 0.0
				emission = 0.01 0.1
				emission = 1.0 2.0
				speed = 0.0 2.0
				speed = 1.0 2.0
				energy = 0.0 1.0
				energy = 1.0 1.0
				localScale = 1.3,1.3,1.3
				//localPosition = 0,0,1.8
			}

 

You cannot significantly change the shape of a plume with the stock particle system. You can change the speed and energy with changes the length but you cannot make it flare out like a vacuum plume properly.

If you want a kerolox vacuum plume for whatever reason your best bet is to replace all the MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE nodes with those from the Vega engine. (bluedog_Vega_Engine)

If your system can handle it RealPlume of course is even better as every plume will then adapt to the situation properly.

 

Edit: Just so we're clear, vacuum plumes like the J2 and the Vega plume are designed that way in Unity, the growth parameters that control the expansion cannot be changed within KSP itself (again unless you use RealPlume/Smokescreen).

Edited March 10, 2020 by Zorg

[adm-frb]

20 minutes ago, Zorg said:

You cannot significantly change the shape of a plume with the stock particle system. You can change the speed and energy with changes the length but you cannot make it flare out like a vacuum plume properly.

If you want a kerolox vacuum plume for whatever reason your best bet is to replace all the MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE nodes with those from the Vega engine. (bluedog_Vega_Engine)

If your system can handle it RealPlume of course is even better as every plume will then adapt to the situation properly.

 

Edit: Just so we're clear, vacuum plumes like the J2 and the Vega plume are designed that way in Unity, the growth parameters that control the expansion cannot be changed within KSP itself (again unless you use RealPlume/Smokescreen).

I actually have the latest version of RealPlume. BDB does not appear to be included. Was it removed at some point?

edit: I actually just redownloaded incase my copy had got corrupted or something. But it's definitely not there

Edited March 10, 2020 by adm-frb

[Zorg]

29 minutes ago, adm-frb said:

I actually have the latest version of RealPlume. BDB does not appear to be included. Was it removed at some point?

edit: I actually just redownloaded incase my copy had got corrupted or something. But it's definitely not there

Er BDB is absolutely covered under realplume, custom ones infact. The compatibility files are within BDB itself though. In fact these days most new plume designs that go into realplume are developed for BDB before I upstream into RealPlume.

If you have RealPlume, RealPlume-Stock and Smokescreen all installed correctly all BDB engines should have RealPlumes.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Zorg

[Zorg]

On 3/8/2020 at 8:01 AM, Pappystein said:

A minor concern with these fairings and please correct me if I am wrong.   But isn't the Fairing supposed to prevent or at-least reduce Hydrogen boil off?    I ask because I kept the fairing closed while getting ready to burn with Gamma (or Centaur) and in both cases, the Hydrogen was completely depleted before I could even use the stage for it's intended purpose.    I wouldn't have bothered to keep the fairing in space (extra Mass) if I had known this would be an issue.   

So there was an issue with the fairings not shielding everything fully. The latest commit together with the just released update of v1.7.2 of Simple Adjustable Fairings should fixes the issue. Your boiloff problem could be related to that.

A BDB tank shielded via moduleCargoBay (ie cargo bays, stock fairings, SAF and ProcFairings) will have boil off reduced but not eliminated.