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

[Bellabong]

50 minutes ago, Dragon01 said:

This is a different engine from the original question. Methane/LOX version of RL-10 was a much more recent project, and IIRC it was done around the time of CECE. I think it was based on RL-10B-2, but I'm not sure where I read about it.

Total word blindness  Just looked and the report for the Methlox engine is behind a paywall

[biohazard15]

1 hour ago, Starhelperdude said:

is the 1.7 dev branch still compatible with 1.8.1?

From my experience, it is.

[ltajax]

is it just me or are the solid fuel rockets overpowered? I'm playing in JNSQ and the liquid fuel sections of the rockets work well but on the vanguard and explorer probes the final solid stages keep shooting me to escape kerbin. Iv'e been trying to recreate there actual orbits based on a 1/4 scale of the real probes. 

So vanguard im trying to launch to this orbit

Perigee altitude 164.3km 

Apogee altitude 960km

first 2 stages of vanguard gets me to about 130km which i think seems about right, but once the third stage solid kicks in i go into an escape trajectory

Am I launching these incorrectly ?

Edited August 2, 2020 by ltajax

[biohazard15]

28 minutes ago, ltajax said:

is it just me or are the solid fuel rockets overpowered?

They are, mostly. BDB solids can be shut down - use this, preferably with some means to fine-tune your orbit, like Burner 2 or extra RCS fuel on your satellite.

[Morphisor]

While some solids like the castors are certainly overpowered, in my experience the vanguard/explorer solids (altair and sergeant clusters) certainly are not. Not in terms of dV anyway. In fact, both Vanguard and explorer rebuilds have been tested (not just by me) to be pretty close in performance to the real thing, when used in JNSQ.

The only real explanation I can think of is not all parts used by @ltajax have been set to their correct variant - many parts include upgraded variants which perform a lot better! The description on the variants provides basic info which variant to use.

[ltajax]

2 minutes ago, Morphisor said:

While some solids like the castors are certainly overpowered, in my experience the vanguard/explorer solids (altair and sergeant clusters) certainly are not. Not in terms of dV anyway. In fact, both Vanguard and explorer rebuilds have been tested (not just by me) to be pretty close in performance to the real thing, when used in JNSQ.

The only real explanation I can think of is not all parts used by @ltajax have been set to their correct variant - many parts include upgraded variants which perform a lot better! The description on the variants provides basic info which variant to use.

I've been using all the basic starter parts

stage 3= Easton s3 grand centre

stage 2= ja10-37-6 alpha

stage 1= easton 50 viking tv-4

I've checked the thrust of the s3 grand, it produces  1.16 kn of thrust, for a 1/4 of real scale for JNSQ it should be 2.6 kn of thrust, so its technically under powered, yet weirdly overpowered.

[rnyboy]

I was extremely happy to see this mod again for the latest KSP.  I used it a lot in v1.8  Before I had the BDB Leo-Medicis (Gemini) Service Module (SM) I would add four Sepratrons or other small engines in a four fold symmetry centered at the back of the Service Module and then offset those to the inside front of the SM and then fire them off in opposing pairs to do the deorbit burn as was done back in the day for project Gemini; I also did the same thing for your SM.  So I was wondering, since your models are so freakin' great,  if you could actually at some time add the four proper red spherical retrorockets on an X-frame in the SM as was done in real life?  This would raise the level of realism, at least I think it would, for your SM.  Thanks for at least considering the idea if you haven't already and dismissed for some reason as being too hard to implement.

Edited August 2, 2020 by rnyboy

[Zorg]

24 minutes ago, rnyboy said:

I was extremely happy to see this mod again for the latest KSP.  I used it a lot in v1.8  Before I had the BDB Leo-Medicis (Gemini) Service Module (SM) I would add four Sepratrons or other small engines in a four fold symmetry centered at the back of the Service Module and then offset those to the inside front of the SM and then fire them off in opposing pairs to do the deorbit burn as was done back in the day for project Gemini; I also did the same thing for your SM.  So I was wondering, since your models are so freakin' great,  if you could actually at some time add the four proper red spherical retrorockets on an X-frame in the SM as was done in real life?  This would raise the level of realism, at least I think it would, for your SM.  Thanks for at least considering the idea if you haven't already and dismissed for some reason as being too hard to implement.

Even though there have not been much in the way of an official update in the last several months, a lot of work is ongoing on the github development branch. Literally hundreds of parts have been added since the BDB 1.6 release

And yes this includes an amazing new Gemini and service module Cobalt made with the proper split service module setup and retro solids that can be setup to automatically fire sequentially using custom code. If you're interested you can try this stuff out in the dev branch though of course all at your own risk as its under development.

https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/tree/v1.7.0-Development

 

 

 

[biohazard15]

29 minutes ago, rnyboy said:

if you could actually at some time add the four proper red spherical retrorockets on an X-frame in the SM as was done in real life?

Check the 1.7 dev build

[Guest]

Well what to my wandering eye should appear, but a BDB update presented in CKAN just as I'm building a new installation.
Well, shoot.
This is still just the best mod anywhere.

[AlphaMensae]

7 hours ago, Starhelperdude said:

is the 1.7 dev branch still compatible with 1.8.1?

Yes it is, as I'm using it in my 1.8.1 dev install  

The latest B9PartSwitch works in 1.8.1 as well.

[NateDaBeast]

Does the development branch have a compatibilty patch for RealAntennas? I tried using RemoteTech but it appears to be outdated compatibility-wise.

Really would like to use a mod that adds in a little bit more realism to commnet.

[GoldForest]

Does anyone else have their parts turned 90 degrees counter-clockwise when selecting them from the part list?

Edited August 3, 2020 by GoldForest

[Zorg]

4 hours ago, NateDaBeast said:

Does the development branch have a compatibilty patch for RealAntennas? I tried using RemoteTech but it appears to be outdated compatibility-wise.

Really would like to use a mod that adds in a little bit more realism to commnet.

No to both. Unfortunately the mod authors only have the time and motivation to maintain patches for the mods we ourselves use. Everything else comes from our user community. We would always appreciate pull requests to update or add those configs. We've had a couple of declarations of intent from people to write those but so far we haven't had a pull request for either.

 

21 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Does anyone else have their parts turned 90 degrees counter-clockwise when selecting them from the part list?

How do you mean? If you mean about the vertical axis some parts were rotated in the dev branch for consistent and correct VAB orientation several weeks ago.

[Bellabong]

8 hours ago, ltajax said:

I've been using all the basic starter parts

stage 3= Easton s3 grand centre

stage 2= ja10-37-6 alpha

stage 1= easton 50 viking tv-4

I've checked the thrust of the s3 grand, it produces  1.16 kn of thrust, for a 1/4 of real scale for JNSQ it should be 2.6 kn of thrust, so its technically under powered, yet weirdly overpowered.

It actually has 2.76kN in a vacuum though. 

[GoldForest]

32 minutes ago, Zorg said:

How do you mean? If you mean about the vertical axis some parts were rotated in the dev branch for consistent and correct VAB orientation several weeks ago.

Instead of the "front" facing the camera and the "back" facing the flag, the parts now have the 'back' facing the door and the 'front' facing the... smaller door... the non rocket door.

Edited August 3, 2020 by GoldForest

[Zorg]

8 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Instead of the "front" facing the camera and the "back" facing the flag, the parts now have the 'back' facing the door and the 'front' facing the... smaller door... the non rocket door.

That sounds correct. 

[GoldForest]

1 minute ago, Zorg said:

That sounds correct. 

I don't like it. It's messing me up when I try to build now.  lol 

What would be the code for a MM file to undo that?

[Zorg]

4 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

I don't like it. It's messing me up when I try to build now.  lol 

What would be the code for a MM file to undo that?

Patch out the rotation line in the MODEL node: https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/commit/bbb129bdc5c82d96e4c94eaf17bbca5fe5e2352f

Of course you are free to do this but I recommend going with the change so that your install is "in synch" so to speak

Little background:

 

 

[llikooid]

 

some parts are double, how to delete the old parts?

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, Zorg said:

Patch out the rotation line in the MODEL node: https://github.com/CobaltWolf/Bluedog-Design-Bureau/commit/bbb129bdc5c82d96e4c94eaf17bbca5fe5e2352f

Of course you are free to do this but I recommend going with the change so that your install is "in synch" so to speak

I prefer to have all the parts in one single orientation then manually rotating the craft a full 90 degrees. Since you guys rotated them, they are now all "out of sync" with each other. Honestly, I would have made it an optional patch instead of a hard update, let the people choose to have the rotation. 

Also, I'm a pleb and don't know how to code MM, that's why I asked for the code, not what to do. XD

Edit: Nevermind, figured it out after some trial and error.

Edit 2: Ah... but now the attachment nodes are in the wrong place... *Slams keyboard against desk*

Why'd you guys have to go and mess with the North/South orientation? It was fine! Seriously, just one button press to get the East/West orientation you guys want. Guh!  So unprofessional, going against the norm... JK. 

This is borderline unplayable! If people want to make a historically rotated/aligned Atlas, let them do it on their own, don't force it on people! Leave the darn North/South alignment alone! Geez!

I guess I have to play with the new orientation... because I'm not going to go through all the file changes and make MM files to change them back to pre-rotation update status.

Don't take the rant seriously. It's mostly a joke... mostly. I am upset by this, but, eh. Nothing I can do about it. 

In my opinion though, all parts should have the North/South orientation, because that's the "Natural" orientation of the game. The front/top should face the south wall of the VAB and the back/bottom should face the north wall (The one with the Flag). It just natural. This rotation... makes everything unnatural to me. If people want to make a historical Atlas where the Vernier face off to the sides instead of front and back, let them do that on their own.

Edited August 3, 2020 by GoldForest

[GoldForest]

What could be under the shroud?

Agena! 

Decided to make Mercury with a service module to give it more in orbit time. The shroud is to help with the aerodynamics. Kind of like the Atlas V N22.

[CobaltWolf]

6 hours ago, GoldForest said:

In my opinion though, all parts should have the North/South orientation, because that's the "Natural" orientation of the game. The front/top should face the south wall of the VAB and the back/bottom should face the north wall (The one with the Flag). It just natural. This rotation... makes everything unnatural to me. If people want to make a historical Atlas where the Vernier face off to the sides instead of front and back, let them do that on their own.

What? I thought that was the orientation we went with - belly towards the flag, starboard towards the door/pad.

[GoldForest]

37 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

What? I thought that was the orientation we went with - belly towards the flag, starboard towards the door/pad.

No, you rotated all the parts. The "belly" now faces the door to the launch pad. Unless you changed what side of the parts is the "belly." Like the Atlas, the skirt no longer is engines aligned with the door, the engines are now aligned with the flag.

Edited August 3, 2020 by GoldForest

[OrbitalManeuvers]

16 hours ago, ltajax said:

I've checked the thrust of the s3 grand, it produces  1.16 kn of thrust, for a 1/4 of real scale for JNSQ it should be 2.6 kn of thrust, so its technically under powered, yet weirdly overpowered.

I've made and flown both Vanguard and Explorer under the BDB dev branch and JNSQ many times. My experience is that it's totally doable to reach orbit with both, but I definitely work on the thrust limiters, especially on Explorer. Idk what the realistic way would be, but I keep my starting TWR around 2 for each of the SRM stages, as I play with part G forces turned on and trying to time anything with a super high TWR is difficult. I also use the shutdown feature on an action group, so that I can cap the Ap where I want it.