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

[Jso]

15 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

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.

The belly faces the flag. Some parts were wrong before and had their belly facing the door. We fixed that.

[GoldForest]

4 minutes ago, Jso said:

The belly faces the flag. Some parts were wrong before and had their belly facing the door. We fixed that.

So you did change the belly. I honestly prefer the old orientation like I said. Now all the parts feel unnatural. 

And how were the parts wrong? 

[CobaltWolf]

40 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

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.

Everything is referenced to the orientation of the Mercury/Gemini and as much as possible they are aligned so the correct build does not require rotation. The mistake you're making ( ) is assuming I had paid attention to getting the orientations right/consistent originally. Basically, make sure the pods were oriented right so the crew orientation matches the navball (ie vertical axis of the vab / roll axis of the ship when under control - previously there were issues with some pods flying "correctly" while the navball would say they were upside down or in a 90 degree roll), and then parts for the LV were rotated to match that orientation to build them accurately without making the user rotate them in game.

Now all craft are basically assumed to make a 90 degree roll program at the beginning of flight, allowing them to pitch (W/S) to orbit (or you could just yaw to orbit like a heathen). If I remember, there's some weirdness with Titan since the orientations are different for the 2 and 3? And I don't know if all the rockets got this treatment - mostly just the important/crewed ones where it was most noticeable. I think the orientations of stuff like the Agena actually change based on LV IRL which didn't help so I think we ignored that.

tl;dr unless something went wrong, as far as I know the 'new' orientations of the parts are correct and what they should have been from the start to allow building the rockets correctly.

EDIT: @GoldForest I didn't see you+Jso's reply but I bolded the bit where your last question is answered. The belly of the parts needs to consistently face the flag, otherwise the navball doesn't accurately reflect the flight orientation implied by the models of the parts. This was always supposed to be the case but something I was not consistent with.

EDIT2: I believe this issue was properly addressed with the new pods, but that in turn made us realize the orientation of the LVs (which predated me trying to pay attention to it) was wrong. We debated whether to ignore it for a while before fixing them.

Edited August 3, 2020 by CobaltWolf

[GoldForest]

4 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Everything is referenced to the orientation of the Mercury/Gemini and as much as possible they are aligned so the correct build does not require rotation. The mistake you're making ( ) is assuming I had paid attention to getting the orientations right/consistent originally. Basically, make sure the pods were oriented right so the crew orientation matches the navball (ie vertical axis of the vab / roll axis of the ship when under control - previously there were issues with some pods flying "correctly" while the navball would say they were upside down or in a 90 degree roll), and then parts for the LV were rotated to match that orientation to build them accurately without making the user rotate them in game.

Now all craft are basically assumed to make a 90 degree roll program at the beginning of flight, allowing them to pitch (W/S) to orbit (or you could just yaw to orbit like a heathen). If I remember, there's some weirdness with Titan since the orientations are different for the 2 and 3? And I don't know if all the rockets got this treatment - mostly just the important/crewed ones where it was most noticeable. I think the orientations of stuff like the Agena actually change based on LV IRL which didn't help so I think we ignored that.

tl;dr unless something went wrong, as far as I know the 'new' orientations of the parts are correct and what they should have been from the start to allow building the rockets correctly.

Honestly I feel the old orientation is better. And how does the rocket think its one way when the pod or probe tells the nav ball what orientation it is in? I've never had that problem you're mentioning. The navball has always told me the correct orientation, the orientation of the pod and not the rocket. 

[CobaltWolf]

19 minutes ago, GoldForest said:

Honestly I feel the old orientation is better. And how does the rocket think its one way when the pod or probe tells the nav ball what orientation it is in? I've never had that problem you're mentioning. The navball has always told me the correct orientation, the orientation of the pod and not the rocket. 

Right... so the pod *has* to face a certain way. It has to be modeled belly towards the flag, because that is the hard-coded orientation for parts. KSP always assumes the flag side is the "belly". I've had to rotate the models for the parts to get them to line up if I don't pay attention to which axes I'm modeling on (notably, I think all the new Mercury and Gemini parts are rotated 180 in their configs - I still can't get it right!). Now, once you've built the pod, what's easier: Just dropping the rocket parts in the stack, or having to rotate them so they are oriented right relative to the pod? Everything should now be in the correct orientation when you take it out of the part palette.

[GoldForest]

49 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Right... so the pod *has* to face a certain way. It has to be modeled belly towards the flag, because that is the hard-coded orientation for parts. KSP always assumes the flag side is the "belly". I've had to rotate the models for the parts to get them to line up if I don't pay attention to which axes I'm modeling on (notably, I think all the new Mercury and Gemini parts are rotated 180 in their configs - I still can't get it right!). Now, once you've built the pod, what's easier: Just dropping the rocket parts in the stack, or having to rotate them so they are oriented right relative to the pod? Everything should now be in the correct orientation when you take it out of the part palette.

I don't see why having the parts being oriented like their irl parts is so important. Like I said before, you should leave it to the player to correctly orient the parts. Leave them as they appeared in the pre-reorientation update. And this is KSP. There is no 'right' way to orient the rocket parts. If I want them oriented the irl way, let me do that on my own. Don't just force it on me. What if I wanted it oriented the way they were before the update? Now you've created more work for me. What if I wanted them oriented upside down? Or side ways? Don't base the parts off irl for their orientation. Let the player decide. You forcing this update is pointless. You didn't want to click one button, so now you're forcing me to press one button. That might not have been your intention, but that's how the update made me feel. 

I get this is your mod and you can do whatever you want with it. My ranting won't change that. But I feel as if this update was unnecessary and not need. This is a major change that messes with people's builds and their perspective. And how many people honestly build historical orientated builds? I feel most of the time they just slap the parts together and as long as they work, they don't care about part orientation. 

Sorry for the rant. I don't like it when something I like is changed and it messes with how I do things. I'm a creature of habit.

Also, from what I can gather, the Atlas parts are still not irl oriented. Irl Atlas was oriented 45 degrees when with Mercury on top. At least, that's how I see it in all the pictures I'm looking at.

Edited August 3, 2020 by GoldForest

[derega16]

21 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Start of the work on the Centaur T, most of the remaining work will be on the avionics

Is it longer than an old centaur T? Also about centaur can we have a longer truss centaur decoupler for longer RL-10? Current truss decoupler is a little bit too short

[mcdouble]

Was messing around with editing some screenshots for new Centaur parts and got a bit carried away 

[davidy12]

1 hour ago, mcdouble said:

Was messing around with editing some screenshots for new Centaur parts and got a bit carried away 

 

I'm assuming those ice affects are photoshop, right?

Edited August 3, 2020 by davidy12

[TranceaddicT]

5 hours ago, GoldForest said:

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.

Do you have VAB Reoriented installed?

[mcdouble]

27 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

I'm assuming those ice affects are photoshop, right?

Pretty much everything except the rocket and launch tower is photoshop

[TranceaddicT]

9 minutes ago, mcdouble said:

Pretty much everything except the rocket and launch tower is photoshop

Isn't there a mod for ice effects?

[davidy12]

Just now, TranceaddicT said:

Isn't there a mod for ice effects?

There is but it's really generic and not realistic.

[northern]

I dont know if this has already been posted, but im using the dev branch in 1.10.1 and ive got the gemini titan sat on the pad and the engines are running, as soon as i move from the VAB to the pad

 

EDIT: same with the second stage

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by northern

[Zorg]

34 minutes ago, northern said:

I dont know if this has already been posted, but im using the dev branch in 1.10.1 and ive got the gemini titan sat on the pad and the engines are running, as soon as i move from the VAB to the pad

 

EDIT: same with the second stage

 

I'm not seeing this. The most likely cause is either an out of date on incorrectly installed B9PartSwitch (I presume the engine itself isnt actually running and producing thrust but the plume effects are showing?). Please double check your b9partswitch.

If there is still a problem after that please post your ksp log (how to get log below)

 

[Petrovich]

On 8/2/2020 at 1:51 PM, Bellabong said:

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

https://sci-hub.tw/ 

Don't tell no one

Edited August 3, 2020 by Petrovich

[GoldForest]

@CobaltWolf The E-1 engine looks a little bare when used with the Titan and it's a little big for the Saturn IB engine mount. Any chance we could get a Titan style engine mount and a four point mount for the Saturn IB? Not sure How many the Saturn IB was supposed to have, can't really find any information other than, "They decided to go with the H-1 instead." 

Four seems to work out good. Giving the Saturn IB with no payload a TWR at liftoff of 2.07.

Maybe a multi-node engine mount like the LDC 1st stage engine mount?

[CobaltWolf]

On 8/3/2020 at 2:41 AM, llikooid said:

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

Try using Janitor's Closet? I think that's how people handle that.

5 hours ago, GoldForest said:

@CobaltWolf The E-1 engine looks a little bare when used with the Titan and it's a little big for the Saturn IB engine mount. Any chance we could get a Titan style engine mount and a four point mount for the Saturn IB? Not sure How many the Saturn IB was supposed to have, can't really find any information other than, "They decided to go with the H-1 instead." 

Four seems to work out good. Giving the Saturn IB with no payload a TWR at liftoff of 2.07.

Maybe a multi-node engine mount like the LDC 1st stage engine mount?

There's a standalone version of the Titan 1 engine mount in the structural tab for exactly that use

I am not touching anything Saturn related until I get to it, but yes I am planning on adding the 4x mount for the E-1s along with others in an LDC type switching mount.

[GoldForest]

4 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Try using Janitor's Closet? I think that's how people handle that.

There's a standalone version of the Titan 1 engine mount in the structural tab for exactly that use

I am not touching anything Saturn related until I get to it, but yes I am planning on adding the 4x mount for the E-1s along with others in an LDC type switching mount.

I did not know this. Thanks.

[northern]

17 hours ago, Zorg said:

I'm not seeing this. The most likely cause is either an out of date on incorrectly installed B9PartSwitch (I presume the engine itself isnt actually running and producing thrust but the plume effects are showing?). Please double check your b9partswitch.

If there is still a problem after that please post your ksp log (how to get log below)

 

Yeah that fixed it thanks, forgot to update from 1.10 to 1.10.1

[rnyboy]

On 8/2/2020 at 5:56 PM, Zorg said:

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.

 

FANTASTIC!

[Beetlecat]

Curse you, BDB. It's almost hard to enjoy other parts packs now.

[GoldForest]

I'm not sorry.

[Doggydog]

13 hours ago, GoldForest said:

I'm not sorry.

I am sorry.

 

Old picture, so i dont have one of it in flight. But boy is it overkill in JNSQ. SRB X best rocket.

[alberro+]

6 minutes ago, Doggydog said:

I am sorry.

 

Old picture, so i dont have one of it in flight. But boy is it overkill in JNSQ. SRB X best rocket.

Overkill.

Overkill in JNSQ.

What?