Drakenex Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 (edited) Amazing revamp! congratulations team BDB! Edited November 9, 2021 by Drakenex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starhelperdude Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 (edited) On 11/9/2021 at 4:24 PM, Drakenex said: Amazing revamp! congratulations team BDB! Expand hmmm, I can't seem to find the multibody fairing and the copper (or whatever that stuff is on multibody first stages) coatings in my game EDIT: ah, now I know how you buildt the multibody Edited November 9, 2021 by Starhelperdude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 (edited) On 11/9/2021 at 5:48 PM, Starhelperdude said: hmmm, I can't seem to find the multibody fairing and the copper (or whatever that stuff is on multibody first stages) coatings in my game EDIT: ah, now I know how you buildt the multibody Expand Those variants are coming soonish. Both orignal SOFI, and more technically accurate treated Atlas V aluminium styles. Edited November 9, 2021 by Zorg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 1/2 Not based on anything specific but just for legoability an alternate mount for SII with a 3.75m base and a custom mount for the M1 to attach there. Will try to add a few more options to the upper part later using some smaller mounting plates I can switch around. We can add some options not available on the original SII mount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozartbeatle Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 Looks amazing, and assuming that 3.75m mount is separate, it's gonna enable some fun options to the S-IV I’m looking forward to figuring out. If you’re willing to look at more engine plate switches, I was wondering if you could add an option to the SIV-b engine plate to include the grey fabric from the Skylab radiator unit for a more historical look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starhelperdude Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman.Spiff Posted November 9, 2021 Share Posted November 9, 2021 On 11/9/2021 at 11:38 PM, Starhelperdude said: Expand plume Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo chiu Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 Could you guys add the Saturn C-8? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryKerman Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 (edited) On 11/10/2021 at 1:10 AM, Galileo chiu said: Could you guys add the Saturn C-8? Expand They are not interested. Here's why: On 11/25/2020 at 12:03 PM, Pappystein said: Somewhere about 30 pages back is a big info-graphic that Cobalt made that says why. Let me try to dredge up the memory of why..... Oh yeah. He said something about not making ugly rockets! However I will add. I seriously SERIOUSLY wonder why you all want a rocket that would never have been built and was not even wanted by Von Braun. Oh and before you start spamming old magazine articles... Look at ACTUAL NASA documents where the C8 is barely mentioned. In every mention on the C-8 it is listed as a study for how to extend the base Saturn Hardware further ignoring the fact that there was no place to build at-least the first stage, and no way to Launch it without building an entire new infrastructure at the Cape. Mostly a "Hey Von Braun, can you make a bigger rocket than Saturn V with the same basic building blocks?" And Von Braun's answer is "Why yes, we could... It would look like this... but you..." "Cool that is the info we needed" Everyone seems to want to leave the building as fast as they can With Von Braun finishing up "But you haven't let me explain that...." *everyone else has left the room as Von Braun has still not said The entire way NASA launches rockets would have to be made a-new again.* Note to everyone the quotes in Italics are not a literal or real quote of VonBraun and anyone else... I made the lines up to showcase what I believe happened to bring about the Saturn C-8. If you don't want to take my word for it. How about this 1965 document by Von Braun's Future Projects Office at MSFC on what should Follow the Saturn Apollo program as far as rockets are concerned: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19650007941 If you want something "bigger" than Saturn V. You want SATURN MLV. Saturn C-8 is a bad curiosity that shouldn't be mentioned here. OK I freely admit I am using a lot of tongue in cheek above but the fact remains: Saturn C-8 was for lack of a better term, a propaganda proposal and not a real proposal. There are literally 10s of documents on the Saturn C-8 on the NASA file server. There are Literally 100s of documents for each of the major NOVA and NEXUS proposals (and Saturn C-8 isn't one of them.) So unless there is a secret backlog of Saturn C-8 documents that NASA is illegally withholding.... C-8 is just a marketing gimmick.... AKA NOTHING TO SEE HERE PLEASE MOVE ALONG. PS I welcome all who criticize my view point. But please, Keep it clean. And also PLEASE REMEMBER. No matter what you say the Devs themselves have said there is no place for Saturn C-8 in BDB, so your thoughts and arguments are not going to help persuade anyone to make the "fictional" Saturn (well more fictional than Saturn C-2 pre 1960, C-2, C-3 pre 1960, C-3 and C-4, C-3B, and C-4B) Oh wait, look at all THOSE Saturn variants that COULD have been built IRL and COULD have been launched without totally re-thinking the KSC. I hope this is helpful to someone and I am posting it here because there is no point in 3 more pages of posts on wanting something that isn't going to happen in BDB Expand On 11/25/2020 at 4:36 PM, CobaltWolf said: I'm not planning on doing Saturn C-8. There's actually a reason past "it's ugly" (it is) - it would require a lot of single-use parts in new sizes that would only really be useable to build... well, Saturn C-8. I'd rather do uprated Saturn V variants and such like that, which would be lego'able to make lots of new crafts. Expand Quote Another reason I'm not interested is doing Nova would require adding another size class of parts which then require additional adapters, etc. Plus it's just always looked kinda ugly to me Expand Quote I'm not planning on doing all the C-series, nor am I planning on doing anything Nova related. Expand Edited November 10, 2021 by OrdinaryKerman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo chiu Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 11/10/2021 at 1:26 AM, OrdinaryKerman said: They are not interested. Here's why: Expand Huh, I didn't know they didn't want to make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryKerman Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 11/10/2021 at 1:40 AM, Galileo chiu said: Huh, I didn't know they didn't want to make it. Expand A little reading of this thread should tell you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 11/10/2021 at 1:10 AM, Galileo chiu said: Could you guys add the Saturn C-8? Expand Not sure if this is a joke or a genuine request at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballisticfox0 Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 Apollo 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpaceFace545 Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 11/10/2021 at 3:42 AM, ballisticfox0 said: Expand @Zorg can we get the beamy thing please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryKerman Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 11/10/2021 at 4:14 AM, SpaceFace545 said: @Zorg can we get the beamy thing please Expand Pretty sure those metal beams are ReStocked Dinkelstein I-beams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jcking Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 11/10/2021 at 4:17 AM, OrdinaryKerman said: Pretty sure those metal beams are ReStocked Dinkelstein I-beams Expand It still would be nice to have some sort of table that non LEM stuff can sit on in the SLA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 11/9/2021 at 11:24 PM, mozartbeatle said: Looks amazing, and assuming that 3.75m mount is separate, it's gonna enable some fun options to the S-IV I’m looking forward to figuring out. If you’re willing to look at more engine plate switches, I was wondering if you could add an option to the SIV-b engine plate to include the grey fabric from the Skylab radiator unit for a more historical look. Expand nah they live in different part folders. not really feasible to combine assets and the greebling is specifically skylab stuff. On 11/10/2021 at 4:24 AM, Jcking said: It still would be nice to have some sort of table that non LEM stuff can sit on in the SLA. Expand yeah we plan to do something for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdodders Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 (edited) On 11/10/2021 at 1:47 AM, OrdinaryKerman said: A little reading of this thread should tell you. Expand Problem is this thread is 914 pages long, finding a certain piece of information in a post in the thousands of posts in this thread is a bit like finding a specific needle in a needle factory. What might be an idea is a FAQ on the front page which can be linked to when someone does ask such questions. I realise there is a FAQ already but not one that answers such specific questions. Maybe a list of what they will and will not make and possibly with reasons why (for both) is something required. Edited November 10, 2021 by Cdodders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galileo chiu Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 (edited) On 11/10/2021 at 2:02 AM, pTrevTrevs said: Not sure if this is a joke or a genuine request at this point. Expand It was Genuine, then someone was nice enough to tell me I'm not the first to ask, so sorry. Edited November 10, 2021 by Galileo chiu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entr8899 Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 11/10/2021 at 9:13 AM, Zorg said: yeah we plan to do something for it. Expand Is there any chance you could add 1.875m and 2.5m rings for the mission modules, and a 0.9375m ring for the Apollo KH7 lunar orbiter thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballisticfox0 Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 11/10/2021 at 4:14 AM, SpaceFace545 said: @Zorg can we get the beamy thing please Expand I agree we need beamy thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted November 10, 2021 Author Share Posted November 10, 2021 (edited) On 11/10/2021 at 11:26 AM, Entr8899 said: Is there any chance you could add 1.875m and 2.5m rings for the mission modules, and a 0.9375m ring for the Apollo KH7 lunar orbiter thing? Expand I even have a picture of what they were thinking. With that said, if people have like, trusses or other adapters they want for Saturn payloads... sketches are cool On 11/10/2021 at 10:04 AM, Galileo chiu said: It was Genuine, then someone was nice enough to tell me I'm not the first to ask, so sorry. Expand It's all good lol Anyone wanting to be upset on my behalf... uh, don't. On 11/10/2021 at 3:42 AM, ballisticfox0 said: Apollo 7 Expand Could use the standalone docking target too, I think? Edited November 10, 2021 by CobaltWolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozartbeatle Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 11/10/2021 at 9:13 AM, Zorg said: nah they live in different part folders. not really feasible to combine assets and the greebling is specifically skylab stuff. Expand Ok cool I understand. But just to make sure/clear, I wasn't talking about it in terms of a meaningless greebil, the SIV-b in general had that grey insulation. e.g: Reveal hidden contents But I understand it's not easy or necessary. Thanks for the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorg Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 On 11/10/2021 at 3:22 PM, mozartbeatle said: Ok cool I understand. But just to make sure/clear, I wasn't talking about it in terms of a meaningless greebil, the SIV-b in general had that grey insulation. e.g: Reveal hidden contents But I understand it's not easy or necessary. Thanks for the answer. Expand Yeah I meant more that mesh wouldnt necessarily fit together nicely with the S4B mount. Though they are similar theres some pipes and greebles and such on the S4B version thats not on the Skylab version so the baked ambient occlusion wouldnt match up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimmas Posted November 10, 2021 Share Posted November 10, 2021 @Zorg @CobaltWolf So, recently I've been playing a lot with BDB/JNSQ/Kerbalism and I found myself writing MM patches to update Kerbalism support for BDB parts (which you can find here - still a work in progress but a lot is already done). Kerbalism originally comes with a science compatibility patch for BDB but it is now very out of date. I've added special Kerbalism support for GATV, Keyhole, SIGINT, and many of the Probe Expansion science experiments, and am currently working on HDD data/sample storage upgrades for command modules. I was originally considering whether to contribute it to Kerbalism, but I got no reaction from that side yet, plus they prefer not to add any new experiments, so for now I can only either leave it in my own repo or propose a PR to BDB later on. But this update comes with many patches, some are somewhat complex as they depend on understanding what Kerbalism is doing. It could be hard to maintain, plus I obviously do not offer any support... I am updating it for now but may stop at any time. So I'm leaning towards leaving it separate and publishing it as part of that repo (which contains some of my other patches as well, the Kerbalism update just happens to be the lion's share) or even splitting it off into a separate mod. But please let me know your thoughts on this. And regardless of where this ends up ultimately, I am also interested in hearing from anyone about the experiments' balance in this patch, as I'm not that great at balancing stuff (mostly related to experiment length and data size). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.