[1.2 - 1.4] Real Scale Boosters, 0.16 (2018-03-12)

[NecroBones]

Posted:

 

0.5.1 (2016-02-19) - TweakScale Patch.
 - Completely replaced the TweakScale config. Much simpler now, and fixes a variety of problems with scaling. 

 

[NecroBones]

On 2/13/2016 at 8:10 PM, Marcelo Silveira said:

Hi, the tweakscale integration could be better if used "stack" instead of "free" type. Like this:

Hi @Marcelo Silveira, the update I just pushed out a few days ago might help a lot. I didn't realize how broken the configuration was with the diameters still listed with the "free" type. It's still set to "free" but it should work more as intended now.

 

Edited February 22, 2016 by NecroBones

[NecroBones]

On 2/15/2016 at 5:16 PM, Felbourn said:

I created a CFG for RealFuels with thrust curves that match the real Ariane SRBs.

 

I reworked the GitHub repo a little, and added this SRB config to the "Realism" config in there.

 

For now what I've done is remove all of the other configs, so that the repo just focuses on the new things that need to be added for realism, and/or stock-alike configs. Everyone is free to submit bits and pieces here. I haven't had time to really look into what's needed for RF/RO, and I know some work was already done on that front on the RF-stockalike config. So right now I'm not even entirely sure what's needed and what isn't.

 

Github link again:  https://github.com/NecroBones/RealScaleBoosters-Patches

[NecroBones]

2 hours ago, NecroBones said:

For now what I've done is remove all of the other configs, so that the repo just focuses on the new things that need to be added for realism, and/or stock-alike configs. Everyone is free to submit bits and pieces here. I haven't had time to really look into what's needed for RF/RO, and I know some work was already done on that front on the RF-stockalike config. So right now I'm not even entirely sure what's needed and what isn't.

 

Gah, where is my brain today? It was a for-stock "RealPlume" config that was made, not "RealFuels"... obviously that part will still need to happen, unless someone has already attempted that.

 

I may go ahead and start working on some RF configs from the perspective of the LFO systems. I may split a lot of it out into multiple files too, since a huge monolithic MM patch might be a pain to work with.

[NecroBones]

1 hour ago, NecroBones said:

I may go ahead and start working on some RF configs from the perspective of the LFO systems. I may split a lot of it out into multiple files too, since a huge monolithic MM patch might be a pain to work with.

 

Further brain farts. I asked about all of this on the RF thread, and NathanKell pointed out (and reminded me) that @Phineas Freak is already working on the RF configs.

 

For those interested, the GitHub folder is here: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/tree/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/RealScaleBoosters

[NecroBones]

 

Oh also. Before I work on any other rockets, is there anything (from a modeling or existing-parts perspective) that's missing from the existing rockets? That is, are there ullage or retro rockets that are missing? RCS thrusters? I know the Ariane V and STS (shuttle) SRBs are supposed to have an additional set of separation motors on the lower skirts. I may make surface attachable parts to use there. I thought about making a few generic SRMs that can be used when people just want a little extra ullage or separation somewhere.

 

I sort-of fudged the RCS system on the Ariane V. Some of the rockets use the RCS thrusters for ullage, of course.

 

-----

 

I'm not sure when I'll work on the Falcon 9 yet. But thinking ahead, I'm considering the idea of building the legs right into the first stage tank, rather than using separate parts. One reason is part-count reduction of course. Another is that I found out with SpaceY that there can be issues with the legs bending and shifting on their attachment points when dealing with large scale rocket parts. The down-side of building them in, is that landing shock won't be absorbed down there, and instead will transfer up to the top of the stage. This probably isn't a problem considering that there might only be a decoupler up there.

 

Another consideration is the grid fins. KSP doesn't really have a notion of deployable control surfaces. They either exist as control surfaces or they don't, and KSP tries to steer them even when folded. What would be the cleanest from a gameplay perspective would be to simply make them airbrakes. These would need to be surface-attach so that the various aerodynamic models treat them equally.

 

-

Edited February 22, 2016 by NecroBones

[NecroBones]

Also, adding to the "maybe" list:

 

Mercury-Redstone, Mercury-Atlas, and Gemini-Titan-II.

[NathanKell]

@NecroBones if I might...your stuff is awesome, and I know those are Iconic, but...might you consider some *less* commonly portrayed LVs?

[NecroBones]

2 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

@NecroBones if I might...your stuff is awesome, and I know those are Iconic, but...might you consider some *less* commonly portrayed LVs?

Sure, what did you have in mind? I do have a bunch of other things on the "maybe" list in the OP too. (yeah, they're all "maybe" right now, as I got through all the ones I considered critical)

[NathanKell]

Kosmos-I and II? Lambda? Viking (pre-Vanguard sounding rocket, basis for Vanguard first stage)? The ISRO LVs (SLV/PSLV/GSLV)? Tsiklon?

Also there are some very interesting also-rans and almost-rans that I'd love to see done, but you might only be going for flight-proven hardware.

[NecroBones]

1 hour ago, NathanKell said:

Kosmos-I and II? Lambda? Viking (pre-Vanguard sounding rocket, basis for Vanguard first stage)? The ISRO LVs (SLV/PSLV/GSLV)? Tsiklon?

Also there are some very interesting also-rans and almost-rans that I'd love to see done, but you might only be going for flight-proven hardware.

 

Cool, some of those might be fun to work on. I'll have to see how much info I can find on them. Measurements, stats, etc.

[NecroBones]

14 hours ago, NathanKell said:

Also there are some very interesting also-rans and almost-rans that I'd love to see done, but you might only be going for flight-proven hardware.

 

 

Oh, forgot to mention-- for the most part I'm mostly focusing on flight-tested designs, but I'm not opposed to doing some interesting never-rans and almost-rans too. I have the Ares I and DIRECT-Jupiter included already after all.

 

I went back to my list on the OP and the ISRO PSLV is starting to get very interesting. Four stages, with stages 1 and 3 using solid propellants, and the strap-ons are liquid fueled. Wow does that feel backward, a solid first stage with liquid strap-ons. Cool! Plus, the red and white coloring is quite striking.

 

 

[NecroBones]

1 hour ago, NecroBones said:

I went back to my list on the OP and the ISRO PSLV is starting to get very interesting. Four stages, with stages 1 and 3 using solid propellants, and the strap-ons are liquid fueled. Wow does that feel backward, a solid first stage with liquid strap-ons. Cool! Plus, the red and white coloring is quite striking.

And now I'm looking at stats from multiple websites that are saying the strap-ons are HTPB solids. Alright, I'll go with that. Still, solids for first and third stage was kinda neat to see.

 

[NecroBones]

It doesn't look like much of anything yet, but I have a start on the PSLV second stage and decoupler (yeah, I'm starting in the middle this time):

 

[KerbonautInTraining]

20 hours after it was first mentioned and a model is already in the works

Hot damn, necrobones

[NathanKell]

Awesome!

[MrMeeb]

Slow down! You might break something!  

Jk...please never stop

[Natskyge]

If i May suggest a rocket to make, how about an Delta III?

Edited February 23, 2016 by Natskyge

[NecroBones]

 

It still needs some work, but I have a start on the first stage. So the first and second stages at least exist at this point, minus the retros/ullage, and the second stage engine, of course.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Natskyge said:

If i May suggest a rocket to make, how about an Delta III?

 

I thought about maybe doing the Delta II, since they're technically still in service. Delta III is pretty cool though. Interesting, the Delta III only "flew" three times, two of which were complete failures, before being retired.

[gonzo98x]

I am very excited by this mod. Anything that reduces part count while letting me fly historical rockets is A+ in my book.

 

I might have missed this though, does it work with real fuels? I installed the mod but everything use LF/O.

[NecroBones]

 

So I saw in the patch notes that @NathanKell is adding some staging config options, including being able to stage RCS units. The PSLV rocket that I'm working on, among others, could benefit from this for sure. Sometimes rockets have vernier thrusters in the lower stage, or roll control thrusters (like the PSLV) that you want to use without firing your payload RCS. This will be awesome!

 

3 minutes ago, gonzo98x said:

I might have missed this though, does it work with real fuels? I installed the mod but everything use LF/O.

 

It's in the works. For the time being, I might just add some multipliers to get the fuel mass back to where they're supposed to be on these parts, since RO and RF change the densities. @Phineas Freak started on the RO/RF configs, which you can view here.

 

 

[NecroBones]

Flag is obviously wrong but here's another screenshot:

 

[Felbourn]

On 2/22/2016 at 2:57 PM, NathanKell said:

@NecroBones if I might...your stuff is awesome, and I know those are Iconic, but...might you consider some *less* commonly portrayed LVs?

I also must ask: Only launch vehicles?

Perhaps venture into parts that will make ground bases, space stations, and payloads?

[jonrd463]

Just another suggestion for lifters that don't get much love-- how about the Japanese H series? A well done H-IIB with included turbopump scream would be awesome!

Edited February 24, 2016 by jonrd463

[komodo]

These look insanely awesome. I had a quick question though: I see clearly that the career mode costs and unlocks are whacked. The question would be is it the unlock 'cost' that is considered whacked, or the tree node placement?

Also, is the progression intended to be temporal wise, payload wise, or technology wise? The shuttle-y things seem to pop up sooner in the tree if I recall correctly.

I only ask because it has been on my list to nudge the parts around in the tree for personal taste as far as what unlocks when, along with some look at the speso cost, but I didn't know if there was a general idea as to which direction the balance should go. (Up, down, left, right, red fish, blue fish, etc.)

I understand that these are big*** boosters, but I rarely get that deep in the tech tree in my careers, and i'd love to play with them more readily

Any thoughts would be great, i'd love to give something back to the project, but only if it would be useful to others!