Nertea Posted January 17, 2019 Author Share Posted January 17, 2019 Today, let us Poodle. And pod. The Poodle follows Porkjet's concept sheet closely. After close examination of the master's concept work, modeler @riocrokite determined that this part was based on the quad-nozzle, single turbopump RD-0124. This configuration gives a nice balance to the model, and calls back to the bulky centre of the original model. We managed this way to easily have nicely vacuum proportioned nozzles with high expansion ratios. It might be a bit contentious, as stock has gone for a dual nozzle interpretation, but we're confident in our choice and really like the result. Included is also a compact variant for effective clustering and as usual, new effects. The Mk1-3 command pod was a bit more challenging. Two requirements drive this model - firstly to resolve the awful too-small top area and make it consistent, so nosecones, parachutes and covered docking ports would fit well, and secondly to preserve the window footprints to avoid redoing the IVA. This was challenging, but after a few throwaway prototypes and much swearing a result was had. The final version is well unified with other parts and sports the general set of improvements that we make to everything we redo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJesuit Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 31 minutes ago, Nertea said: After close examination of the master's concept work I LOLed. So very true. Peace. 37 minutes ago, Nertea said: This was challenging, but after a few throwaway prototypes and much swearing a result was had. I LOLed harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poodmund Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 The Poodle's gimballing mechanism looks amazing in motion and it's so nice to finally have a Mk1-3 Pod that doesn't have rediculous gaps and sizes different to whatever is stacked on its top node. Awesome work to those involved... and as a little tid bit... the compact Poodle seems just the right size to fit in a 1.875m (Size 1.5) stack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Dat service bay though. And shielded docking port. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riocrokite Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Inb4 concerns how new poodle works with MH 1.875 parts and soyuz-esque rockets > compact poodle fits within 1.875 envelope; proof: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombaatu Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 7 hours ago, Nertea said: Today, let us Poodle. And pod. <snip> Dat's beyootiful *sniff!* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xurkitree Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Single Engine Poodle, eat your heart out! Also all those people who want single engined poodles can now have 4 times the triggered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kradgger Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Xurkitree said: Single Engine Poodle, eat your heart out! Also all those people who want single engined poodles can now have 4 times the triggered. Both ReStock and Squad's (old and new) models are single engine. Edited January 17, 2019 by Kradgger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 The 4 bell poodle makes sense, the proportions of the bells look right too. Is that a LES on top of a shielded docking port? How will the LES work? Will it finally have a fairing when stack attached, like engines or heatshields do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poodmund Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 4 hours ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said: The 4 bell poodle makes sense, the proportions of the bells look right too. Is that a LES on top of a shielded docking port? How will the LES work? Will it finally have a fairing when stack attached, like engines or heatshields do? I can chime in on this one. Unfortunately that is just the stock LES (https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Launch_Escape_System) thats been attached to a decoupler that has then been clipped down into the shielded docking port with some fancy offsetting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sh1pman Posted January 17, 2019 Share Posted January 17, 2019 Are stock landing legs in the list for restocking? They really look out of place on recent screenshots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starbuckminsterfullerton Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 2.5m service bay looks way better now, never liked the weird yellow on stock. I support you on the quad-poodle, if you look very closely at the faceted engine bases on the design doc it even seems to suggest exactly the same kind of square/octagonal compact mount you modeled. good eye @riocrokite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cineboxandrew Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 1 hour ago, sh1pman said: Are stock landing legs in the list for restocking? They really look out of place on recent screenshots. Eventually™ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 18 hours ago, Nertea said: I never realized how much better a consistent art style and precision diameter match-ups make KSP ships look so much better until I saw this screenshot. That is gorgeous. The smooth lines and consistent stock-a-like style of that nose shroud, Mk1-3 nose diameter, and service bay are in a word "seamless beauty". Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kradgger Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 2 minutes ago, Raptor9 said: I never realized how much better a consistent art style and precision diameter match-ups make KSP ships look so much better until I saw this screenshot. That is gorgeous. The smooth lines and consistent stock-a-like style of that nose shroud, Mk1-3 nose diameter, and service bay are in a word "seamless beauty". Well done. A-Am I smelling a faint 'Raptor9's Hangar: ReStock Edition' in the distance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 2 hours ago, sh1pman said: Are stock landing legs in the list for restocking? They really look out of place on recent screenshots. They're some of the most difficult parts to make drop in replacements for so not right now. 7 minutes ago, Raptor9 said: I never realized how much better a consistent art style and precision diameter match-ups make KSP ships look so much better until I saw this screenshot. That is gorgeous. The smooth lines and consistent stock-a-like style of that nose shroud, Mk1-3 nose diameter, and service bay are in a word "seamless beauty". Well done. Yeah. It's quite shocking what the game can look like with this installed alongside a few visual mods. It's one of the reasons the newer squad revamps are so depressing, they waste a lot of potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 3 minutes ago, Kradgger said: A-Am I smelling a faint 'Raptor9's Hangar: ReStock Edition' in the distance? Having a bone-stock version and a Restock version of my craft catalog would be entirely too much work to maintain. If I were to convert my craft files to Restock versions, I would commit to it entirely. Not saying I will or will not, just saying it would be one or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kradgger Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Raptor9 said: Having a bone-stock version and a Restock version of my craft catalog would be entirely too much work to maintain. If I were to convert my craft files to Restock versions, I would commit to it entirely. Not saying I will or will not, just saying it would be one or the other. Yeah, thought the same. I've played around with some of your craft and ReStock and there isn't much conflict, might be because one of the prime goals for the team was `don't f**k around with the stock colliders'. Shame they're not doing the MH set, which you use a lot to great effect (have an Atlas V hangar myself and the 1.5 parts are obligatory for the centaur), but I can't really blame the guys, the 1.875 set and, even more ridiculous, structural panels shouldn't be DLC. Edited January 18, 2019 by Kradgger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Doctor Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 In love with this project, this is exactly what we've needed, thank you guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xurkitree Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 10 hours ago, cineboxandrew said: Eventually™ I hope you guys fix the angling of the LT-2 landing legs - on recent crafts, its gotten to the point that they're unusable on any craft because they're aren't tall enough instead being too wide. They aren't even strong and they don't provide proper engine support. Its too small for a poodle without Offsets, nvm a LV-N pod clipped in a fuselage. I end up using LET's Landing legs, but they're designed for really heavy landers. Please keep this in mind - it would go a long way to make sotck function better if each landing leg was a bit longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho_zs Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 Is 90 degree rotation and lack of lateral symmetry intentional in shielded docking port model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kradgger Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Xurkitree said: I hope you guys fix the angling of the LT-2 landing legs - on recent crafts, its gotten to the point that they're unusable on any craft because they're aren't tall enough instead being too wide. They aren't even strong and they don't provide proper engine support. Its too small for a poodle without Offsets, nvm a LV-N pod clipped in a fuselage. I've noticed this too. Last patch I made some stock Falcon 9 analogues and they worked like a charm. Come 1.6.x and I had to remove their legs because they're way better off landing on their engine nozzles, since for some reason the LT-2s decide to snap all the time. Oh, speaking of Falcon 9s, @Nertea, are there gonna be pure white variants for the Rockomax tanks and maybe orange ones for the size 3 set? Edited January 18, 2019 by Kradgger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyko Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Psycho_zs said: Is 90 degree rotation and lack of lateral symmetry intentional in shielded docking port model? Yes, this is intentional. Two reasons: Since it's asymmetrical two ships with shielded ports can dock without rotating. If they were symmetrical the "petals" of the two ports would collide with each other. If it's symmetrical, it blocks the view of both right and left pilot. Rotated 90 degrees it actually gives a much better view forward for docking. Edited January 18, 2019 by Tyko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cineboxandrew Posted January 18, 2019 Share Posted January 18, 2019 4 hours ago, Xurkitree said: I hope you guys fix the angling of the LT-2 landing legs - on recent crafts, its gotten to the point that they're unusable on any craft because they're aren't tall enough instead being too wide. They aren't even strong and they don't provide proper engine support. Its too small for a poodle without Offsets, nvm a LV-N pod clipped in a fuselage. I end up using LET's Landing legs, but they're designed for really heavy landers. Please keep this in mind - it would go a long way to make sotck function better if each landing leg was a bit longer. We're trying to keep colliders the same as the stock parts for save compatibility, ESPECIALLY for kraken-bait parts like legs or wheels, so modifying the shape of existing legs is a no-go. I'll keep that in mind for possible Restock+ parts though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted January 18, 2019 Author Share Posted January 18, 2019 4 hours ago, Kradgger said: Oh, speaking of Falcon 9s, @Nertea, are there gonna be pure white variants for the Rockomax tanks and maybe orange ones for the size 3 set? Probably no white variants. It's just... variants are more work. So much scope creep can be added really easily, I have to be aggressive when treating suggestions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts