Niemand303 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 That popping out hatch doesn't look nice, IMHO, I'd vote for having just like a "sliced" sphere instead of cylinder sticking out. And maybe an orange strip on the "equator"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 That popping out hatch doesn't look nice, IMHO, I'd vote for having just like a "sliced" sphere instead of cylinder sticking out. And maybe an orange strip on the "equator"?I am not too sure what you mean with the sphere?But a bit of colour would me nice, yah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niemand303 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I am not too sure what you mean with the sphere?But a bit of colour would me nice, yah Slice something round with a knife and you will see what I meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Slice something round with a knife and you will see what I meant. I am still not a 100%Like this?I am not too hot on the hatch, it works great on the larger OMs, but Tantares is too small.It pops out far too much relative to its size.Also, the "door on top of the DM" idea, not sure, it makes the capsule useless in some situations (how to EVA once landed?)(How to use as Mun lander?)Edit:Damn it, you clearly meant this - - - Updated - - -Apparently, I can now into boolean operations.Maybe this... Edited January 16, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisK Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Beale, you may find this on the Soyuz helpful. The hatch on the orbital module appears to be on the top half, not the bottom as in your design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBedla Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Thanks for the feedback!RCS ports, you have something in mind like this?http://puu.sh/evp0D/c0c4dda242.pngI.E. no fore thruster, that's handled by the Soyuz SM.I quite like that!I originally thought even the forward-facing thruster ("rearing thruster") could be incorporated in the "skirt" of the SM, you already have the nozzle holes there in the model.Actually, this thread shows the position of the real-life Soyuz quite well (actually better than anything I could find, so I don't really know. But it makes sense to have them there). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 Beale, you may find this on the Soyuz helpful. The hatch on the orbital module appears to be on the top half, not the bottom as in your design.Great video!But, I'm very sure the hatch is on the bottom, based on every diagram I can find.I quite like that!I originally thought even the forward-facing thruster ("rearing thruster") could be incorporated in the "skirt" of the SM, you already have the nozzle holes there in the model.Actually, this thread shows the position of the real-life Soyuz quite well (actually better than anything I could find, so I don't really know. But it makes sense to have them there).The good old Noyuz! Yes, these RCS jets are similar to the real design, why I considered them. Hopefully will be pretty useful.The door, I think I will paint it on.Experiments with modelling rarely end well for me, besides, the old doors do not look so bad painted? I don't think they do.Also, it will be better IMO if the DM and OM both have the same style of door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisK Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Great video!But, I'm very sure the hatch is on the bottom, based on every diagram I can find.The good old Noyuz! I think that you are right. The CGI model in the ESA video shows the port in the wrong place! That is funny but a little annoying. The NASA diagram, Wikipedia, ESA, Russian space, etc. all show it on the bottom.I think that you are over-thinking this. The current Tantares Soyuz model looks great.PS: if it would help, I could try to make some simple color variations once you've created the textures. i.e. black Soyuz, silver Soyuz with white stripe, etc.Edit: . Edited January 16, 2015 by CrisK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) I think that you are right. The CGI model in the ESA video shows the port in the wrong place! That is funny but a little annoying. The NASA diagram, Wikipedia, ESA, Russian space, etc. all show it on the bottom.I think that you are over-thinking this. The current Tantares Soyuz model looks great.PS: if it would help, I could try to make some simple color variations once you've created the textures. i.e. black Soyuz, silver Soyuz with white stripe, etc.Edit: .Yeah, definitely over-complicating. The new model: mostly same as old, but with windows more friendly to docking.The DM, windows on side, rather than front.Textures: That would be wonderful! Edited January 16, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tg626 Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) N1-L3-alike mission:Ready for launchOrbital RendezvousSorry I didn't get any more shots...I'll be doing more missions like this before I can graduate to Apollo style with my SLS clone when the parts are unlocked. Edited January 16, 2015 by tg626 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) So, will the new Soyuz OM have the foward facing docking window like the Soyuz TM? Edited January 16, 2015 by pTrevTrevs small iPhone keyboard is small Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) N1-L3-alike mission:Ready for launchhttp://i.imgur.com/ZYCbuEE.pngOrbital Rendezvoushttp://i.imgur.com/LzwrKdl.pngSorry I didn't get any more shots...I'll be doing more missions like this before I can graduate to Apollo style with my SLS clone when the parts are unlocked.Nice!I like the goo canister on the back of the LK, never thought-a that.So, will the new Soyuz OM have the foward facing docking window like the Soyuz TM?Yeah! Edited January 16, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 did you make it bigger? also wouldn't putting the hatch there make kerbals prone to being pinched and pinged off into space like when you put a wide part on top of a mk1 pod? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) did you make it bigger? also wouldn't putting the hatch there make kerbals prone to being pinched and pinged off into space like when you put a wide part on top of a mk1 pod?The size difference is small (a tiny bit taller, same width), but not insignificant.The hatch position has been tested, it worked fine for me, even under gravity.Spec.OM Party Edited January 16, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtquarquesso Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Even though it may be too late now, I decidedly prefer the look of a circular hatch on the OM. Is it feasible to dock using the IVA window? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) Even though it may be too late now, I decidedly prefer the look of a circular hatch on the OM. Is it feasible to dock using the IVA window?The circle hatch - not worth it IMO, the size required would really skew the proportions of the little OM, or if it were cut into the OM it is like a gaping wound, I didn't like the look of it.In a nutshell: I prefer a smooth sphere.IVA Docking: Should be. Camera close to the window, should give a nice ~45° degree FOV.I also plan docking light.Edit: Eh... make that close to 30°, still, it's doable. (I'd recommend RPM anyway). Edited January 16, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 I'm not sure about the bigger size the symmetrical diameter is part of soyuz's handsomeness, and tantares big selling point is that its 1.25 in diameter I wouldn't want the reentry module to get bigger to match :/wait I can't tell is it wider? could you overlay them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 I'm not sure about the bigger size the symmetrical diameter is part of soyuz's handsomeness, and tantares big selling point is that its 1.25 in diameter I wouldn't want the reentry module to get bigger to match :/wait I can't tell is it wider? could you overlay them?It's not wider, just very slightly taller.The new OM is exactly 1.25mThe old OM is very slightly thinner than 1.25m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrisK Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 One argument for the OM being thinner is that it can fit within a 1.25 fairing.Of course, modern Soyuz rockets use fairings that are wider than the rocket. Aka there is some bulge on the real rockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 (edited) One argument for the OM being thinner is that it can fit within a 1.25 fairing.Of course, modern Soyuz rockets use fairings that are wider than the rocket. Aka there is some bulge on the real rockets.It won't make a difference really, the Solar panels, RCS blocks and associated greeble already push it well past 1.25m size. The old module being thinner, we are talking like 0.02 metres.Here, I marke the difference in green.Nobody has picked up on the obvious flaw in the images I posted Edited January 16, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortuus Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Beale, it's cool when Author work with his mod and make it better. Thank you! Q: will you remake Soyuz command module and internals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 16, 2015 Author Share Posted January 16, 2015 Beale, it's cool when Author work with his mod and make it better. Thank you! Q: will you remake Soyuz command module and internals?Yup.I am trying to make some generic props to use in all IVAs (seats), but it is going some difficulties. Still new IVAs are needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortuus Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 i remember when i played IVA in BobCat's old Soyuz. i was tried to dock with another Soyuz with out RPM but with VOID. its fun) actually, i docked but loose left solar panels on bouth ships) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGatsby Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 Hey Beale! I'm really liking the look of the new OM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted January 17, 2015 Author Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Hey Beale! I'm really liking the look of the new OM.Glad Got some SM for ya:Well, that's not very exciting, but I will speak:Decoupler going to mesh stylePerhaps SM nerf?This maybe unpopular, I am not sure, but maybe it is good to handicap the Tantares a little?Should it really be able to go Kerbin-Mun-Kerbin?I think not, you should need a Soyuz-Fregat or a LOK (I have a bad habit of expecting everybody to know these craft, but then realise there are sometimes new people reading this thread )i remember when i played IVA in BobCat's old Soyuz. i was tried to dock with another Soyuz with out RPM but with VOID. its fun) actually, i docked but loose left solar panels on bouth ships)Sounds good IVA only dockings for this mod have been impossible in the past, maybe not now (maybe). Edited January 17, 2015 by Beale 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.