[1.12.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [16.1][28.05.2024][Mars Expedition WIP]

[passinglurker]

What needs updating?

If you have some suggested changes, I'd certainly be happy to take a look at them :-)

Balance as a whole probably needs a pass of polish it has been put off for a while with the expectation that squad would either soon change the aero physics(which we are still expecting) or that stock parts would be rebalanced to be more consistent(also still waiting)

[Urist]

Balance as a whole probably needs a pass of polish it has been put off for a while with the expectation that squad would either soon change the aero physics(which we are still expecting) or that stock parts would be rebalanced to be more consistent(also still waiting)

Right, I'll give the capsules a once-over (time to break out the spreadsheets!).

If I've been following the news correctly, version 1.0.3 should be out fairly soon, and represents the end of any major changes to the aerodynamics system?

Edited May 23, 2015 by Urist
Grammar

[Guardian G.I.]

Interesting.

I've taken a look at the setup of this engine in Unity.

http://puu.sh/hXJwW/4c8422569d.png

There's some kind of floating point error going on with the transform rotation, but nothing that could cause that large amount of thrust deviation. Furthermore, having a look at the config file, it doesn't have even have a gimbal.

Points to some kind of unequal mass-distribution you have going on with that TKS craft there (Could you check the fuel levels in the radial tanks for me?), very confusing to say the least.

I'll try and recreate this problem myself.

Also, thank you for demonstrating the spoiler function, that will be useful :-)

Quad-symmetry RCS tanks (100% full), quad-symmetry engines, dual-symmetry solar panels.

The stock monopropellant engines have similarly slanted thrust.

[Urist]

Quad-symmetry RCS tanks (100% full), quad-symmetry engines, dual-symmetry solar panels.

http://i.imgur.com/2KDbtk8.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/YahQmUN.jpg

The stock monopropellant engines have similarly slanted thrust.

http://i.imgur.com/CKxm6z2.jpg

Thanks for digging into this further :-)

Bringing the vanilla RCS engines into the mix does definitely confuse things. Might be an error with the thrust display.

Can you confirm the TKS's apparent thrust offset affects it in flight? (For example, take it into orbit and try to fly in a straight line).

I'll try this myself too.

Cheers.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Urist
Suggested Action.

[CrisK]

What needs updating?

If you have some suggested changes, I'd certainly be happy to take a look at them :-)

Balance for the engines, aero and heating changes for all parts that need to survive reentry. Aero and heating rules for the engines. The heatshields don't work as they currently are. It's not major stuff.

[Guardian G.I.]

Thanks for digging into this further :-)

Bringing the vanilla RCS engines into the mix does definitely confuse things. Might be an error with the thrust display.

Can you confirm the TKS's apparent thrust offset affects it in flight? (For example, take it into orbit and try to fly in a straight line).

I'll try this myself too.

Cheers.

End results: false alarm - there's no spinning, the engines work as intended. I had spinning when I tried to circularize a slightly imbalanced TKS craft in the low Munar orbit, where the TWR of the engines was really high - that was the cause of the problem, not the parts themselves. The thrust display in the VAB is definitely weird, though, and should be fixed.

Edited May 23, 2015 by Guardian G.I.

[Chadley123]

Will there be tweak scale configs for the antares launch vehicle or at least the S.O.A.R.? Currently, using a bigger cygnus is fairly tricky without the proper launch vehicle. I apologize if this has been answered before, I'm just curious. Thanks for the other tweak scale configs, by the way, curtquarquesso.

[curtquarquesso]

Will there be tweak scale configs for the antares launch vehicle or at least the S.O.A.R.? Currently, using a bigger cygnus is fairly tricky without the proper launch vehicle. I apologize if this has been answered before, I'm just curious. Thanks for the other tweak scale configs, by the way, curtquarquesso.

Absolutely. All in the pipeline. Have some IRL stuff to take care of first. My Beetle's engine needs some TLC.

[Chadley123]

Glad to hear it! Thank you!

[kopapaka]

Thanks : D

[MK3424]

I wonder how cool the solar panels would look like if you used WindowShine on them:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122259-WIP-WindowShine-v-4-Reflective-stock-windows-and-solar-panels-5-20-15

[pTrevTrevs]

I wonder how cool the solar panels would look like if you used WindowShine on them:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/122259-WIP-WindowShine-v-4-Reflective-stock-windows-and-solar-panels-5-20-15

What... What is this sorcery?

[MK3424]

What... What is this sorcery?

It's using a feature in texturereplacer that didn't got the attention it needed: it makes meshes mirror textures onto them, thus making it reflect light.

here's a bit of MM config file to make it work on a solar panel, you can make it work on Tantares too if you know the mesh's name.

[COLOR=#333333][I]@PART[solarPanels5][/I][/COLOR]{
    %MODULE[TRReflection]
    {
        %name = TRReflection
        %shader = Reflective/Bumped Diffuse
        %colour = 0.2 0.2 0.2
        %interval = 1
        %meshes = panel
    }
}

Edited May 24, 2015 by MK3424

[passinglurker]

If I've been following the news correctly, version 1.0.3 should be out fairly soon, and represents the end of any major changes to the aerodynamics system?

we have no reason to assume that unfortunately considering many thought 1.0 would be the end of weird and disproportional stats in general yet now stock crewed parts still lack any sense of coherency (tip of the iceberg: mk2 lander can has X5 the mass of the mk1 lander can despite identical crash and heat tolerance and only x2 the crew capacity)

After wracking my own brain a few times trying to figured out what is balanced and what isn't relative to the mess that is squads pod ballance I can confidently say I'd forget about the squad pods completely and establish my own strict set of rules for determining a crew parts stats (X of crew capacity= X of mass, Xkn of torque= X of more mass, if meant for reentry multiply mass by X etc...) and ignore the stock pods stats completely when figuring things out. From there launch vehicle and other parts stats can be worked out to roughly emulate the performance and feats of the real world craft they are based off of.

but at the same time what I'd do may be a bit overboard because if squad does get its stating act together it could result in a lot of wasted effort.

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I remembered seeing a black thermal-blanket texture for the Tantares. Is that upcoming, or have I missed something about the alternate textures?

[Urist]

Balance for the engines, aero and heating changes for all parts that need to survive reentry. Aero and heating rules for the engines. The heatshields don't work as they currently are. It's not major stuff.

I think the amount of ablator should probably be reduced, even with the harsher heating of version 1.0, I barely used more than 50 units on a regular descent.

End results: false alarm - there's no spinning, the engines work as intended. I had spinning when I tried to circularize a slightly imbalanced TKS craft in the low Munar orbit, where the TWR of the engines was really high - that was the cause of the problem, not the parts themselves. The thrust display in the VAB is definitely weird, though, and should be fixed.

http://i.imgur.com/wqlB8tk.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/etNB5rY.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/TkXG0lv.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8jGGz2E.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/bY1Je9d.jpg

Thanks for checking it out!

Looks like a VAB bug then ( phew! :-) ).

Thanks : D

http://img98.rajce.idnes.cz/d9802/10/10447/10447390_7baedd9cfb1ead1a3fc4c0161e06b526/images/screenshot90.jpg?ver=0

I'm no engineer, but a heatshield in front of the air intake? ;-D

Nice craft, anyway!

we have no reason to assume that unfortunately considering many thought 1.0 would be the end of weird and disproportional stats in general yet now stock crewed parts still lack any sense of coherency (tip of the iceberg: mk2 lander can has X5 the mass of the mk1 lander can despite identical crash and heat tolerance and only x2 the crew capacity)

After wracking my own brain a few times trying to figured out what is balanced and what isn't relative to the mess that is squads pod ballance I can confidently say I'd forget about the squad pods completely and establish my own strict set of rules for determining a crew parts stats (X of crew capacity= X of mass, Xkn of torque= X of more mass, if meant for reentry multiply mass by X etc...) and ignore the stock pods stats completely when figuring things out. From there launch vehicle and other parts stats can be worked out to roughly emulate the performance and feats of the real world craft they are based off of.

but at the same time what I'd do may be a bit overboard because if squad does get its stating act together it could result in a lot of wasted effort.

I see, I've never noticed how out of whack the stats were.

I do like your idea of a unified way of calculating capsule mass.

How about something like (0.25 * Crew Capacity) + (log(Reaction Wheel Torque)?

This gives 0.977 mass for the Soyuz capsule and 1.653 for the TKS capsule, seems like a fairly sensible way of doing it?

Anyway, cheers for all the info, it looks like the current situation is a bit chaotic.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I remembered seeing a black thermal-blanket texture for the Tantares. Is that upcoming, or have I missed something about the alternate textures?

There's a link on the front page to Soyuz TMA textures by planeguy, they should be currently working right?

Edited May 24, 2015 by Urist
Typo

[Niemand303]

A small notice. While updating RO configs noticed that Alnair/TKS LES has the models, but no configs! I don't know when it started but apparently no one has noticed it (or I haven't noticed the one who haven't noticed it... Mystery!).

[Urist]

A small notice. While updating RO configs noticed that Alnair/TKS LES has the models, but no configs! I don't know when it started but apparently no one has noticed it (or I haven't noticed the one who haven't noticed it... Mystery!).

http://puu.sh/hYBbt/79725e0d87.png

Huh, can confirm! Cheers.

I've gave it the same config (or mostly the same) as the Soyuz LES.

I'll give it a test in-game in a wee while.

Edit: If it comes to me giving the parts names and descriptions (As is the case with this new LES), I wouldn't expect them to stay - Beale will probably want to change them.

Edit Again:

Seems to be working, aside from missing a texture (I think the Spektr pod needs re-exporting from Unity for this to be fixed).

Not sure why it was sitting around un-implemented...

Edited May 24, 2015 by Urist
Images

[Beale]

Huh, can confirm! Cheers.

I've gave it the same config (or mostly the same) as the Soyuz LES.

I'll give it a test in-game in a wee while.

Edit: If it comes to me giving the parts names and descriptions (As is the case with this new LES), I wouldn't expect them to stay - Beale will probably want to change them.

Edit Again:

Seems to be working, aside from missing a texture (I think the Spektr pod needs re-exporting from Unity for this to be fixed).

Not sure why it was sitting around un-implemented...

http://puu.sh/hYCMG/d600438533.jpg

http://puu.sh/hYCN3/4e86969db8.jpg

http://puu.sh/hYCNn/ada062f85f.jpg

I don't think the transforms were placed correctly, it will probably fly straight, not away from rocket FYI

Hello!

Many thanks for the messages of concern, I'm fine. But too busy to work on this at the moment...

Edited May 24, 2015 by Beale

[kopapaka]

I'm no engineer, but a heatshield in front of the air intake? ;-D

Kerbal aerodynamic...

Thanks.

[passinglurker]

I think the amount of ablator should probably be reduced, even with the harsher heating of version 1.0, I barely used more than 50 units on a regular descent.

I still see the pod charring ablator as a gimmick. Can we get the ablator as an optional mm config so I can easily delete it from all my pods all in one go?

I see, I've never noticed how out of whack the stats were.

I do like your idea of a unified way of calculating capsule mass.

How about something like (0.25 * Crew Capacity) + (log(Reaction Wheel Torque)?

This gives 0.977 mass for the Soyuz capsule and 1.653 for the TKS capsule, seems like a fairly sensible way of doing it?

Anyway, cheers for all the info, it looks like the current situation is a bit chaotic.

I do think we should take more aspects of the part into our calculations than just crew capacity and reaction wheel torque lest we will wind up with stats that are just as chaotic as stock. also when calculating it should be remembered that some stock parts do have consistency between them (just not the pods) in those cases the stock balance should be respected since this is still a stockalike mod. So with that in mind here is a crack at a more complete set of numbers...

Reaction wheel torque: 0.01 mass per Kn (same ratio as the smallest/least mass efficient reaction wheel part that is not a command pod or probe core)

Electric charge storage: 0.005 mass per 100 units (same as all the EC storage parts besides stock pods, also note that tantares pods traditionally carry more charge than stock pods so as to not ruin their aesthetic gluing a bunch of radial batteries to the outside)

Monoprop storage: 0.0006 drymass per unit of monoprop capacity (this is roughly the ratio of the inline monoprop tanks give or take 0.00001)

---here is where borrowing from the stock balance ends---

Command: +0.1 mass if the part is commandable (either crewed or unmanned with no sas like stayputnik) then add 0.1 mass for every level of sas if its a probe core. (rather arbitrary number but I like how tantares probe cores tend to be heavier than stock as it makes pilots a more competitive option)

Crew capacity: 0.25 mass per seat (totally arbitrary number!)

Reentry capability: multiply the whole thing by 1.5 if meant to survive reentry (crash and heat tolerance are still subject to change with squad still balancing the aero so those should be omitted from the calculations for now in the mean time we'd assign extra mass based solely on whether the pod is meant for reentry or not)

So as parts are stated now under this set of numbers the soyuz would weigh 0.9795 dry, soyuz orbital module A would weigh 0.28775(1 seat, some torque, some resource capacity, no command, no reentry), and soyuz orbital module B 0.38775 (same as A but with added commandability) this all seem sensible?

Edited May 24, 2015 by passinglurker

[Urist]

I don't think the transforms were placed correctly, it will probably fly straight, not away from rocket FYI

.

Nope, one of the nozzles has a 5° rotation. It flies away from the rocket without any input (And with SAS on and off).

I still see the pod charring ablator as a gimmick. Can we get the ablator as an optional mm config so I can easily delete it from all my pods all in one go?

I do think we should take more aspects of the part into our calculations than just crew capacity and reaction wheel torque lest we will wind up with stats that are just as chaotic as stock. also when calculating it should be remembered that some stock parts do have consistency between them (just not the pods) in those cases the stock balance should be respected since this is still a stockalike mod. So with that in mind here is a crack at a more complete set of numbers...

Reaction wheel torque: 0.01 mass per Kn (same ratio as the smallest/least mass efficient reaction wheel part that is not a command pod or probe core)

Electric charge storage: 0.005 mass per 100 units (same as all the EC storage parts besides stock pods, also note that tantares pods traditionally carry more charge than stock pods so as to not ruin their aesthetic gluing a bunch of radial batteries to the outside)

Monoprop storage: 0.0006 drymass per unit of monoprop capacity (this is roughly the ratio of the inline monoprop tanks give or take 0.00001)

---here is where borrowing from the stock balance ends---

Command: +0.1 mass if the part is commandable (either crewed or unmanned with no sas like stayputnik) then add 0.1 mass for every level of sas if its a probe core. (rather arbitrary number but I like how tantares probe cores tend to be heavier than stock as it makes pilots a more competitive option)

Crew capacity: 0.25 mass per seat (totally arbitrary number!)

Reentry capability: multiply the whole thing by 1.5 if meant to survive reentry (crash and heat tolerance are still subject to change with squad still balancing the aero so those should be omitted from the calculations for now in the mean time we'd assign extra mass based solely on whether the pod is meant for reentry or not)

So as parts are stated now under this set of numbers the soyuz would weigh 0.9795 dry, soyuz orbital module A would weigh 0.28775(1 seat, some torque, some resource capacity, no command, no reentry), and soyuz orbital module B 0.38775 (same as A but with added commandability) this all seem sensible?

The removal of the charring effects was mentioned a few pages back. Could get rid of it (Personally I really dislike that shader), but I think it would be a little cheeky of me to march in and make a major aesthetic change.

On your new method to find Mass, you've got me beat there! I like it.

So, passinglurker's unified theory of capsule mass:

(Hope I didn't mix up anything there).

Seems like a really nice way to ensure balance. Cheers. :-)

Edit: ECS = Electric Charge Capacity? My brain isn't working today.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Urist
Typo

[CrisK]

Beale & Urist, I'm going create completely new config files for my own install to bring everything up to 1.02 standards, re-balance, fix the mass distribution for pods, heating and heating effects, bug fix things like the TKS cargo bay and Ariane, and etc.

Is it okay if I share my configs in this thread? I do not expect them to become the standard; I'm creating these for my own game, but I figure that others may enjoy them.

PS: I created Tantares' FAR config, TAC config, Kliper configs, and more in the past.

[passinglurker]

The removal of the charring effects was mentioned a few pages back. Could get rid of it (Personally I really dislike that shader), but I think it would be a little cheeky of me to march in and make a major aesthetic change.

On your new method to find Mass, you've got me beat there! I like it.

So, passinglurker's unified theory of capsule mass:

http://puu.sh/hYKnP/a92fff529c.png

(Hope I didn't mix up anything there).

Seems like a really nice way to ensure balance. Cheers. :-)

hense why suggest pod ablator charing be a mm config so that its still there for those who want it and easily removed for those who don't.

the formula looks good to me

[curtquarquesso]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I remembered seeing a black thermal-blanket texture for the Tantares. Is that upcoming, or have I missed something about the alternate textures?

That would be planeguy's re textured parts. I think they're linked on the front page.