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

[passinglurker]

I would agree with this. Not to say that replica is a bad thing; this isn't a good vs. bad situation. Merely an observation. I am of course happy to use whatever Beale and his collaborators come up with.

perhaps someone should compile a tantares-lite? just the parts that plugs the gaps in stock no overlap for the sake of aesthetic recreations? would there be interest in that?

[nothingSpecial]

Ok. I did some work on scaling, and I don't have much in the way of good news unfortunately.

Absolutes:

Soyuz is 1.25m

Vega and ATV Parts are 2.5m

TKS/FGB parts are 1.875m

That being said, the correct LV scales are these:

http://i.imgur.com/Fx1gN7V.png

With that, the Ariane is definitely too big as as stated, however scaling down to 2.5m would be too small. 3.0m is the correct size for a 2.5m ATV. Yeah. I know. Messy.

For Proton, 2.5m is still reasonable, however the segments are too elongated. Shortening the stacks will make it more accurate. Fitting Mir and ISS modules on it under fairings is still a tight squeeze, but not impossible.

For R7, for a 1.25m Soyuz, 1.5m is the true correct size. The Soyuz now fits MUCH more comfortably atop the rocket. The 3rd stage is also too long. It should actually be about half it's current length. Rescaling the flagship lifter of Tantares... Yikes.

Here's a mockup of an R7 with correctly scaled 1.5m Boosters, and a 1.25m core stage with vernors. Forget 1.875m for R7. It's WAY to large.

http://i.imgur.com/YJIdYNw.png

Regardless of what changes in Tantares, I'll be releasing the scale tweaks for these in the next version of the TweakScale config. It's pretty neat.

ATV stuff has been sent to Beale for final packaging. Proper solar panels for the ATV should be out soon.

Considering 1.5m R-7.

I have two... I don't know. Objections? Or propositions? Points of concern, that's it.

1. The size is very odd. Wouldn't it be a very restrictive?

2. Scaling engines with booster tanks is not a very good idea because of the reason (1) and because of accurateness: http://spacemodels.nuxit.net/Soyuz/soyuz-blueprint.jpg

Well, with offset tool any 1.25m, for example from core stage, engine will look "just like real thing" for the ones who looks accuracy.

[passinglurker]

Please for the love of Karen some one tell me I'm reading this wrong and people aren't seriously considering making tantares rockets a bunch of funky non standard sizes by default...

If it is true then what ever happened to being stock a like!? D:

[tg626]

perhaps someone should compile a tantares-lite? just the parts that plugs the gaps in stock no overlap for the sake of aesthetic recreations? would there be interest in that?

I would agree!

[pTrevTrevs]

What if the top tank of the core stage was 1.25 meters, and the bottom tank was 0.9 meters, with 1.25 meter boosters? That way, there wouldn't be any new sizes introduced, and 0.9 meters will become a little more fleshed out.

[passinglurker]

Stupid mobile browser delete button again!

Hmm... Worth considering my only concern is that it might made the core to small to lift it's payloads.

Unrelated to the rocket revamp but what is up with the non standard sized flange on the bottom of the Soyuz service module? It's basically saying "only use me when hidden under a fairing cause I'd look ugly stacked"

[davidy12]

Also, I've been meaning to ask. Are all parts eventually going to have IVA?

[curtquarquesso]

Curtquarquesso brings up some valid point, and I think all would probably work out very nice if you take his suggestion.

Please for the love of Karen some one tell me I'm reading this wrong and people aren't seriously considering making tantares rockets a bunch of funky non standard sizes by default...

If it is true then what ever happened to being stock a like!? D:

Considering 1.5m R-7.

I have two... I don't know. Objections? Or propositions? Points of concern, that's it.

1. The size is very odd. Wouldn't it be a very restrictive?

2. Scaling engines with booster tanks is not a very good idea because of the reason (1) and because of accurateness: http://spacemodels.nuxit.net/Soyuz/soyuz-blueprint.jpg

Well, with offset tool any 1.25m, for example from core stage, engine will look "just like real thing" for the ones who looks accuracy.

What if the top tank of the core stage was 1.25 meters, and the bottom tank was 0.9 meters, with 1.25 meter boosters? That way, there wouldn't be any new sizes introduced, and 0.9 meters will become a little more fleshed out.

Stupid mobile browser delete button again!

Hmm... Worth considering my only concern is that it might made the core to small to lift it's payloads.

Unrelated to the rocket revamp but what is up with the non standard sized flange on the bottom of the Soyuz service module? It's basically saying "only use me when hidden under a fairing cause I'd look ugly stacked"

"Hey, so about those funky sizes I was messing around with..."

My post was my own messing around with TweakScale, and doesn't reflect changes that Beale may make in the R7 revamp. We haven't heard Beale's $.02 on scaling yet, and that's the only $.02 that's going to end up mattering really.

Regardless of what happens, I'll continue to support and flesh out TweakScale configs for all the accuracy and scaling nuts, so worry not. Off-sizes are valid concerns for people that really like to stick to the stock-alike feel. Currently, the only off-size specific to Tantares is 0.9375m. 1.875m has already been pretty widely adopted, so it's not really an "off-size" anymore.

I suppose the issue with the Soyuz is, that the bottom flange of the service module is 1.5m. This is accurate to the IRL Soyuz service module. It's been that way since the very early versions of Tantares. The way most of us overcome this is by fairing bases and interstage adapters and the like. The SM could use a jettison-able engine fairing. That'd be nice.

A 1.5m core stage would solve the issue altogether, at the cost of making another part size, which I know isn't favorable for people that like the standard sizes only. Theoretically, the third stage, would be 1.5m and shorter, and the tapered core stage tank would be 1.5–1.25m, and the bottom of the core stage would remain 1.25m. I'll release an update to the TweakScale configs so you guys can play around with 1.5m parts and get a feel for how they work. It'd be a major change, and we don't know what Beale's got up his sleeves yet.

Proton wouldn't be changing diameter, so no worries there, right?

Ariane is a neat rocket, but if you compare it against stock, it's currently redundant as it has nearly identical stock counterparts. I've always hated lifting 2.5m modules with 2.5m rockets, because the fairings are massive, and I hate lifting them with 3.75m rockets because then the rocket has to be massive and expensive. 3.0m is like the goldilocks size for me in terms of lifting 2.5m parts. It'd solve most of the scaling issues really. Interested to hear what you guys think about changes to Ariane.

What I'd be more interested to hear about, is why making parts more accurate and fleshed out, makes them less "stock-alike." My feelings are that most of the big parts mods, Tantares included, have really surpassed the aesthetic of the stock parts. Why make parts look worse just to blend in with some of the stock parts that Nova even said himself look terrible compared to what mod-authors are capable of putting out.

I guess I need help understanding what "stock-alike" means to you guys.

I have a neat mission I want to share with you relating to the Extended Cygnus/Atlas V mission coming up.

[_Augustus_]

"Hey, so about those funky sizes I was messing around with..."

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/fire_community.gif

My post was my own messing around with TweakScale, and doesn't reflect changes that Beale may make in the R7 revamp. We haven't heard Beale's $.02 on scaling yet, and that's the only $.02 that's going to end up mattering really.

Regardless of what happens, I'll continue to support and flesh out TweakScale configs for all the accuracy and scaling nuts, so worry not. Off-sizes are valid concerns for people that really like to stick to the stock-alike feel. Currently, the only off-size specific to Tantares is 0.9375m. 1.875m has already been pretty widely adopted, so it's not really an "off-size" anymore.

I suppose the issue with the Soyuz is, that the bottom flange of the service module is 1.5m. This is accurate to the IRL Soyuz service module. It's been that way since the very early versions of Tantares. The way most of us overcome this is by fairing bases and interstage adapters and the like. The SM could use a jettison-able engine fairing. That'd be nice.

A 1.5m core stage would solve the issue altogether, at the cost of making another part size, which I know isn't favorable for people that like the standard sizes only. Theoretically, the third stage, would be 1.5m and shorter, and the tapered core stage tank would be 1.5–1.25m, and the bottom of the core stage would remain 1.25m. I'll release an update to the TweakScale configs so you guys can play around with 1.5m parts and get a feel for how they work. It'd be a major change, and we don't know what Beale's got up his sleeves yet.

Proton wouldn't be changing diameter, so no worries there, right?

Ariane is a neat rocket, but if you compare it against stock, it's currently redundant as it has nearly identical stock counterparts. I've always hated lifting 2.5m modules with 2.5m rockets, because the fairings are massive, and I hate lifting them with 3.75m rockets because then the rocket has to be massive and expensive. 3.0m is like the goldilocks size for me in terms of lifting 2.5m parts. It'd solve most of the scaling issues really. Interested to hear what you guys think about changes to Ariane.

What I'd be more interested to hear about, is why making parts more accurate and fleshed out, makes them less "stock-alike." My feelings are that most of the big parts mods, Tantares included, have really surpassed the aesthetic of the stock parts. Why make parts look worse just to blend in with some of the stock parts that Nova even said himself look terrible compared to what mod-authors are capable of putting out.

I guess I need help understanding what "stock-alike" means to you guys.

I have a neat mission I want to share with you relating to the Extended Cygnus/Atlas V mission coming up.

Make the Ariane 5 3.125m, it's a nice size for it.

[passinglurker]

You make a good point about stock being an ugly pile of scrap at times. Its essentially something that is put up with because no one else besides maybe ven has made ballanced enough parts in the same style to totally convert and abandon the stock parts. instead since they are parts every one has mods often find their niche filling up functional holes or it's used as common ground for mods that are meant to be compatible with each other for better or worse both functionally and aesthetically as an alternative to using realism as a common ground(photo realism is hard to model and texture, also stock being low quality lowers the barrier of entry for newer moders)

Stock a like as a look is also adhered to because no matter the visual mods you install the buildings and kerbal's are still locked to us and would look out of place

If tantares were to abandon stock and do it's own thing it would either need a balance pass a new tech tree and it's own set of contacts or enough parts to seamlessly slot into the tech tree and contact infrastructure that was built for the stock parts (that means we need planes, science, and isru parts)

It would be a lot of work that's why many mods stop short and leverage stock for the parts they don't want to make.

[schoff123]

What I'd be more interested to hear about, is why making parts more accurate and fleshed out, makes them less "stock-alike." My feelings are that most of the big parts mods, Tantares included, have really surpassed the aesthetic of the stock parts. Why make parts look worse just to blend in with some of the stock parts that Nova even said himself look terrible compared to what mod-authors are capable of putting out.

I guess I need help understanding what "stock-alike" means to you guys.

I have a neat mission I want to share with you relating to the Extended Cygnus/Atlas V mission coming up.

As said by others, at this point in KSP's development many of the stock parts look rather ad-hoc and almost unprofessional. Most of the engines, for example, are simple shapes with a divergent nozzle attached to it and some greeble thrown in. Tantares engines have to go away from this in order to actually look like rocket engines!! But that doesn't mean Tantares has to abandon the aesthetics and artistic nuances of stock parts - abandoning that would be realism (or ugliness).

IMO Tantares walks the line of stock-a-like very very well, and fleshing out existing parts doesn't change that. In fact, it avoids part bloat by stemming the constant out pour of more parts to fill roles that could be filled with existing parts after a little refinement. Squad may (hopefully:D) do an art pass in the future to bring them up to speed with Unity 5 and the level of talent that mod authors have. What passinglurker said, this may/may not effect how mod authors actually start modding, because their more beginner work may be crappy compared to the newer stock standards after the art pass. But that may not happen in the first place

[passinglurker]

I'm content with how tantares does its engines the whole style is consistent, simple, clean, and appeasing making it easy for a fan to emulate. same goes for b9 another mod that has garnered fan spinoff's, support, and part donations. on the other hand you don't see a lot of people jumping to emulate Vens Stock Revamp or FASA or NearFuture because the style is so good its considered a cut above and out of reach by many.

[Svm420]

I'm content with how tantares does its engines the whole style is consistent, simple, clean, and appeasing making it easy for a fan to emulate. same goes for b9 another mod that has garnered fan spinoff's, support, and part donations. on the other hand you don't see a lot of people jumping to emulate Vens Stock Revamp or FASA or NearFuture because the style is so good its considered a cut above and out of reach by many.

I feel like I must be crazy then as I would rather all artists push the limits and raise the bar for everyone. No one trys to get better if we keep the status quo IMO. I detest dumbing down just so other can play along get better or find a different skill IMO.

[passinglurker]

I feel like I must be crazy then as I would rather all artists push the limits and raise the bar for everyone. No one trys to get better if we keep the status quo IMO. I detest dumbing down just so other can play along get better or find a different skill IMO.

meh not everyone wants to be a tryhard professional artist to some its just fun or a hobby and those are the sort of people that are most common in mod communities. its great when one takes the initiative to go above and beyond. The existence of high quality art mods shows there is indeed room for both exceptional and casual parts but trying to publicly pressure higher standards out of what is effectively volunteers would just discourage them and drive them away unless they garner numbers to override this opinion (basically elite artists and their picky artless fans, vs. the dirty casuals the end result is either a maintained status quo or the casuals banished with ultimately no increase in the quantity of quality art. I'm sure its a conflict I'm sure no one wants to see).

Edited August 16, 2015 by passinglurker

[wasmic]

Make the Ariane 5 3.125m, it's a nice size for it.

That's only 16 % down from 3.75m. I really don't think that's necessary.

[pTrevTrevs]

3.125 is halfway between 3.75 and 2.5, so it makes more sense to use that size

[passinglurker]

Make the Ariane 5 3.125m, it's a nice size for it.

That's only 16 % down from 3.75m. I really don't think that's necessary.

I'd rather see the ATV and ariane scrapped and replaced with the japanese HTV and H-II than endorse yet another odd ball size that isn't already widely supported

[Svm420]

meh not everyone wants to be a tryhard professional artist to some its just fun or a hobby and those are the sort of people that are most common in mod communities. its great when one takes the initiative to go above and beyond. The existence of high quality art mods shows there is indeed room for both exceptional and casual parts but trying to publicly pressure higher standards out of what is effectively volunteers would just discourage them and drive them away unless they garner numbers to override this opinion (basically elite artists and their picky artless fans, vs. the dirty casuals the end result is either a maintained status quo or the casuals banished with ultimately no increase in the quantity of quality art. I'm sure its a conflict I'm sure no one wants to see).

I don't see anyone discouraged so far so that is your opinion. My opinion is no one will get better if we aren't saying good job, but there is always room for improvement. Settling isn't beneficial IMO that's just stagnation. Competition has shown that it can breed better products. People should always want to get better and improve if they don't well someone better will.

[passinglurker]

I don't see anyone discouraged so far so that is your opinion. My opinion is no one will get better if we aren't saying good job, but there is always room for improvement. Settling isn't beneficial IMO that's just stagnation. Competition has shown that it can breed better products. People should always want to get better and improve if they don't well someone better will.

"anyone can cook" -chef gustav, ratatouille

this philosophical discussion is probably a subject that deserves its own thread. we've both voiced our opposite opinions and its beales choice to make something of it or not whether to strive for better and better quality as he has done in the past or stop or slow at some point so that fans and supporters can keep up.

[Svm420]

"anyone can cook" -chef gustav, ratatouille

this philosophical discussion is probably a subject that deserves its own thread. we've both voiced our opposite opinions and its beales choice to make something of it or not whether to strive for better and better quality as he has done in the past or stop or slow at some point so that fans and supporters can keep up.

Agreed I have always like this mod even before the recent revamps. I think the revamped art right now is at a good level that I hope others would strive to meet or exceed. Can't wait to see the future of this mod. I was born in 1990 so I had no idea what any of these crafts looked like IRL this mod as taught me a lot about RL space programs I never would have seen or known about otherwise. I am sure I am not alone in that. Thanks to all who contribute and make this mod a must have for me!

[curtquarquesso]

I'd rather see the ATV and ariane scrapped and replaced with the japanese HTV and H-II than endorse yet another odd ball size that isn't already widely supported

I've got a craft file for HTV in the works already, and realistically, the main body of the spacecraft is made of 1.875m TKS parts utilizing the lovely cargo bay and MP tanks, with a 1.25m docking port being alike to the ISS CBM system. Scale-wise, H-II is 2.5m, so I just use the stock orange tanks. I've scaled down the ATV orbital engines to look similar to the HTV engines. As you might have guessed, I'm really fond of the ATV, and somewhat invested. I think the reluctance for a Tantares HTV comes from the fact that it's already easily made with Tantares and stock parts. In a few hours, I'll post what I've got. It looks really good. Nice blend of stock parts and Tantares parts.

Good discussion everyone. Sorry in advance @Beale. We tend to get carried away sometimes. Hey, we're nothing if not passionate.

[kopapaka]

650 parts, 1900t (start)

Stock and Tantares : D

Edited August 16, 2015 by kopapaka

[gerishnakov]

Hi all, I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but how do I get the game to pay attention to the remote tech and realchute configs for this mod? I've got them in the right place but the game won't make the necessary configurations for the relevant parts.

[VenomousRequiem]

I think Tantares is already a unique mod, but if you were to make all of these new crazy sizes, then you've effectively made it so unique, that it hardly works with anything else, so honestly it's very conflicting.

I love the sizes that Curtquarquesso displayed in his earlier post, but what about compatibility with other things? The sized would be completely different!

Also @gerishanakov, you have Module Manager installed, yeah?

[Foxxonius Augustus]

Hi all, I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but how do I get the game to pay attention to the remote tech and realchute configs for this mod? I've got them in the right place but the game won't make the necessary configurations for the relevant parts.

Are they in the GameData/Tantares folder? Humm, it shouldn't matter but are they named something like _Extra_RemoteTech?