legoclone09 Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 34 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: Looks fantastic. But I thought you got rid of the blue Gemini in favor of a gray one? You can add the Blue Gemini parts separately, they are in the main download. I love them! Green Soyuz also rocks. 2 hours ago, Beale said: 1.875m Nosecone for next release then! Also the 1.875m to 1.25m adapter? I would like that more instead of a nosecone so we can use it structurally. I would need it to be structural for my stations! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 15, 2015 Author Share Posted December 15, 2015 (edited) 54 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: Looks fantastic. But I thought you got rid of the blue Gemini in favor of a gray one? Thanks! Funny thing, I must have misplaced the Grey PSD file. No plans to make the Gemini blue again 19 minutes ago, legoclone09 said: Also the 1.875m to 1.25m adapter? I would like that more instead of a nosecone so we can use it structurally. I would need it to be structural for my stations! Already have that, just need to texture it Edited December 15, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 @Beale , the Unity 5 components are looking beautiful! Can't wait to give them a go when 1.1 finally rolls out. Excellent work as always! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 15, 2015 Author Share Posted December 15, 2015 1 hour ago, Jack Wolfe said: @Beale , the Unity 5 components are looking beautiful! Can't wait to give them a go when 1.1 finally rolls out. Excellent work as always! Thanks! 2.5m Salyut Engine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenomousRequiem Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 You should make some fancy fighter jet parts so that this meme I found applies: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 15, 2015 Author Share Posted December 15, 2015 34 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said: You should make some fancy fighter jet parts so that this meme I found applies: I'm a little more Goose than Maverick, but plane parts can be delivered! Almaz May I find any good references for the Almaz dockng/propulsion system? It's a little difficult to find any information! Greatly appreciated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenomousRequiem Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 If you push that through unity and send me the .mu, I will totally turn it into a functional plane. :b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtquarquesso Posted December 15, 2015 Share Posted December 15, 2015 4 minutes ago, Beale said: Almaz May I find any good references for the Almaz dockng/propulsion system? It's a little difficult to find any information! Greatly appreciated! I'm on it. Give me a few minutes here to find the right materials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtquarquesso Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 Salyut Almaz Ok, so, not as complicated as you'd think. If you've the diagrams I've posted of the 2nd Generation DOS stations, you've already got much of the needed information. It's nearly identical to the 2nd Gen DOS Integrated Docking and Propulsion module, it's just that half of the hull isn't present. All the engine plumbing and the docking tunnel is left exposed, and it contains a bit less propellant from what I can see. As you can see, the docking port, and the OMS engines are in the same place as the 2nd Gen DOS systems. Not sure if I posted some of these, but here's some of what's out there in terms of resources. Unfortunately, the books I have right now were published before some of this stuff was declassified, so they don't contain correct information. One difference is that the docking tunnel has a weird bulge in it for various reasons, as well as the launcher airlock thing, which isn't worth fooling with really. The best info on it is of course found on Encyclopedia Astronautica's page on the Almaz OPS stations. (Salyut 2, Salyut 3, and Salyut 5.) 1 hour ago, Beale said: 2.5m Salyut Engine Not sure if I dig it actually. I can't think of a reason for this part to exist other than that it exists already. I would ditch the 2.5m base part, and just focus on the 1.25m engine. It doesn't have any real-world counterpart, does it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 16, 2015 Author Share Posted December 16, 2015 (edited) 17 hours ago, curtquarquesso said: Salyut Almaz Ok, so, not as complicated as you'd think. If you've the diagrams I've posted of the 2nd Generation DOS stations, you've already got much of the needed information. It's nearly identical to the 2nd Gen DOS Integrated Docking and Propulsion module, it's just that half of the hull isn't present. All the engine plumbing and the docking tunnel is left exposed, and it contains a bit less propellant from what I can see. As you can see, the docking port, and the OMS engines are in the same place as the 2nd Gen DOS systems. Not sure if I posted some of these, but here's some of what's out there in terms of resources. Unfortunately, the books I have right now were published before some of this stuff was declassified, so they don't contain correct information. One difference is that the docking tunnel has a weird bulge in it for various reasons, as well as the launcher airlock thing, which isn't worth fooling with really. The best info on it is of course found on Encyclopedia Astronautica's page on the Almaz OPS stations. (Salyut 2, Salyut 3, and Salyut 5.) Not sure if I dig it actually. I can't think of a reason for this part to exist other than that it exists already. I would ditch the 2.5m base part, and just focus on the 1.25m engine. It doesn't have any real-world counterpart, does it? How it is I did not think to check Encyclopedia Astronautica? Eh. This is great information, thank you a lot! I can work something out to make this (If the bulges are being left out...), it could use some Almaz solar panels also... On the 2.5m engine, I have your concerns. I would scrap it, however use of the current 2.5m engine is so widespread I think that change would have deep craft-breaking implications. So, this part does not need extra textures, and fills the 2.5m engine slot well. Also, this part has small advantage of offering inline fairings of 2.5m (So you can drop it straight onto a Proton stack). 19 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said: If you push that through unity and send me the .mu, I will totally turn it into a functional plane. :b Sadly it is lost to the memory bin! Edited December 16, 2015 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtquarquesso Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 4 minutes ago, Beale said: How it is I did not think to check Encyclopedia Astronautica? Eh. This is great information, thank you a lot! I can work something out to make this (If the bulges are being left out...), it could use some Almaz solar panels also... On the 2.5m engine, I have your concerns. I would scrap it, however use of the current 2.5m engine is so widespread I think that change would have deep craft-breaking implications. So, this part does not need extra textures, and fills the 2.5m engine slot well. Also, this part has small advantage of offering inline fairings of 2.5m (So you can drop it straight onto a Proton stack). Sadly it is lost to the memory bin! Almaz Docking and Propulsion Unit Very nice shape. Forget the large bulges indeed. What would be nice would be a gentle bowing out of the conical shape. Nothing crazy, just enough to make it look interesting. Are you planning on integrating the spherical propellant tanks into the model, or will you leave that to players? If the latter, you'd need larger propellant tanks, which frankly, would be nice in their own right. Either way would probably be fine. 2.5m OMS Engine That's a very good point regarding the fairing. I had not thought of that, and admittedly can't think of a better solution at the moment. I think maybe it's the trussed base that weirds me out. It looks like there are stock struts surrounding it, and it's just... Different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 16, 2015 Author Share Posted December 16, 2015 1 hour ago, curtquarquesso said: Almaz Docking and Propulsion Unit Very nice shape. Forget the large bulges indeed. What would be nice would be a gentle bowing out of the conical shape. Nothing crazy, just enough to make it look interesting. Are you planning on integrating the spherical propellant tanks into the model, or will you leave that to players? If the latter, you'd need larger propellant tanks, which frankly, would be nice in their own right. Either way would probably be fine. Thanks! Can you explain "bowing out"? Sorry I am not familiar with that phrase. I think the propellant tanks and the frame structure should be integrated into the model, there needs also to be a place to put solar panels. Larger spherical tanks? Yes I think that will be a good replacement for current Salyut propellant tanks! So many things! So many specular maps... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMeeb Posted December 16, 2015 Share Posted December 16, 2015 On 12/15/2015, 12:04:50, Delta_8930 said: The cinematic up front is undoubtedly the best cinematic I've ever seen. What mods were used to make it? Thank you. I worked hard on that! I've shied away from making a modlist because there are just so many mods in the install, and a CKAN list wouldn't completely cover it. I can give you a screenshot of the CKAN list though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 17, 2015 Author Share Posted December 17, 2015 More PBR I want to ask: How do people feel about normal maps, is the little boost to fidelity worth the (quite big) memory footprint? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 44 minutes ago, Beale said: More PBR I want to ask: How do people feel about normal maps, is the little boost to fidelity worth the (quite big) memory footprint? Honestly, I think it would be hard to tell the difference in-game, especially for smaller parts. You'd probably need to be zoomed-in quite a bit to notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacsky33 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 Normal map for 1.1 will be a masterpiece your diffuse textures are already so good (i'm so jealous). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 It really comes down to a question of "how much more memory?" - I mean, the visuals are amazing, but I maintain that in most viewing modes/angles/distances the difference would probably not be noticed. It's hard to know. Maybe do one common part (say, the soyuz crew capsule) normal map'ed , and put it out as a demo, to allow side by side comparisons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjee10 Posted December 17, 2015 Share Posted December 17, 2015 For me normal maps would be a very welcome addition (since, bizarrely, the 64bit KSP hack is far more stable on Mac than the 32bit one) but I would hold off until 1.1 to avoid any problems. Tantares is a pretty big mod as it is without effectively doubling the number of textures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtquarquesso Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 25 minutes ago, benjee10 said: For me normal maps would be a very welcome addition (since, bizarrely, the 64bit KSP hack is far more stable on Mac than the 32bit one) but I would hold off until 1.1 to avoid any problems. Tantares is a pretty big mod as it is without effectively doubling the number of textures. Same result here. I was always told that KSP would be an unstable mess, but since running 64-bit on OS X, It's been more stable than it ever has, with seemingly no cap on the number of add-ons that I can install. Only limit right now is framerate with regards to visual enhancements and the like. On normal maps, I would wait for 1.1, for sure. Tantares has always been something that nearly anyone can run due to the ridiculously low footprint for the amount of parts it provides, mainly due to your ability to optimize the living crap out of texture sheets. I'd use the time before 1.1 to flesh out all the different part sets, clean up the catalog, and get al parts up to date with a unified style, and then go in and do normal maps, and perhaps other PBR things if you so desire. But, you've got establish the part catalog first, and do cleanup first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASMIR Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Will there be an IVA for the Apollo-analogue and the Polaris? Also, shouldn't the soyuz carry three(or at least have a variant that does)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VASMIR Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Will there be an IVA for the Apollo-analogue and the Polaris? Also, shouldn't the soyuz carry three(or at least have a variant that does)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtquarquesso Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 4 hours ago, VASMIR said: Will there be an IVA for the Apollo-analogue and the Polaris? Also, shouldn't the soyuz carry three(or at least have a variant that does)? I'll assume you're referring to the TKS VA capsule. I'm sure it will someday, but basically all IVA questions can be answered with "not until 1.1 is out." 1.1 will make IVA creation easier. Because the Soyuz is 1.25m in this add-on, it's very unbalanced to cram three Kerbals in a 1.25m capsule. Plus, they physically barely fit in the volume, even without helmets on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMeeb Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 I'm sorry. I love sharing 64K Tantares screenshots. I can't help myself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 11 hours ago, curtquarquesso said: Because the Soyuz is 1.25m in this add-on, it's very unbalanced to cram three Kerbals in a 1.25m capsule. Plus, they physically barely fit in the volume, even without helmets on. At least it's not unprecedented. Soyuz flew for years with only two occupants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted December 19, 2015 Author Share Posted December 19, 2015 2 hours ago, MrMeeb said: I'm sorry. I love sharing 64K Tantares screenshots. I can't help myself! Amazing! 32 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: At least it's not unprecedented. Soyuz flew for years with only two occupants. Very true! But, yes - three Kerbals in the 1.25m capsule is not going to ever happen. Solar Panels Salyut revamp is very close to completion, just the Antennas remain... 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.