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

[hendrack]

1 hour ago, Beale said:

On IVAs again, if I were to be directed to a good process to bake Lightmaps (Which I can still use Wings3D for the main bulk of modelling), they would be much quicker to make.

https://unity3d.com/learn/tutorials/modules/beginner/graphics/lighting-and-rendering

http://ogrehead.com/2015/09/how-to-lightmap-in-unity-5/

Does this help? Wish I could help but I have absolutely zero knowledge about 3d rendering

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, Beale said:

On IVAs again, if I were to be directed to a good process to bake Lightmaps (Which I can still use Wings3D for the main bulk of modelling), they would be much quicker to make.

 

Didn't we get the new IVA shader that renders AO at runtime so you don't have to bake it into the texture?

[Beale]

22 minutes ago, hendrack said:

https://unity3d.com/learn/tutorials/modules/beginner/graphics/lighting-and-rendering

http://ogrehead.com/2015/09/how-to-lightmap-in-unity-5/

Does this help? Wish I could help but I have absolutely zero knowledge about 3d rendering

Hehe, those are the resources I have been using, with only  limited success.

Thanks though!

7 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Didn't we get the new IVA shader that renders AO at runtime so you don't have to bake it into the texture?

The new IVA shader still requires a separate map, but it can be quite low resolution (stock seems to use 512,512 - but it could be lower).
The bonus, you can have a huge diffuse texture that gets re-used across every IVA, with each IVA having a custom light-map for the lovely AO.

Edit: That's correct? Right? (I'd love to be proven wrong on this one).

 

Edited April 28, 2016 by Beale

[Danny88]

3 hours ago, Beale said:

I f    y o u    k n o w    w h a t    I    m e a n.

Eh? Eh? Wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more!

Oh man. Now I'm imagining this sketch in space with Kerbals. Beale, do you know of any wooden rabbit mod?

[Beale]

10 minutes ago, Danny88 said:

Beale, do you know of any wooden rabbit mod?

Say no more.

[hoojiwana]

2 hours ago, Beale said:

The new IVA shader still requires a separate map, but it can be quite low resolution (stock seems to use 512,512 - but it could be lower).
The bonus, you can have a huge diffuse texture that gets re-used across every IVA, with each IVA having a custom light-map for the lovely AO.

Edit: That's correct? Right? (I'd love to be proven wrong on this one).

I think that may have been part of the reason for these new IVA shaders, @Porkjet will know for sure (if he's not too busy).

[captainradish]

12 hours ago, Beale said:

I want to direct you to the N1 launch history, it made it way past the launch tower! Given just one more launch, it may have flown successfully.

I love the audacity that is the N1 and really wish it could have flown. However, it was probably the correct decision to kill this launcher as it had four *major* failures in a row.

[autumnalequinox]

6 hours ago, konsti156 said:

what a shame

the hacked version is the 1.1 compatible version of TAC

Unfortunately it seems to be really unstable.  I threw up tons of error spam before crashing my game.  I do believe it's being taken over by a new mod author.

22 hours ago, captainradish said:

I use CTT, so this is certainly of interest to me.

What I can think of off the top of my head is we need the lower section of the Soyuz rocket, a radial decoupler (Beale, what happened to the long one you had, btw? It was great!), and the 1.25m fairing available at the same time as the Sputnik probe. Of course, it may be easier to just move the Sputnik to tier 3 rather, but I would prefer moving the probe's launcher to tier 2.

I'm going to set up a "cheat" game with full tree unlocked and mostly focus on spreading out parts (CTT divides command pods into like 5-6 different techs for example).  If the author changed any of the stock tech requirements I don't want to override their judgement.  Just keep from having too many parts come with a single tech level.

[Danny88]

4 hours ago, Beale said:

Say no more.

Bwahahahaha! That's great!

Edited April 29, 2016 by Danny88

[Beale]

15 hours ago, hoojiwana said:

I think that may have been part of the reason for these new IVA shaders, @Porkjet will know for sure (if he's not too busy).

That would be wonderful!

It is somewhat confusing, when I try to apply the lightmap I generated in Unity to the internal space shader, I think it was applied to the first set of UVs and not the Lightmap UVs (Correct terminology?).

In other news, the LK-1 service module has been altered to be a little more clear that it contains Monopropellant.

 

 

[Beale]

So, question.

I am trying to update the style guide to make my parts a little more consistent, especially on connection points. The extreme thickness of the 1.875m parts, which you can see in the above post, is bothering me.
What is preferred?

• Wall thickness as a percentage of overall diameter (10%, Top Row)
• Wall thickness as a fixed value (0.0625m, Bottom Row)

[CobaltWolf]

I vote for the top / 10% option. Or maybe a compromise, start at 10% for 0.625m and move down to like 4-5% for 2.5m.

[cxg2827]

Here is my view.

What is modeled at the ends of the cylinders is not actually the wall thickness throughout the whole part. Instead what is shown is a ring stiffener/flange for the part at the ends. I personally think your LK-1 service module's connection point looks ok.

But, if it is for modeling consistency, I would agree with @CobaltWolf's suggestion of doing 10% for smaller diameters, then decrease the % as you go up in diameter. 10% seems a bit too bulky for the 2.5m example.

 

[CobaltWolf]

^^The LK part that apparently spawned this looks excellent. Especially with the white/yellow/gray scheme of the new texture. Delicious.

[Beale]

16 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I vote for the top / 10% option. Or maybe a compromise, start at 10% for 0.625m and move down to like 4-5% for 2.5m.

Interesting, let me try this...

9 minutes ago, cxg2827 said:

Here is my view.

What is modeled at the ends of the cylinders is not actually the wall thickness throughout the whole part. Instead what is shown is a ring stiffener/flange for the part at the ends. I personally think your LK-1 service module's connection point looks ok.

But, if it is for modeling consistency, I would agree with @CobaltWolf's suggestion of doing 10% for smaller diameters, then decrease the % as you go up in diameter. 10% seems a bit too bulky for the 2.5m example.

 

That is how I currently picture it, space dolphin, but it could be confusing.

The trouble is, finding the change in percentage as size increases. You need an "inverse function" (???) I am not very good at mathematics unfortunately.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Beale

[curtquarquesso]

I think for better input, you need to determine what looks best for fuel tanks, and what looks best for habitable/structural/utility parts. The former needs thinner sidewalls for more realistic fuel/mass ratios, and the latter can justify thicker sidewalls because of MMOD protection, insulation, wiring, etc. 

In practice, this is what a fuel tank looks like when the sidewall thickness is kept relatively the same regardless of the part diameter. It's great, and looks very feasible.

Your cutaway explains it well, but recall that you're the only who makes that assumption, and has an idea of what the inside of the tank looks like. The current modeling just isn't clear enough to communicate that level of detail to the player. The modeled and AO'd recess on hooj's little 0.625m tank communicates that idea much, much better. 

Edited April 29, 2016 by curtquarquesso

[CobaltWolf]

3 minutes ago, Beale said:

The trouble is, finding the change in percentage as size increases. You need an "inverse function" (???) I am not very good at mathematics unfortunately.

You could just go 10%, 8.75%, 7.5%, 6.25%, 5% for the five sizes.

[Beale]

9 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

I think for better input, you need to determine what looks best for fuel tanks, and what looks best for habitable/structural/utility parts. The former needs thinner sidewalls for more realistic fuel/mass ratios, and the latter can justify thicker sidewalls because of MMOD protection, insulation, wiring, etc. 

In practice, this is what a fuel tank looks like when the sidewall thickness is kept relatively the same regardless of the part diameter. On the small tank, there's an inside recession which looks very nice. 

Your cutaway explains it well, but recall that you're the only who makes that assumption. The modeling just isn't clear enough to communicate that level of detail to the player. The modeled and AO'd recess on hooj's little 0.625m tank there is what you need to make that translate to the player.  

Nice points  

I don't know about having different thicknesses for different types of parts. The idea of consistent thickness is that all the parts will connect at the same point. When two different wall thicknesses meet you get overhangs which I don't like so much. It's a very minor visual thing, but it drives me crazy! 

I like the recesses a lot, I should give them a try also  

8 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

You could just go 10%, 8.75%, 7.5%, 6.25%, 5% for the five sizes.

Nice! That works well. It does reach negative percentages by the time you reach the huge N1 parts though  (But, the numbers can stop at 1.25%).

Edited April 29, 2016 by Beale

[CobaltWolf]

Just now, Beale said:

Nice! That works well. It does reach negative percentages by the time you reach the huge N1 parts though  

Well how many sizes do you use? 0.o N1 would be... 3.75% and 2.5%.

[curtquarquesso]

15 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

You could just go 10%, 8.75%, 7.5%, 6.25%, 5% for the five sizes.

One pro to using a fixed sidewall thickness is that you don't have to re-texture the bolt pattern with every size. As long as all tanks have the same thickness, and same number of sides, the only thing you have to change is the length of each UV'd segment. It would make part creation way easier. I like dealing with specific, non-repeating, rational numbers in Wings. Using percentages is a real pain in the ass because you've got to remember which percentages you used, and in the modeling process, if you want to verify all your diameters while you're working, you have to remember that a 10% size reduction of 0.9375m is 0.84375m, and then if you recess that by 5% for the bulkhead, then the diameter will be 0.8015625m, and it just gets crazier from there. Messy messy business when actually modeling this stuff. 

9 minutes ago, Beale said:

Nice points  

I don't know about having different thicknesses for different types of parts. The idea of consistent thickness is that all the parts will connect at the same point. When two different wall thicknesses meet you get overhangs which I don't like so much. It's a very minor visual thing, but it drives me crazy! 

Well, if you want to have your cake and eat it too, go with the recessed option for tanks. That way the thickness looks reasonable, but there's a nice interface to connect the tanks together with of a consistent width. (The recessed option used on hooj's tank.)

Edited April 29, 2016 by curtquarquesso

[Beale]

19 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Well how many sizes do you use? 0.o N1 would be... 3.75% and 2.5%.

Let me double check my calculations!  

I'm assuming reducing the percentage every half step in sizing, that is probably where we differ.

2.5m -> 5%
3.125m -> 3.75%
3.75m -> 2.5%
4.375m -> 1.25%
5.0m -> 0%
6.25m -> -1.25%
7.5m -> -2.5% 
(Yes, the N1 is that big!).

But, yeah, the percentage can have a minimum of 1.25%, no big problem.
 

Quote

One pro to using a fixed sidewall thickness is that you don't have to re-texture the bolt pattern with every size. As long as all tanks have the same thickness, and same number of sides, the only thing you have to change is the length of each UV'd segment. It would make part creation way easier. I like dealing with specific, non-repeating, rational numbers in Wings. Using percentages is a real pain in the ass because you've got to remember which percentages you used, and in the modeling process, if you want to verify all your diameters while you're working, you have to remember that a 10% size reduction of 0.9375m is 0.84375m, and then if you recess that by 5% for the bulkhead, that the diameter will be 0.8015625m, and it just gets crazier from there. Messy messy business when actually modeling this stuff. 

Well, if you want to have your cake and eat it too, go with the recessed option for tanks. That way the thickness looks reasonable, but there's a nice interface to connect the tanks together with of a consistent width. (The recessed option used on hooj's tank.)

Recess all with fixed width for the same bolt texture is really handy I agree. They can take up texture space very neatly.

Though if you dedicate a bit more space that looks really good too (hoojiwana does this).

 

I will see how easy it is to recess existing parts.

 

I do enjoy how minor things become major talking points  

Edited April 29, 2016 by Beale

[trooperMNG]

Guys sorry if the question is stupid (long day of study, I hope you will excuse me) but I cannot find the MAPC parts. I recently updated to 1.1 but there are no MAPC parts in the new Tantares. Were they eliminated for ever or they are only in need of update? Or is a separate pack?

[Beale]

1 minute ago, trooperMNG said:

Guys sorry if the question is stupid (long day of study, I hope you will excuse me) but I cannot find the MAPC parts. I recently updated to 1.1 but there are no MAPC parts in the new Tantares. Were they eliminated for ever or they are only in need of update? Or is a separate pack?

They were removed because they are not finished yet  

If you go on SpaceDock -> changelog, you can see the two versions. The later version has the changelog "Removed MAPC" or something similar, get the version before that.

[trooperMNG]

17 minutes ago, Beale said:

They were removed because they are not finished yet  

If you go on SpaceDock -> changelog, you can see the two versions. The later version has the changelog "Removed MAPC" or something similar, get the version before that.

Thank you Beale, as always. Anyway, tomorrow I will try a fresh install from SpaceDock (CKAN is giving me trouble this days) because Proton turned out to be unflyable and your docking ports do not dock at all in orbit

[Beale]

My first full opportunity to play 1.1:

Is part wobble a returning issue? I am getting very 0.18 like wobble on vessel unpack. Though once loaded and allowed to settle they are okay.

I sent two Salyut 7 like stations to a low orbit. The first had its solar panels ripped off, from a pair of fairings with too low an ejection rate. 

One interesting conclusion is that cutting out the third stage entirely is a pretty good compromise to the "proton is overpowered" argument. 

Edited April 29, 2016 by Beale