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

[Zorg]

Totally hyped for new Soyuz but in the meantime...

This is a real nice new addition to the Tantares family Beale!

[Marcelo Silveira]

On 4/21/2019 at 5:02 PM, Beale said:

I think yes, the easiest way to do it will be (optional) B9PS intergration

Using B9PS has its pros and cons.
Cons (in my humble opinion): It adds a dependency, which some people might not like...
Pros (in my humble opinion):  it greatly reduces part clutter.

Honestly, I would go for the B9PS option

[unclepirog]

7 hours ago, Marcelo Silveira said:

Honestly, I would go for the B9PS option

Me too

[tjsnh]

On 4/19/2019 at 6:05 PM, Beale said:

Ah okay, I follow.

Well I guess it is important to stress that both the 1.25m and 1.875m Soyuz tanks will still be available (And the 1.5 tanks are already in Tantares, if hidden by default) on top of whatever else, but for the 1.5m tanks we have options:

• Don't include them.
• Add them as a mesh variant for the 1.25m tanks (Visual only).
• Add them as full parts (Fuel amounts correct, etc), hidden by default by a deletable MM patch.
• Add them as B9PS variants, hidden by default by MM patch,
• Add them as mesh variant, but hidden by MM patch by default (this is the softest softest approach).

2 & 3 are pretty comparable to the current setup.  4 Is interesting, but open to hear thoughts.

Option 6 : Just include them normally alongside the others ?

If the parts already exist, it sounds like the work is already done.

Edited April 23, 2019 by tjsnh

[CobaltWolf]

14 hours ago, Marcelo Silveira said:

Using B9PS has its pros and cons.
Cons (in my humble opinion): It adds a dependency, which some people might not like...
Pros (in my humble opinion):  it greatly reduces part clutter.

Honestly, I would go for the B9PS option

7 hours ago, unclepirog said:

Me too

Echoing a pro-B9 stance since it also gives you a lot more capability as a mod author especially with some of the new features being rolled out. With competitors like Firespitter dying B9PS is becoming ubiquitous like MM is, so I don't think it's all that big of a deal to include as a dependency. It's not like @blowfish is about to pick up and walk away from KSP any time soon.

But, if not, I say the second option - just have them as a mesh variant, with no provision for switching the fuel amounts. The difference in performance is nominal, and you don't have to go through the headache of which Soyuz is the "correct" one for balance purposes.

 

 

[Flynnius]

Hey @Beale, I had a concern about the A-RS31 "Duskregn" Rocket Motor. I am trying to use it as part of a Proton Rocket to launch the Core of the Mir however, whenever I fire the engine, there appears to be no control over the engine and the craft starts spinning. I can get a short video for you if you need that. 

Keep up the good work!

Edited April 23, 2019 by Flynnius

[Jeb Jawkins]

Hey guys!

After a little time away from KSP I've updated everything to 1.6.1 (will wait 'till my favorite mods are updated to 1.7.0) and I am once again amazed by this beautiful mod.

Unfotunately I seem to experience a bug. As this only happens to Tantares crafts I decided to ask for help here.

 

So: Everytime I try to launch a tantares vessel it can not take of and keeps floating mid air above the launch pad. Decoupled parts don't fall as well. I make sure that the lifter is not underpowered everytime. Again: this doesn't happen non-Tantares vessels.

 

Below is list of content of my GameData folder (Everything's updated to 1.6.1 except for WheelsCollection) :

Spoiler

B9PartSwitch
Benjee10_sharedAssets
Bluedog_DB
Bluedog_DB_Extras
Chatterer
CommunityCategoryKit
CommunityResourcePack
Contares
DMagicScienceAnimate
DnD_Alt
FinalFrontier.dat
Firespitter.dll
HabTech2
HullCameraVDS
KAS
Kerbalism
KIS
MechJeb2
ModuleManager.4.0.2.dll
ModuleManager.ConfigCache
ModuleManager.ConfigSHA
ModuleManager.Physics
ModuleManager.TechTree
Nereid
PersistentRotation
ProjectManager
remove_fun_part_patch.cfg
Squad
SurfaceExperimentPackage
Tantares
TantaresLV
TextureReplacer
WheelsCollection

Thanks in advance!

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, Jeb Jawkins said:

Hey guys!

After a little time away from KSP I've updated everything to 1.6.1 (will wait 'till my favorite mods are updated to 1.7.0) and I am once again amazed by this beautiful mod.

Unfotunately I seem to experience a bug. As this only happens to Tantares crafts I decided to ask for help here.

 

So: Everytime I try to launch a tantares vessel it can not take of and keeps floating mid air above the launch pad. Decoupled parts don't fall as well. I make sure that the lifter is not underpowered everytime. Again: this doesn't happen non-Tantares vessels.

  

Below is list of content of my GameData folder (Everything's updated to 1.6.1 except for WheelsCollection) : 

Thanks in advance!

*the following statement has been compiled without the benefit of seeing any logs...  as such it is a less than ideal answer.*

1) are your rockets slowing down as they go higher?

2) do you cap out below 5K altitude (hung will not climb higher?

If the answer is yes to either of those check your parachutes.   Likely a Chute has a Drag-Cube entry and the game is calculating another drag cube entry.  

 

I should also say that while I am not familiar with EVERY mod you have in there, many of them are already 1.7 compatible without needing a new download. 

ALTERNATIVELY you could have a Module Manager patch that has a FOR statement for something like RealChutes or a similar mod altering parachutes...   After the FOR statement, modulemanger there is an actual mod called whatever was in the FOR statement.   A really powerful tool but sub-par code breaks things easily in conjunction with this. (it is likely a FOR[RealChute] call.)

 

I hope that helps.

[Jeb Jawkins]

2 hours ago, Pappystein said:

*the following statement has been compiled without the benefit of seeing any logs...  as such it is a less than ideal answer.*

1) are your rockets slowing down as they go higher?

2) do you cap out below 5K altitude (hung will not climb higher?

If the answer is yes to either of those check your parachutes.   Likely a Chute has a Drag-Cube entry and the game is calculating another drag cube entry.  

 

I should also say that while I am not familiar with EVERY mod you have in there, many of them are already 1.7 compatible without needing a new download. 

ALTERNATIVELY you could have a Module Manager patch that has a FOR statement for something like RealChutes or a similar mod altering parachutes...   After the FOR statement, modulemanger there is an actual mod called whatever was in the FOR statement.   A really powerful tool but sub-par code breaks things easily in conjunction with this. (it is likely a FOR[RealChute] call.)

 

I hope that helps.

Thank you!

The ship don't even lift of and seem to be held back by an invisible barrier.

 

Launch vehicles don't seem to be affected as BDB-Apollo lifts on top of Proton with no problems. The Tantares pods don't lift atop of other rockets as well.

 

EDIT: The MMPatch.log states a warning for Tantares/Patches/KIS

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Jeb Jawkins

[Pappystein]

1 hour ago, Jeb Jawkins said:

Thank you!

Launch vehicles don't seem to be affected as BDB-Apollo lifts on top of Proton with no problems. The Tantares pods don't lift atop of other rockets as well.

EDIT: The MMPatch.log states a warning for Tantares/Patches/KIS

 

*EDITED* Ignore the origional post shrunk down below.   I miss-read the previous post!

You have narrowed the issue down to the capsules.  I would check if the Parachutes are causing the issue.... easy check, remove the parachute and put a generic stock parachute ON the capsule somewhere.   Try to launch.

*Make certain you are not accidentally using parachutes (or parts) from another mod on your test capsule.   Stock and Tantares only please.

 

A couple of things to look for in the mmpatch.log....   Any call to RealChutes (search for RealChute and see if anything comes up that says RealChutes is detected or some such.)  The Term Parachute (check if anything special is being called out) and the term Drag-Cube.

Just to be clear.

If you put a BDB Apollo on top of Proton will the ROCKET launch or does it do the hovering?   I don't care if the Apollo capsule can be separated and launched away.  I care if the Rocket itself is causing the issues or if it is the capsule causing the issues.

Did you use a Craft file to make your proton or did you make it yourself (this MATTERS A LOT!)

Lastly:  Do you have problems with any other Rockets beyond Proton from Tantares?

 

As a good check.  Try separating the stages of Proton like in your last picture but leave each of the stages running (don't shut them down or let them run out of fuel.)   See what, if any, stages fly up up and away!  (sorry I couldn't resist)

Any stage that flys away is NOT the problem..... likely.  Any stage that stays ground bound IS the problem.  If an upper stage is holding a lower stage back it should be easy to see (try steering the rocket one way or the next to see if the lower stage trys to wiggle out and escape.

 

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by Pappystein
I missed part of a sentance!

[Jeb Jawkins]

14 hours ago, Pappystein said:

*EDITED* Ignore the origional post shrunk down below.   I miss-read the previous post!

You have narrowed the issue down to the capsules.  I would check if the Parachutes are causing the issue.... easy check, remove the parachute and put a generic stock parachute ON the capsule somewhere.   Try to launch.

*Make certain you are not accidentally using parachutes (or parts) from another mod on your test capsule.   Stock and Tantares only please.

 

A couple of things to look for in the mmpatch.log....   Any call to RealChutes (search for RealChute and see if anything comes up that says RealChutes is detected or some such.)  The Term Parachute (check if anything special is being called out) and the term Drag-Cube.

Just to be clear.

If you put a BDB Apollo on top of Proton will the ROCKET launch or does it do the hovering?   I don't care if the Apollo capsule can be separated and launched away.  I care if the Rocket itself is causing the issues or if it is the capsule causing the issues.

Did you use a Craft file to make your proton or did you make it yourself (this MATTERS A LOT!)

Lastly:  Do you have problems with any other Rockets beyond Proton from Tantares?

 

As a good check.  Try separating the stages of Proton like in your last picture but leave each of the stages running (don't shut them down or let them run out of fuel.)   See what, if any, stages fly up up and away!  (sorry I couldn't resist)

Any stage that flys away is NOT the problem..... likely.  Any stage that stays ground bound IS the problem.  If an upper stage is holding a lower stage back it should be easy to see (try steering the rocket one way or the next to see if the lower stage trys to wiggle out and escape.

 

 

Okay. Thanks again & sorry for my rather confusing English.

I've been checking those things. Only mod that affects Tantares parachutes in MMPatch.log is the Tantares-in-colors-mod which is supposed be changig meshes only. Then I realised that my Progress-craft didn't had any parachutes attached at all.

Tried to launch that all Tantares/all Stock Progress with Proton & Soyuz rocket again and it still got stuck. I then removed the orbital module and the whole thing lifted of just fine.

I am wondering whether this could be linked to the KIS-warning which I've mentioned from the MMPatch.log-file because the Progress-Orbital-module is the only one which has KIS-Inventory at my Progress-craft. (Also: the crafts are all made by myself and are not loaded from a downloaded craft-file.) So when was the KIS-patch-file (Tantares) updated the last time and may it matter that Tantares-part-names slighlty differ (Underscore in filename, no underscore in partname)?

Edited April 25, 2019 by Jeb Jawkins
Added an observation I forgot

[Beale]

On 4/22/2019 at 7:51 PM, Zorg said:

Totally hyped for new Soyuz but in the meantime...

This is a real nice new addition to the Tantares family Beale!


 

Oh man, nice! (And this launch site??).

I really love these screens, I would use the first with your blessing

On 4/23/2019 at 12:03 AM, Marcelo Silveira said:

Using B9PS has its pros and cons.
Cons (in my humble opinion): It adds a dependency, which some people might not like...
Pros (in my humble opinion):  it greatly reduces part clutter.

Honestly, I would go for the B9PS option

On 4/23/2019 at 7:43 AM, unclepirog said:

Me too

On 4/23/2019 at 2:55 PM, CobaltWolf said:

Echoing a pro-B9 stance since it also gives you a lot more capability as a mod author especially with some of the new features being rolled out. With competitors like Firespitter dying B9PS is becoming ubiquitous like MM is, so I don't think it's all that big of a deal to include as a dependency. It's not like @blowfish is about to pick up and walk away from KSP any time soon.

But, if not, I say the second option - just have them as a mesh variant, with no provision for switching the fuel amounts. The difference in performance is nominal, and you don't have to go through the headache of which Soyuz is the "correct" one for balance purposes.

 

 

Thanks for the feedback, well, maybe a WIP release with just the mesh-switch and see how people feel about it?

With some magic the B9PS can be completely optional, in other words no dependencies, so I am pretty okay with the idea.

On 4/23/2019 at 2:35 PM, tjsnh said:

Option 6 : Just include them normally alongside the others ?

If the parts already exist, it sounds like the work is already done.

My only concern for this is you might end up with 1.5m and 1.25m parts side-by-side in the VAB, and they are almost very close, a little confusing!

For this reason, variants seem better than separate parts. (The current "E" part variants were supposed to represent "size 1 enhanced" or something similar).

On 4/23/2019 at 6:41 PM, Flynnius said:

Hey @Beale, I had a concern about the A-RS31 "Duskregn" Rocket Motor. I am trying to use it as part of a Proton Rocket to launch the Core of the Mir however, whenever I fire the engine, there appears to be no control over the engine and the craft starts spinning. I can get a short video for you if you need that. 

Keep up the good work!

Thanks, I will take a look.

It may not have the control necessary. Short video would be really handy!

On 4/24/2019 at 5:38 PM, Jeb Jawkins said:

Hey guys!

After a little time away from KSP I've updated everything to 1.6.1 (will wait 'till my favorite mods are updated to 1.7.0) and I am once again amazed by this beautiful mod.

Unfotunately I seem to experience a bug. As this only happens to Tantares crafts I decided to ask for help here.

So: Everytime I try to launch a tantares vessel it can not take of and keeps floating mid air above the launch pad. Decoupled parts don't fall as well. I make sure that the lifter is not underpowered everytime. Again: this doesn't happen non-Tantares vessels.

Below is list of content of my GameData folder (Everything's updated to 1.6.1 except for WheelsCollection) :

Thanks in advance!

Really strange behaviour!  Unfortunately I'm out of ideas, really Tantares is very vanilla so issues like this I would rarely think it's responsible for (I can't rule anything out though).

I will check the KIS patch for reported errors.

Anyone else experience this?

 

 

Edited April 25, 2019 by Beale

[Barzon]

19 minutes ago, Beale said:

Oh man, nice! (And this launch site??).

 

I think the pad is from damonvv's Tundra Launch Pads  

[Zorg]

5 hours ago, Beale said:

Oh man, nice! (And this launch site??).

I really love these screens, I would use the first with your blessing

Hey Beale consider permission granted in perpetuity for any screens posted in your thread 

The launch site is Pad 46 from Tundra's space centre used together with one of the recent new additions to AlphaMensae's modular launch pads (dev branch). Actually I have since stopped using the big service tower and just stick now to the launch plate. This particular part is called the "american" launch stand but I used the green variant to make it look more Russian. The nice thing about it is the thin drop back service pole which really lends the Kosmos launch some authenticity. (actually not sure if the real thing was a fall back type but looks close enough though)

source: https://www.yuzhnoye.com/en/company/history/kosmos_2.html

 

[TK-313]

7 hours ago, Zorg said:

actually not sure if the real thing was a fall back type

It wasn't, if by "fall back type" you mean that the arm would fall back at the moment of launch – here first the arm would retract by about 20 degrees, then the rocket would launch. But yes, looks pretty close! As for the big tower – you can see that Kosmos is actually serviced from a mobile one.

 

Edited April 26, 2019 by TK-313

[tjsnh]

13 hours ago, Beale said:

My only concern for this is you might end up with 1.5m and 1.25m parts side-by-side in the VAB, and they are almost very close, a little confusing! 

As a thought, this already happens with decouplers, fairings, and some of the structural parts like those engine plates from the MH expansion. These wouldnt be the only two parts that look similar in the VAB ;-)

[Zorg]

59 minutes ago, TK-313 said:

It wasn't, if by "fall back type" you mean that the arm would fall back at the moment of launch – here first the arm would retract by about 20 degrees, then the rocket would launch. But yes, looks pretty close! As for the big tower – you can see that Kosmos is actually serviced from a mobile one.

Nice! Thanks for the vid. The background tower static fits in quite nicely in that case as a rollaway mobile tower. 

[Jeb Jawkins]

Thank you @Beale @Pappystein & @CobaltWolf who responded via PM concerning my problem. I'm still checking out some hints and will keep you up to date.

 

Keep up the good work.

[Beale]

On 4/26/2019 at 4:11 AM, Zorg said:

Hey Beale consider permission granted in perpetuity for any screens posted in your thread 

The launch site is Pad 46 from Tundra's space centre used together with one of the recent new additions to AlphaMensae's modular launch pads (dev branch). Actually I have since stopped using the big service tower and just stick now to the launch plate. This particular part is called the "american" launch stand but I used the green variant to make it look more Russian. The nice thing about it is the thin drop back service pole which really lends the Kosmos launch some authenticity. (actually not sure if the real thing was a fall back type but looks close enough though)

source: https://www.yuzhnoye.com/en/company/history/kosmos_2.html

Many thanks!

Ah if only we could move the checker pattern onto the fairing like the real thing - The Tantares upper stage looks a little short when pulling the fairings like that.
Oh! And the little side tanks on the upper stage.

Nevertheless, nice build! And I love this launch site.

 

On 4/26/2019 at 12:14 PM, tjsnh said:

As a thought, this already happens with decouplers, fairings, and some of the structural parts like those engine plates from the MH expansion. These wouldnt be the only two parts that look similar in the VAB ;-)

Unfortunately true, the decouplers in particular are very guilty of this. I think we should strive for better.
Strictly speaking, an additional optional patch could be used to push the 1.5m as full parts as the current setup, worth consiodering.

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Beale

[Hsinyu]

A-RP1 Return Parachute has a height of 15.1 m, which would makes it useless in career mode at the beginning.

Another funny thing, while I put 2 A-RP1 Return Parachute together, the height changes to 15.2 m; and if I remove one of them, the height comes back to 15.1 m.

Anyhow, anyone has the same problem? Could anyone help me about this? I would be appreciate it!

(I am not a English Native Speaker, please forgive my bad grammar.)

Edited April 27, 2019 by Hsinyu

[Beale]

2 hours ago, Hsinyu said:

A-RP1 Return Parachute has a height of 15.1 m, which would makes it useless in career mode at the beginning.

Another funny thing, while I put 2 A-RP1 Return Parachute together, the height changes to 15.2 m; and if I remove one of them, the height comes back to 15.1 m.

Anyhow, anyone has the same problem? Could anyone help me about this? I would be appreciate it!

(I am not a English Native Speaker, please forgive my bad grammar.)

Very strange it is counting the full height of the parachute deployed.

Do you have a mod list  / game data screenshot?

 

 

 

Edited April 27, 2019 by Beale

[Pappystein]

44 minutes ago, Beale said:

 

R-7 is looking very nice Beale!  

Edited April 27, 2019 by Pappystein

[AverageUser54]

Is this compatible with Realism overhaul because when ever i use it it says non RO

[Jeb Jawkins]

Great looking pics, @Beale !

Little Update on my problem with grounded Tantares-crafts: It's probably something concerning the KIS-config or the communication between KIS and Tantares. My Vessels still don't take off as long as there's a module that includes an inventory on the vessel.

So I deleted the KIS.config from the Tantares/patches/KIS-folder and whoop - we had a lift off. And several beyond to confirm. I still don't know what this conflict is exactly created by but all my Soviet programs are grounded right know.

Edited April 28, 2019 by Jeb Jawkins
first version = no good word speak

[Beale]

16 hours ago, PatelPratham said:

Is this compatible with Realism overhaul because when ever i use it it says non RO

No RO compatibility right now.

12 hours ago, Jeb Jawkins said:

Great looking pics, @Beale !

Little Update on my problem with grounded Tantares-crafts: It's probably something concerning the KIS-config or the communication between KIS and Tantares. My Vessels still don't take off as long as there's a module that includes an inventory on the vessel.

So I deleted the KIS.config from the Tantares/patches/KIS-folder and whoop - we had a lift off. And several beyond to confirm. I still don't know what this conflict is exactly created by but all my Soviet programs are grounded right know.

Thanks, I will look into it.

 

 

Github

Craft File

The engines are not quite powerful enough for the new sizes, so you may have a painful journey up into orbit.
But, with a little caution you can play around witrh the new Soyuz WIP now.