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

[tg626]

I think I solved the weird sizing bug! It looks like it is about the configs. I just replaced scale=1 with rescaleFactor=1 and i got the size of the module same as the module size when bug happens. It seems like scale and rescaleFactor have different size parameters!

EDIT: I experimented with sizes and discovered that standard LK size is at around rescaleFactor=1.2

So all I found is that weird size bug has nothing to do with scale and rescaleFactor. Conducting in depth research tomorrow.

As I feared

I don't think this is a problem that can be fixed without scaling the base models.

One last time....

There are two ways to declare what file is to be used for the mesh (3D Model) of a part.

1. mesh=filename.mu
   
2. MODEL {
        model = [I]path/filename[/I].mu
        texture = [I]path/filename.ext[/I]
   }

   
   

In the case of #1, scaling is applied correctly both during the initial loading, and any reloads, always

In the case of #2, scaling is INCORRECT if and only if the part using method #2 is the root part.

It's a Bug.

It's an OLD bug. As in it goes back to the days when IVA's were introduced and Squad opted to scale up everything to make the parts sizes make sense for the size of Kerbals inside them by coding a rescaling into the game rather than rescaling and re-exporting all the game meshes.

I'd bet precious body parts (you know the ones that I mean) that it WON'T get fixed in 1.0, or possibly ever.

IMHO the model node (aka method #2 above) should be avoided at all costs, certainly on any part that can be made the root part in the VAB or can be assigned as the root part by the game - as in cases of undocking a payload.

I've got a Spica right now in game that has a shrivelled up atrophied engine/SM because of this, and the fact that when I built the stack of rocket/lander/CM+capsule I started with the lander cabin as the root. So unless the lander is docked with the Spica capsule, the game picks the tank as the root part (next closest part to the root in the original build) and it gets all dinky and mucks up my screenshots...

</RANT>

[benjee10]

Unfortunately the MODEL {} node is the only way of having multiple models share the same texture. It's a bug that causes huge amounts of frustration and Squad really need to fix, not just for modders but because it affects their own parts too.

[Beale]

I found a fix: set rescaleFactor = 1, then inside the MODEL brackets, add scale = 1.25, 1.25, 1.25. Finally, multiply all of the position values (x, y , z coordinates) for each node by 1.25.

It works for me.

This is a new method to me, very interesting. I'll try this when I have time.

Thanks for the tip!

No to be picky, but are the *really* flaps?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flap_%28aeronautics%29#Types

Or are they Elevons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevon

Even I, an aeronautical engineer, wasn't that picky. Let's call them "control surfaces"

I have trained to be a pilot, I should know better

If they are the only moving parts on the Kliper, are they ailerons or elevators though?

Consider different naming!

I'm having a lot of fun with the klipper this little thing is cute ! Beale have you ever thought of rescaling soyuz rocket, spacecraft and klipper to 1.875m standard ? ( I guess it's 1.875 .. )

Anyway here are some pictures of my customized klipper meeting a mir core module.

http://i.imgur.com/xKt60Hu.png

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

I'm not sure about the solar panels, I just saw a klipper 3D render who wore them so..

http://i.imgur.com/440CCPU.png

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

http://i.imgur.com/WdtzG8w.png

I can't manage to embed an imgur album, shame on me can someone kindly explain me please ? I feel like spamming your thread Beale with all those big pics

Well time to land, da zvidanja poor kerbals..

( Here's the full album http://imgur.com/a/TXlGn )

Quite incredible to see people enjoying the Kliper, even in its fetal state.

And a great job you've done with it, the MIR too!

One last time....

There are two ways to declare what file is to be used for the mesh (3D Model) of a part.

1. mesh=filename.mu
   
2. MODEL {
        model = [I]path/filename[/I].mu
        texture = [I]path/filename.ext[/I]
   }

   
   

In the case of #1, scaling is applied correctly both during the initial loading, and any reloads, always

In the case of #2, scaling is INCORRECT if and only if the part using method #2 is the root part.

It's a Bug.

It's an OLD bug. As in it goes back to the days when IVA's were introduced and Squad opted to scale up everything to make the parts sizes make sense for the size of Kerbals inside them by coding a rescaling into the game rather than rescaling and re-exporting all the game meshes.

I'd bet precious body parts (you know the ones that I mean) that it WON'T get fixed in 1.0, or possibly ever.

IMHO the model node (aka method #2 above) should be avoided at all costs, certainly on any part that can be made the root part in the VAB or can be assigned as the root part by the game - as in cases of undocking a payload.

I've got a Spica right now in game that has a shrivelled up atrophied engine/SM because of this, and the fact that when I built the stack of rocket/lander/CM+capsule I started with the lander cabin as the root. So unless the lander is docked with the Spica capsule, the game picks the tank as the root part (next closest part to the root in the original build) and it gets all dinky and mucks up my screenshots...

</RANT>

Yeah, I understand the pros and cons of both ways.

One thing with the MODEL{} method, the bug causes rescaleFactor to return to 1, so if the models are already made at a scale of 1, then the bug still happens, but it affects nothing. Unfortunately, I learn this too late.

Unfortunately the MODEL {} node is the only way of having multiple models share the same texture. It's a bug that causes huge amounts of frustration and Squad really need to fix, not just for modders but because it affects their own parts too.

Yup, I do really hope it gets addressed soon.

[tg626]

To be clear, it's Squad I'm angry with, it's ridiculous such a fundamental oversight hasn't been corrected. Unless I'm missing something, it should be a VERY easy thing to fix.

[Beale]

To be clear, it's Squad I'm angry with, it's ridiculous such a fundamental oversight hasn't been corrected. Unless I'm missing something, it should be a VERY easy thing to fix.

No, for sure, I am glad you feel strong about this.

I'm not really sure how easy it is to fix, or how the asset loading system works (Or is the portion of the code instancing the parts in the game world?).

All I can guess is that certain "older" parts of KSP's codebase are just not pleasant to look at or work with, hence why they haven't had much attention.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Beale

[Astrofox]

I have a question, how do I install the RT config for the Tantares?

[T'Flok]

While on my way to Mun after undocking from my space station this happened:

This needs some fixing, oh and by the way I checked if the toolbox is in IVA: Nope, only the fire extinguisher is.

EDIT: The part that shrunk was docked with stock's junior port.

Edited March 26, 2015 by T'Flok

[tg626]

I might be totally wrong, but in my mind:

• Somewhere in the code, a 1.25 multiplier is applied to the model's scale.
  
• Somehow if the part is the ROOT part, this code is bypassed.
  

therefore, somewhere you need

if partisroot(part) {scale(part) = scale(part)*1.25}

- - - Updated - - -

While on my way to Mun after undocking from my space station this happened:

http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/ac66/Stafath/TwoBugs1_zpsk5ps8hw9.png

This needs some fixing' date=' oh and by the way I checked if the toolbox is in IVA: Nope, only the fire extinguisher is.

EDIT: The part that shrunk was docked with stock's junior port.[/quote']

You need some reading - this has been discussed in the last several posts on this thread.

[T'Flok]

Ah, sorry if it has been discussed already. Was gone for about a week.

[Niemand303]

I have trained to be a pilot, I should know better

If they are the only moving parts on the Kliper, are they ailerons or elevators though?

Consider different naming!

http://puu.sh/gPvQi/5365f49b92.png

For the vertical ones it's easy, you know what it is.

For the horizontal, if they can be used as flaps, they are flaperons, otherwise they are elevons.

[Djolox]

While on my way to Mun after undocking from my space station this happened:

http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/ac66/Stafath/TwoBugs1_zpsk5ps8hw9.png

This needs some fixing' date=' oh and by the way I checked if the toolbox is in IVA: Nope, only the fire extinguisher is.

EDIT: The part that shrunk was docked with stock's junior port.[/quote']

Welcome to world of shrunken parts! I joined earlier with my shrunken LK pod. Currently trying to fix it.

[tjsnh]

For the vertical ones it's easy, you know what it is.

For the horizontal, if they can be used as flaps, they are flaperons, otherwise they are elevons.

Gull wing delta with flapalizers, or GTFO! ;-)

In all seriousness, I've always had trouble controlling aircraft in KSP. I too am a "RL" pilot, and however the game decides to make a control surface responsive or not seems to be completely FUBAR.

[CrisK]

Gull wing delta with flapalizers, or GTFO! ;-)

In all seriousness, I've always had trouble controlling aircraft in KSP. I too am a "RL" pilot, and however the game decides to make a control surface responsive or not seems to be completely FUBAR.

If you use FAR then you can set each control surface to respond in a way that makes sense. i.e. you can set a control surface to act as a flap, spoiler, elevon, etc. You can indicate the direction and amount that the control surface will move. You may also specify whether a control surface responds to pitch, roll, or yaw commands (e.g. a flap should not move when you're changing your yaw).

[Harry Rhodan]

Grab the PPTS here. Though, no IVA yet.

Great work. Only a few minor complaints:

Is the texture on the top missing? 95 units of RCS fuel seem a bit excessive (it took me less than 2 to dock to my salyut *brag*) while 50 units of electricity are somewhat low compared to the normal Mk 1-2.

Edit: And it is way too light for a pod that can carry six kerbals.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Harry Rhodan

[Beale]

I have a question, how do I install the RT config for the Tantares?

Hi!

As long as you have ModuleManager installed, it should be automatic

Which antennas do you have problems with?

While on my way to Mun after undocking from my space station this happened:

http://i886.photobucket.com/albums/ac66/Stafath/TwoBugs1_zpsk5ps8hw9.png

This needs some fixing' date=' oh and by the way I checked if the toolbox is in IVA: Nope, only the fire extinguisher is.

EDIT: The part that shrunk was docked with stock's junior port.[/quote']

The phantom toolbox - You are a RPM user yes? Is it only happening to RPM users? Might be worth investigating.

Scaling bug - as discussed, yeah that's annoying.

I might be totally wrong, but in my mind:

• Somewhere in the code, a 1.25 multiplier is applied to the model's scale.
  
• Somehow if the part is the ROOT part, this code is bypassed.
  

therefore, somewhere you need

if partisroot(part) {scale(part) = scale(part)*1.25}

Kind of - but this is more a "brute force" method, not solving the underlying problem. Brings the overall quality of the codebase down and create more work in the future.

Still, a quick fix, this word work perfect yeah!

If you use FAR then you can set each control surface to respond in a way that makes sense. i.e. you can set a control surface to act as a flap, spoiler, elevon, etc. You can indicate the direction and amount that the control surface will move. You may also specify whether a control surface responds to pitch, roll, or yaw commands (e.g. a flap should not move when you're changing your yaw).

Might need to give the Kliper a "soft" dependency on FAR then (I.E. forget about using it unless you use FAR/NEAR). At least until 1.0 comes around. This kind of control is needed.

Great work. Only a few minor complaints:

http://i.imgur.com/z5UddLe.jpg

Is the texture on the top missing? 95 units of RCS fuel seem a bit excessive (it took me less than 2 to dock to my salyut *brag*) while 50 units of electricity are somewhat low compared to the normal Mk 1-2.

Edit: And it is way too light for a pod that can carry six kerbals.

Hiya!

Yeah, the current config is junk (Remember I released it early because I am not able to work for a while). I'll give you a peek into my method when I say it's the VA capsule config with the crew capacity changed!

The texture - it should be like that, but I guess it is a bit odd looking. Is the "hatch" as seen as on top of the Soyuz preferred?

For the vertical ones it's easy, you know what it is.

For the horizontal, if they can be used as flaps, they are flaperons, otherwise they are elevons.

Of course, now flaperons are my go-to term for these.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Beale

[kopapaka]

Career Duna...

[Harry Rhodan]

Yeah, the current config is junk (Remember I released it early because I am not able to work for a while). I'll give you a peek into my method when I say it's the VA capsule config with the crew capacity changed!

The texture - it should be like that, but I guess it is a bit odd looking. Is the "hatch" as seen as on top of the Soyuz preferred?

Ah, that explains a lot.

That be great. The black hole looks somewhat disturbing. Although that's not the most pressing issue as you'll cover it up anyways with adapters and/or docking ports.

[VenomousRequiem]

Are you going to make it to where the Proton and the R-7 don't have smoke trails like in real life? Honestly I don't know if the N-1's engines left a trail of smoke because it never got far enough off of the launch pad to tell.

[wasmic]

Are you going to make it to where the Proton and the R-7 don't have smoke trails like in real life? Honestly I don't know if the N-1's engines left a trail of smoke because it never got far enough off of the launch pad to tell.

They were liquid fueled, so they most likely didn't. No liquid fueled rockets leave large smoke trails, although all of them make steam clouds during liftoff.

[curtquarquesso]

Are you going to make it to where the Proton and the R-7 don't have smoke trails like in real life? Honestly I don't know if the N-1's engines left a trail of smoke because it never got far enough off of the launch pad to tell.

Hah, good point.

In most KSC launches, the initial smoke plume is generated by the exhaust against the sound suppression system. Baikonur has no such system. Their exhaust just goes right off the cliff the pad is built on the edge of. I don't believe the R7 really produces much, if any, smoke/vapor. Like most rockets, it's running on RP-1/LOX, which burns fairly clean, though not as cleanly as LH2/LOX. If Beale wanted to be accurate, the R7 engines wouldn't produce any smoke really. I don't know how the coding for that works though. SQUAD needs to make a system where LF engines can produce a big cloud at liftoff, then burn clean once they're away from the pad. Solids though, always need to burn dirty like the nasty-devils they are.

[Beale]

Career Duna...

http://img16.rajce.idnes.cz/d1603/10/10015/10015593_10a99548235e35067a28ca4ae5488b0d/images/screenshot122.jpg?ver=0

Wow!

The Blok-D upside-down is clever, it's quite smooth. What is the landing system? It looks like a Spacex Dragon V2?

Are you going to make it to where the Proton and the R-7 don't have smoke trails like in real life? Honestly I don't know if the N-1's engines left a trail of smoke because it never got far enough off of the launch pad to tell.

They were liquid fueled, so they most likely didn't. No liquid fueled rockets leave large smoke trails, although all of them make steam clouds during liftoff.

Hah, good point.

In most KSC launches, the initial smoke plume is generated by the exhaust against the sound suppression system. Baikonur has no such system. Their exhaust just goes right off the cliff the pad is built on the edge of. I don't believe the R7 really produces much, if any, smoke/vapor. Like most rockets, it's running on RP-1/LOX, which burns fairly clean, though not as cleanly as LH2/LOX. If Beale wanted to be accurate, the R7 engines wouldn't produce any smoke really. I don't know how the coding for that works though. SQUAD needs to make a system where LF engines can produce a big cloud at liftoff, then burn clean once they're away from the pad. Solids though, always need to burn dirty like the nasty-devils they are.

Eh, I don't care for smoke much. But, if I leave the smoke out, people seem to call for it en masse.

So... Yeah.

To remove smoke, simply delete this part of the engine FX

    PREFAB_PARTICLE
    {
      prefabName = fx_smokeTrail_aeroSpike
      transformName = effectTransform
      emission = 0.0 0.0
      emission = 0.05 0.0
      emission = 0.075 0.25
      emission = 1.0 1.25
      speed = 0.0 0.25
      speed = 1.0 1.0
      localOffset = 0, 0, 1
    }

Edit:

Scaling bug fixed!

I can "cautiously" confirm. A workaround is working.

Several reloads, the LK was fine.

Well, I have had some time to check some of the issues people report.

Landing legs bugs, can confirm all of them. Yep, unfortunate. But, fortunately not game-breaking. I'll try fix when I can.

Toolbox bug, I can't reproduce, odd...

Kliper is still... DOA.

Perhaps a FAR guru can enlighten me. Well, hopefully in a coming weekend I can have time to take a real look into the config.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Beale

[tg626]

The phantom toolbox - You are a RPM user yes? Is it only happening to RPM users? Might be worth investigating.

No, I have it too and I don't use RPM.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vPbmgyWmnU?t=52s

Big clouds at launch, not so much during flight (until the explosion starts) - but ONE **** of a long flame tail as it flew...

Much more detailed footage of a Saturn V launch, seems to have at least a vapor trail - perhaps condensation? - bottom line is that all the KSP rockets leave a smoke/vapor trail, so I think your's should too. At least the N1 Blok A should leave one IMHO.

Edited March 27, 2015 by tg626

[kopapaka]

Wow!

The Blok-D upside-down is clever, it's quite smooth. What is the landing system? It looks like a Spacex Dragon V2? [/ quote]

Thanks, landing system - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/100653-Raptor-AeroEspacial-Lander-Module-Mk-1-1?highlight=Aeroespacial

Edited March 27, 2015 by kopapaka

[bs1110101]

Relating to the new poll, i vote for Almaz parts or a Polyus unless you want to go for something totally new. The TMK and related things seems to be a good idea, seeing as it hasn't been made yet and you already made an N-1. Also, a bigger version acting as a proper ship for a manned landing would be interesting, as rarely do we see Russian mars stuff, i'm sure they had ideas for Mars missions, though i cant find any easily, mostly do to most of it not being translated i suspect.

[SnowWhite]

Cool things (Like LK, Kliper, PPTS) are cool. But what about IVA for the first and main spacecraft called Soyuz? Beale, you should not make everything, but you need to concentrate your attention on the one project, and make everything (IVA, models, textures etc.) for it.

Sorry for so rude reply, but I am really tired to wait for soyuz IVA.