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

[Beale]

19 hours ago, DaniDE said:

Hello Beale, did you see this thread?

Do your hatches have a box collider set for 1.1?  I love your parts and now Im scared I could not use the pods for EVAs when 1.1 is released

Oh and if that poll is still relevant, the EM-001 on the far right appeals most to me, followed by the yellow spherical looking one

Thank you for all your work, its much appreciated!

Thanks, yep the colliders have always been boxes  

16 hours ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

Ugh whenever someone posts a texture like yours I wish I could just cut bits out of it and use them instead of painting my own crummy color-block ones. 

Is it just me or is LK's star antenna really big even compared tot he other LK parts?

All textures in Tantares are free to use as pleased, feel free  

As for LK, it should be a correct scale.

16 hours ago, Drakenex said:

thanks again for reworking Fuji!

Wow! Excellent!

 

Tantares Beta

Full of a few big-fixes and the Fuji (With Orbital module and parachute now).
I've had a few strange issues with a Fuji's icon dissapearing in map-view, but I'm not sure if that's just a 1.1 bug, or something I've done wrong. Help is appreciated.

The Fuji still has a few things outstanding, such as flag decals and maybe a docking window, but can be considered pretty use-able so far.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Beale

[FlyMeToTheMinmus]

Do you mind if I ask whatever happened to the ATV solar panels?

Edited April 16, 2016 by FlyMeToTheMinmus

[curtquarquesso]

2 minutes ago, FlyMeToTheMinmus said:

Do you mind if I ask whatever happened to the ATV solar panels?

I never finished them because my modeling sucked at the time, but I've given Beale the correct dimensions for him to model them. May have to dig that stuff up though. ATV definitely needs solar panels. Perhaps whenever Beale revamps Ariane.

Edited April 16, 2016 by curtquarquesso

[Beale]

15 minutes ago, FlyMeToTheMinmus said:

Do you mind if I ask whatever happened to the ATV solar panels?

13 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

I never finished them because my modeling sucked at the time, but I've given Beale the correct dimensions for him to model them. May have to dig that stuff up though. ATV definitely needs solar panels. Perhaps whenever Beale revamps Ariane.

Yeah, I will implement the ATV solar panels when I get around to refreshing all of that stuff, some day. Current lack of solar panels for ATV is a little poor.

The release roadmap is a little out of synch, as the Fuji is almost done (I had planned to do the Fobos Grunt first, but eh).

[hoojiwana]

1 hour ago, Beale said:

I've had a few strange issues with a Fuji's icon dissapearing in map-view, but I'm not sure if that's just a 1.1 bug, or something I've done wrong. Help is appreciated.

You may be encountering this bug (Odd map behavior and ship icon disappears when control part is inside fairing).

[Starbuckminsterfullerton]

1 hour ago, Beale said:

All textures in Tantares are free to use as pleased, feel free  

As for LK, it should be a correct scale.

 

Tantares Beta
I've had a few strange issues with a Fuji's icon dissapearing in map-view, but I'm not sure if that's just a 1.1 bug, or something I've done wrong. Help is appreciated.

The Fuji still has a few things outstanding, such as flag decals and maybe a docking window, but can be considered pretty use-able so far.

Wow, that was fast! 

That's very generous of you to allow the community to use your assets like that, and I may take you up on it. 

LK scale I just meant in terms of texture real estate, the model is the right size.

Icon disappearing may be result of .cfg file missing vessel type tag, you know that thing that defines whether the icon is a base, rover, ship, etc.

Can you not see forward well enough out of the hatch window? If not, you could do an HGR-style periscope where you double click on some part of the IVA and it links to a camera outside the pod. 

 

[hendrack]

Is the beta compatible with 1.0.5 too?

[Beale]

9 minutes ago, hoojiwana said:

You may be encountering this bug (Odd map behavior and ship icon disappears when control part is inside fairing).

That's the exact issue, glad it isn't something I did wrong  

Thanks!

7 minutes ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

LK scale I just meant in terms of texture real estate, the model is the right size.

Can you not see forward well enough out of the hatch window? If not, you could do an HGR-style periscope where you double click on some part of the IVA and it links to a camera outside the pod. 

Ah yes! The texture space it takes is absurd, I have gotten a lot more careful on texel density recently, the LK is a very bad example.

The docking window is for the orbital module, because the crew module view will be blocked in flight:

@curtquarquesso, you suggested this - how do you think about it? Might be hard to tell without a texture.

4 minutes ago, hendrack said:

Is the beta compatible with 1.0.5 too?

There are tag lists in the Fuji configs, which might cause problems (or may be completely fine!).

Either way, the tag lists are the only thing that could cause problems, they are simple to delete, just under the description line inside the config.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Beale

[Beale]

Nope, that window position was a bad idea.

Here is a better idea.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Beale

[curtquarquesso]

4 hours ago, Beale said:

The docking window is for the orbital module, because the crew module view will be blocked in flight:
@curtquarquesso, you suggested this - how do you think about it? Might be hard to tell without a texture.

I would move it outwards. It's too close to the center. You won't have any visibility there.

Whoops. I see the reply now. You've gotten it right now.

Edited April 17, 2016 by curtquarquesso

[curtquarquesso]

Just tried out Fuji, and it's great. A few minor bugs:

• LFO start value for the propellant tanks is currently zero.
• Windows on OM have no illumination.
• OM needs to lose reaction wheel ability to be balanced against the hitchhiker crew can. (In general, Tantares over-uses reaction wheels...)
• Service Module engine needs a 0.625m interstage fairing if it's to be used outside of the Fuji design.
• Service Module engine needs some nicer FX.

It would be nice to get MonoPropellant filled variants of the radial fuel tanks, and maybe a variant engine with a slightly different look and FX. I like to stay somewhat realistic, and use only storable propellants on spacecraft instead of LFO. Thoughts?

Edited April 17, 2016 by curtquarquesso

[Beale]

1 hour ago, curtquarquesso said:

Just tried out Fuji, and it's great. A few minor bugs:

• LFO start value for the propellant tanks is currently zero.
• Windows on OM have no illumination.
• OM needs to lose reaction wheel ability to be balanced against the hitchhiker crew can. (In general, Tantares over-uses reaction wheels...)
• Service Module engine needs a 0.625m interstage fairing if it's to be used outside of the Fuji design.
• Service Module engine needs some nicer FX.

It would be nice to get MonoPropellant filled variants of the radial fuel tanks, and maybe a variant engine with a slightly different look and FX. I like to stay somewhat realistic, and use only storable propellants on spacecraft instead of LFO. Thoughts?

Great feedback, thanks!

Fixed the OM illumination, removed reaction wheels (But it's still a control module) and added engine fairing.
Other parts will be fixed soon.

The LFO start value bug is confusing, do you mean the yellow main tanks? Don't think I've had problems with those in game, but might not have paid full attention.
 In the config:

RESOURCE
{
 name = LiquidFuel
 amount = 90
 maxAmount = 90
}

RESOURCE
{
 name = Oxidizer
 amount = 110
 maxAmount = 110
}

The final point is an interesting part for me. I wish-wish-wish there was some in-game analogue for UDMH+NTO,
it feels wrong having Monopropellant engines with UDMH+NTO performance.

I went to investigate some RL Monopropellant engines (well, just Hydrazine) and ISP seems to be generally < 240s

Example 1 | Example 2

For comparison, Soyuz T had a specific impulse of 305s, I cannot find figures for the Fuji, but it is probably in that range too.

Edited April 17, 2016 by Beale

[DaniDE]

I like the Fuji alot

[Beale]

Tantares Beta II

• Fuji Fixes
• Fuji Engine Fairing
• Fuji OM Window

1 hour ago, DaniDE said:

I like the Fuji alot

Nice album!

[MrMeeb]

Looking good!

[Drakenex]

Hi Beale! thanks once more for taking time to enhance the Fuji.

two things:

The best matching port without parachute for the orbital module is "Tantares PDP-PR9 Passive Docking Port" bit is a gendered port, so in order to use it I had to add the following in the Fuji port CFG:

gendered = true
genderFemale = false

Is there an easier way? I mean, is there another port I'm not taking into account?

aaaand this:

I guess is out of the scope for the Fuji, but @curtquarquesso showed in another thread how easy was to add RCS to a capsule, could it be possible for the Fuji?

Edit: If not functional, could they just be in the texture?

Thanks and keep the good work!

Edited April 18, 2016 by Drakenex

[Beale]

1 hour ago, Drakenex said:

Hi Beale! thanks once more for taking time to enhance the Fuji.

two things:

The best matching port without parachute for the orbital module is "Tantares PDP-PR9 Passive Docking Port" bit is a gendered port, so in order to use it I had to add the following in the Fuji port CFG:

gendered = true
genderFemale = false

Is there an easier way? I mean, is there another port I'm not taking into account?

aaaand this:

I guess is out of the scope for the Fuji, but @curtquarquesso showed in another thread how easy was to add RCS to a capsule, could it be possible for the Fuji?

Edit: If not functional, could they just be in the texture?

Thanks and keep the good work!

Hi, thanks for the feedback.

For the ports, I'm putting together a version of the Fuji port, without a parachute, so that will be the one to use.

 

For the RCS, I will be making these active, that has been forgotten for a little while.

[Drakenex]

4 minutes ago, Beale said:

Hi, thanks for the feedback.

For the ports, I'm putting together a version of the Fuji port, without a parachute, so that will be the one to use.

 

For the RCS, I will be making these active, that has been forgotten for a little while.

 

Great! thanks!

[Beale]

1 hour ago, Drakenex said:

Great! thanks!

On the subject:

Style preferences?

[Drakenex]

looking good!, may be a black or darker border, and a little help from the normal to make it bas-relief (the hole RCS plate).

Can you please include the flag transform? I've tried with decals from Nebula but your colliders doesn't allow to use them.

Thanks a lot spongy bread-man

[Beale]

3 hours ago, Drakenex said:

looking good!, may be a black or darker border, and a little help from the normal to make it bas-relief (the hole RCS plate).

Can you please include the flag transform? I've tried with decals from Nebula but your colliders doesn't allow to use them.

One of the problems of not using a normal-map, it might be hard to make this style look any good.

Flag transform, sure.

[Beale]

A few troubleshooting problems, but fixed thanks to some help, now flags everywhere.

[Drakenex]

4 hours ago, Beale said:

One of the problems of not using a normal-map, it might be hard to make this style look any good.

 

Flag transform, sure.

nahh it looks just fine like that.

1 hour ago, Beale said:

A few troubleshooting problems, but fixed thanks to some help, now flags everywhere.

 

wow nice!

 

Made the heat shield ejectable and added FASA floating ring

 

 

Edited April 19, 2016 by Drakenex

[curtquarquesso]

On April 17, 2016 at 4:13 PM, Beale said:

The LFO start value bug is confusing, do you mean the yellow main tanks? Don't think I've had problems with those in game, but might not have paid full attention. In the config:
– snip –
The final point is an interesting part for me. I wish-wish-wish there was some in-game analogue for UDMH+NTO,
it feels wrong having Monopropellant engines with UDMH+NTO performance.

I went to investigate some RL Monopropellant engines (well, just Hydrazine) and ISP seems to be generally < 240s
Example 1 | Example 2
For comparison, Soyuz T had a specific impulse of 305s, I cannot find figures for the Fuji, but it is probably in that range too.

I usually treat MonoPropellant as an analogue to UDMH+NTO, MMH+N2O4, and Aerozine 50. The performance specs between these propellants is close enough that they can all be treated about equally in KSP. There were some recent pre-release changes addressing the tank masses for the stock tanks that makes some improvements, but I don't fully understand them all. Thread on the topic: 

Fuji doesn't have any specs, because design didn't get beyond concept art really, but because Fuji was designed to be lunar-flyby capable, so some fair assumptions can be made; 

• Orbital engine would likely be similar to the Apollo SM engine, the subsequently derived Shuttle OMS engine, or the thrusters that JAXA currently uses on HTV. 
• Those engines have an ISP of between 312s and 316s. 
• Would probably run off MMH+N204, Aerozine 50, or MMH+MON3, all of which can be equated to MonoPropellant. 
• Should have better efficiency than Soyuz, but due to stock KSP and current Soyuz balance, it would be too efficient. (Soyuz SM is too high IMO. Currently 345s, should be closer to 305s as you stated.)

18 hours ago, Beale said:

One of the problems of not using a normal-map, it might be hard to make this style look any good.

Then... Perhaps a normal map is in order? It'd sure look great on the foil tanks, if you ever change from the temporary style to the style that the stock large HECS probe core uses. At least experiment and post results?

16 hours ago, Beale said:

A few troubleshooting problems, but fixed thanks to some help, now flags everywhere.

Yay! I like the flag transform rotated 90º. Much better use of the space. Nice one.

Latest Fuji Beta Docking/Parachute Concern:

• Integrated parachute large enough for Fuji packed into a slim 0.625m form factor will cause balance issues. If you assume the mass to be equal to a stock 0.625m Clamp-O-Tron + 1.25m parachute, the part will be crazy-super dense, and people will get confused when their small spacecrafts weigh a crazy amount. Would it be crazy to suggest that the parachute get packed into the capsule? I know it'd be more work, but making logical balance choices are going to be a PITA. 
• Perhaps it would be better to combine the 0.625m APAS and the Fuji Docking Port into one part? It'd be one more way to reduce the crazy docking port clutter, and streamline things. If you blended styles, I would keep the slim profile of the Fuji port, but use the petals present on the APAS to make it more mechanically plausible.

 

I ordered a thing: http://www.amazon.co.jp/われらの有人宇宙船―日本独自の宇宙輸送システム「ふじ」-松浦-晋也/dp/4785387580?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_sfl_title_1&smid=A3GD8DRWAUBYL1

Edited April 19, 2016 by curtquarquesso

[Beale]

29 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

I usually treat MonoPropellant as an analogue to UDMH+NTO, MMH+N2O4, and Aerozine 50. The performance specs between these propellants is close enough that they can all be treated about equally in KSP. There were some recent pre-release changes addressing the tank masses for the stock tanks that makes some improvements, but I don't fully understand them all. Thread on the topic: 

Fuji doesn't have any specs, because design didn't get beyond concept art really, but because Fuji was designed to be lunar-flyby capable, so some fair assumptions can be made; 

• Orbital engine would likely be similar to the Apollo SM engine, the subsequently derived Shuttle OMS engine, or the thrusters that JAXA currently uses on HTV. 
• Those engines have an ISP of between 312s and 316s. 
• Would probably run off MMH+N204, Aerozine 50, or MMH+MON3, all of which can be equated to MonoPropellant. 
• Should have better efficiency than Soyuz, but due to stock KSP and current Soyuz balance, it would be too efficient. (Soyuz SM is too high IMO. Currently 345s, should be closer to 305s as you stated.)

Then... Perhaps a normal map is in order? It'd sure look great on the foil tanks, if you ever change from the temporary style to the style that the stock large HECS probe core uses. At least experiment and post results?

Latest Fuji Beta Docking/Parachute Concern:

• Integrated parachute large enough for Fuji packed into a slim 0.625m form factor will cause balance issues. If you assume the mass to be equal to a stock 0.625m Clamp-O-Tron + 1.25m parachute, the part will be crazy-super dense, and people will get confused when their small spacecrafts weigh a crazy amount. Would it be crazy to suggest that the parachute get packed into the capsule? I know it'd be more work, but making logical balance choices are going to be a PITA. 
• Perhaps it would be better to combine the 0.625m APAS and the Fuji Docking Port into one part? It'd be one more way to reduce the crazy docking port clutter, and streamline things. If you blended styles, I would keep the slim profile of the Fuji port, but use the petals present on the APAS to make it more mechanically plausible.

 

I ordered a thing: http://www.amazon.co.jp/われらの有人宇宙船―日本独自の宇宙輸送システム「ふじ」-松浦-晋也/dp/4785387580?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_sfl_title_1&smid=A3GD8DRWAUBYL1

Ordering a book entirely in Japanese? You madman!  

Thanks for the info on fuel types, I will have to take a look in more closely at those comparison figures (Well, all Tantares RCS tanks are broken right now I guess).
So, I guess Monopropellant can be used, unless many are opposed to it.

Normal Maps
Well, we have a lot more memory to work with now, that's a bonus. I am only with 8GB of RAM personally, but I'd say that is the lower-end of memory these days (What's the go-to amount in 2016? 12GB? 16GB?).

And the docking port

I do see what you're saying. The current drag it has if I remember is around the same as the 0.625m parachute - fine for a hard landing. That is stock 0.625m parachute mass + stock 0.625m port mass = 0.12, pretty close to what there is already.

The problem to change that, you cannot, I think, really combine a parachute into a capsule, from past experience with aerodynamics system (though a hell of a lot has changed since then).

There are things where the desire to keep everything divided into modules (Like one folder for Fuji, one folder for Soyuz, one folder for TKS, etc) is creating too many "duplicate" parts.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Beale