Jump to content

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


Beale

Recommended Posts

Thanks!

I'll lay out plans for the future more clearly in June.

(Or new alternate parts)681445b77c.jpg

All this greeble....

its-5824-1271345282-17.jpg

For the docking port, any chance to reshape the orbital module and texture it a way he could get either a 0.625m or the new diameter you are introducing to us ? Whatever, you always amazed me with your stuff, do whatever you like, I am confident in the result :P .

( Also, you should remodel this docking port to be straight and not angled )

Other antennas, dishes and flight-data devices would be so welcome, I love details ! BUT most important of all your soyuz lack of a periscope ! :P

Edited by spacecookie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote for alternate 0.9 meter OM and docking port!

BUT most important of all your soyuz lack of a periscope ! :P

Hell yeah!!! A periscope should be high priority for Soyuz, next to the Igla.

Still waiting for that Igla...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks!

I'll lay out plans for the future more clearly in June.

Meanwhile...

Here's something very interesting.

Soyuz docking port and OM top resized to 0.9375m.

Look at it! It all makes sense now.

All in favour of resizing (Or new alternate parts) this way (June)?

Si! Per favore, prego!

I vote with yes!

But if it is that controversial, maybe you can start a new poll?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - plain and simple.

Currently they're a standard 0.625m in diameter, which allows their use with non-Tantares parts like stock Mk1 capsule and such.

If re-sized, it would be impossible without some third-party things like Tweakscale. And no, adapters are not a solution, since they add to part count.

So my vote goes for "put that idea in some dark closet and never get it out again". Please don't turn Tantares into an accurate replicas pack.

I agree with biohazard15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in business! :D

Nice to see!

It gets my vote!
While it looks nice this would break re-usability and compatibility with non Tantares parts. I would say no.
No - plain and simple.

Currently they're a standard 0.625m in diameter, which allows their use with non-Tantares parts like stock Mk1 capsule and such.

If re-sized, it would be impossible without some third-party things like Tweakscale. And no, adapters are not a solution, since they add to part count.

So my vote goes for "put that idea in some dark closet and never get it out again". Please don't turn Tantares into an accurate replicas pack.

I like it. Looks distinctly more Soyuz-ish. The 0.625m ports always seemed undersized considering they're meant to be able to fit a whole Kerbal through! Certainly they'd be nice to have even if they were just an alternate config or something.
I vote yes for alternate parts.
All this greeble....

http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web02/2010/4/15/11/its-5824-1271345282-17.jpg

For the docking port, any chance to reshape the orbital module and texture it a way he could get either a 0.625m or the new diameter you are introducing to us ? Whatever, you always amazed me with your stuff, do whatever you like, I am confident in the result :P .

( Also, you should remodel this docking port to be straight and not angled )

Other antennas, dishes and flight-data devices would be so welcome, I love details ! BUT most important of all your soyuz lack of a periscope ! :P

That looks really nice! So I vote yes.
I vote for alternate 0.9 meter OM and docking port!

Hell yeah!!! A periscope should be high priority for Soyuz, next to the Igla.

Still waiting for that Igla...

Si! Per favore, prego!

I vote with yes!

But if it is that controversial, maybe you can start a new poll?

I agree with biohazard15.

Wow!

Okay, a lot of feedback in short time.

No need for a poll, decision:

Will not resize existing parts to 0.9375m, but will introduce new parts in that size for those who want more accurate.

@Spacecookie, more greeble is on the cards, sure.

@pTrevTrevs, the IGLA and everything else will need to wait until I'm less busy, you'll understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@pTrevTrevs, the IGLA and everything else will need to wait until I'm less busy, you'll understand.

Yes, I understand. It's a very hectic time of year for students, what with finals and all, and I respect the fact that you have a life away from your computer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!

Okay, a lot of feedback in short time.

No need for a poll, decision:

Will not resize existing parts to 0.9375m, but will introduce new parts in that size for those who want more accurate.

@Spacecookie, more greeble is on the cards, sure.

@pTrevTrevs, the IGLA and everything else will need to wait until I'm less busy, you'll understand.

Wow I missed it entirely. I would have voted for the new size personally it makes sense as a kerbal passable door space and we already have .9 parts thanks to tks so the size should get more fleshed out also it would let the Mir hub be made a bit beefier right now it must be a terribly tight squeeze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow I missed it entirely. I would have voted for the new size personally it makes sense as a kerbal passable door space and we already have .9 parts thanks to tks so the size should get more fleshed out also it would let the Mir hub be made a bit beefier right now it must be a terribly tight squeeze

It means he would need to resize almost every part which was designed to use this docking port. Mir hub, some Salyut and Mir parts, Soyuz, Progress and Shenzhou orbital modules... Oh, and passive docking port, of course.

Are you and all other people who voted "Yes" on this resize seriously want another craft-breaking update just for 0.3125m of "realism"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means he would need to resize almost every part which was designed to use this docking port. Mir hub, some Salyut and Mir parts, Soyuz, Progress and Shenzhou orbital modules... Oh, and passive docking port, of course.

Are you and all other people who voted "Yes" on this resize seriously want another craft-breaking update just for 0.3125m of "realism"?

As they would be new, separate parts, no craft breaking :)

New hub is naturally 0.9375m (or close), tapers down to 0.625m.

So making alternate hub, very easy!

9562347263.jpg

Edited by Beale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As they would be new, separate parts, no craft breaking :)

New hub is naturally 0.9375m (or close), tapers down to 0.625m.

So making alternate hub, very easy!

http://puu.sh/hGjar/9562347263.jpg

Can they at least be in some separate folder or something so people like me could delete them without having to rummage through the entire mod? Or maybe a separate download as "realism addon" or something. Can't say that I like the idea of my part list being crammed with almost identical parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can they at least be in some separate folder or something so people like me could delete them without having to rummage through the entire mod? Or maybe a separate download as "realism addon" or something. Can't say that I like the idea of my part list being crammed with almost identical parts.

Mmm, could be an option.

But, I can hopefully set your mind to rest that they would not be simply rescaled parts (For example, 0.9375m Docking probe may be not tapered and of a lighter colour?).

Still, this is all some time away, best solution will become clear as parts are made :)

To alienate those who like 0.625m I do not want to do!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the Kliper config for stock aero based on @DerpyFirework's modifications. I will modify it a bit in the future.

Edit: I just missed the runway on my first attempt at a flight + return. Still, 6 kerbals to orbit and back. No landing gear required!

Javascript is disabled. View full album
Edited by CrisK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with biohazard15.

I have to add my 2 cents, it looks very nice, but looking nice and not playing well with others and having no mix and match ability is why I don't install FASA or Raidernicks Soviet stuff - both are technically very accurate and look great...but not for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means he would need to resize almost every part which was designed to use this docking port. Mir hub, some Salyut and Mir parts, Soyuz, Progress and Shenzhou orbital modules... Oh, and passive docking port, of course.

Are you and all other people who voted "Yes" on this resize seriously want another craft-breaking update just for 0.3125m of "realism"?

I don't see 0.9m parts as a "realism" issue I see it as a "earning one's place in the part catalog issue" we already have 0.9m parts thanks to the alnair/tks but they aren't really worth the space they take if there isn't more to match up with them

Edited by passinglurker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Beale,

Let me get this straight, you found a sizing error in your modelling. Asked your users/supporters if they wanted you to make the correction. They responded with "not if it breaks crafts". So you responded with "ok, I'll make two parts packs so players can choose and so crafts aren't broken." That about right?

Here, take all my rep points. Hell, take my money. You are one classy modder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone always puts so much detail into their remakes, and I try, but end up doing pretty much the bare minimum. :(

Yeah, I do tend to get a little greeble-happy with my designs. :D But the design and engineering phase can be almost as much fun as flying sometimes. That's why I love when modders take the approach Beale has. Yes, you can make faithful analogues of real-life spacecraft, but you can run off and do your own thing, too. I'll spend hours digging through proposed designs that never flew just to find something new to experiment with, then more hours seeing if the beatie can fly at all. Just don't let my editor know in case I miss a deadline again... :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to add my 2 cents, it looks very nice, but looking nice and not playing well with others and having no mix and match ability is why I don't install FASA or Raidernicks Soviet stuff - both are technically very accurate and look great...but not for me
I don't see 0.9m parts as a "realism" issue I see it as a "earning one's place in the part catalog issue" we already have 0.9m parts thanks to the alnair/tks but they aren't really worth the space they take if there isn't more to match up with them

It's worth pointing out 0.9375m isn't a random number, but is a standard size in the same spirit that 1.875m is a standard size. :)

Many thanks for the feedback.

Here's the Kliper config for stock aero based on @DerpyFirework's modifications. I will modify it a bit in the future.

Edit: I just missed the runway on my first attempt at a flight + return. Still, 6 kerbals to orbit and back. No landing gear required!

http://imgur.com/a/hau4z

Tried it out, yep, the vertical speed is a little high, but landed pretty well.

Many thanks for flexing your aero expertise and the same to DerpyFirework!

6e6375675f.jpg

Cool, the new Ariane has the launch effects! Any word on that for the rest of the rockets?

Ah, I've forgotten them a little, get around to that soon.

Hey Beale,

Let me get this straight, you found a sizing error in your modelling. Asked your users/supporters if they wanted you to make the correction. They responded with "not if it breaks crafts". So you responded with "ok, I'll make two parts packs so players can choose and so crafts aren't broken." That about right?

Here, take all my rep points. Hell, take my money. You are one classy modder.

Hehehe, well thank you. :)

I have to say, the TKS is an oddball to fly. But she sure is fun!

http://i.imgur.com/hZcC8l3.png

Nice detail! :)

I've given up flying the TKS in that orientation, instead now put the thrusters the other way, but eh!

It's 9th May! Smrt Fašizmu! Sloboda Narodu!

:cool:

Light Gemini art pass.

Removed the "covered in oil" high concentrated specular.

3a40eb8f04.jpg

8d58c0213d.jpg

e245a80bef.jpg

Edit:

Made grills a little more defined.

64a6c5dbf9.jpg

1e14f0dd83.jpg

Edited by Beale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beale, I'm seeing some oddness with the landing gear for the LK. They aren't staying deployed. When you switch scenes then return to the lander, the gear are retracted again. Thought you'd like to know.

That said, Farshot 2 is rolled out and ready to fly. :cool:

fXm6BBA.png

Edited by Jack Wolfe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...