[1.12.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [16.1][28.05.2024][{Proton Revamp]

[biohazard15]

Uh-oh. Looks like I have to retire my current Vostok-based designs (which is basically half of my satellites)...

[Herr Rictus Bingo]

Couple of difficulties, first the point of contact would be too large and alter the shape from a sphere to something odd.

http://puu.sh/isnJU/2e1cd067b8.jpg

With the fairing, the point of contact is 0.9375m.

http://puu.sh/isnXE/8a8eb38ca2.jpg

Looking good Beal

[VenomousRequiem]

@curtquarquesso You should consider making your own thread here on the forums! Stockalike ISS bits! Get a PMA in there and you're golden!

[passinglurker]

I don't quite understand what you're describing

Something like this?

http://puu.sh/isnPT/56323441d5.jpg

Will do!

Couple of difficulties, first the point of contact would be too large and alter the shape from a sphere to something odd.

http://puu.sh/isnJU/2e1cd067b8.jpg

With the fairing, the point of contact is 0.9375m.

http://puu.sh/isnXE/8a8eb38ca2.jpg

Then don't alter the shape to some thing odd simply put the node at the 0.9m diameter point keep the sphere shape draw a .625 m circle on the bottom and then let the parts clip visually if it bugs some one they can use the offset tool.

Fairings mean while don't work for two reasons. First it will look bad if any part smaller than the fairing is put underneath regardless of offset antics. Second because you have to figure out how the fairing interacts with both stock and far aerodynamics (the reason HGRs method didn't catch on was because old far hated it when you tried to get creative with fairings and multiple attachment nodes I'm not sure if the situation has changed with nuFar)

[Beale]

Uh-oh. Looks like I have to retire my current Vostok-based designs (which is basically half of my satellites)...

Apologies!

If it is a silver lining, I'll be offering a Zenit / Bion control core (not sure which yet).

Then don't alter the shape to some thing odd simply put the node at the 0.9m diameter point keep the sphere shape draw a .625 m circle on the bottom and then let the parts clip visually if it bugs some one they can use the offset tool.

Fairings mean while don't work for two reasons. First it will look bad if any part smaller than the fairing is put underneath regardless of offset antics. Second because you have to figure out how the fairing interacts with both stock and far aerodynamics (the reason HGRs method didn't catch on was because old far hated it when you tried to get creative with fairings and multiple attachment nodes I'm not sure if the situation has changed with nuFar)

Previous Edit

Change of mind, I think I have found a solution somewhere between you and Niemand's proposals.

Couple of minutes, I'll demonstrate.

Edit:

Decoupler and Capsule!

The vostok now attaches via it's 0.625m node, identical to the old and current design

Yeah, the top diameter of this decoupler is a bit... odd. But, it nests 0.625m parts well and fits the Vostok perfectly.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Beale

[biohazard15]

Apologies!

If it is a silver lining, I'll be offering a Zenit / Bion control core (not sure which yet).

If there are any changes in Vostok decoupler and engine nodes (and I guess there are) - my sats are basically doomed.

Please don't tell me that your next project would be another Soyuz revamp (Also, please tell me that you would never, ever do ANOTHER Soyuz revamp. Enough is enough, you know!)

[Beale]

If there are any changes in Vostok decoupler and engine nodes (and I guess there are) - my sats are basically doomed.

Please don't tell me that your next project would be another Soyuz revamp (Also, please tell me that you would never, ever do ANOTHER Soyuz revamp. Enough is enough, you know!)

No Soyuz revamps! The models are now pixel perfect to orthographics, further changes would be really pointless. Plus I'm very happy with the final texture now, this is permanent.

A lack of changes also means I can feel comfortable to make alt textures (once I find a good way to produces .DDS files...).

I think the Soyuz progression picture I posted a while ago is the best example of why there is no more appetite in myself to do it yet again.

Texture tweaks? Maybe, minor ones anyway. But, never again model changes - this is why I have been so picky about matching orthographics (think the 0.9375m nodes), it's about stability.

As for the Vostok decoupler and engines nodes...

Well, I could give the new ones separate names, so you can keep old parts without compatibility issues? Would that be okay?

I.E.

Current

Almach_Decoupler_A

Almach_Engine_A

New Parts

Almach_Separator_A - Not overwrite Decoupler_A

Almach_ServiceModule_A

Almach_Motor_A - Not overwrite Engine_A

Then you are able to install the new one without corrupting old craft (But, extra texture usage unfortunately).

Another thing overlooked is the Vostok's upper stage that delivers it into orbit, which is a Tantares, not TantaresLV, part.

I'm quite fond of Snow White's old models for that, so not sure it will change.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Beale

[biohazard15]

No Soyuz revamps! The models are now pixel perfect to orthographics, further changes would be really pointless. Plus I'm very happy with the final texture now, this is permanent.

A lack of changes also means I can feel comfortable to make alt textures (once I find a good way to produces .DDS files...).

I think the Soyuz progression picture I posted a while ago is the best example of why there is no more appetite in myself to do it yet again.

Texture tweaks? Maybe, minor ones anyway. But, never again model changes - this is why I have been so picky about matching orthographics (think the 0.9375m nodes), it's about stability.

As for the Vostok decoupler and engines nodes...

Well, I could give the new ones separate names, so you can keep old parts without compatibility issues? Would that be okay?

Glad to hear that.

And yeah, separate names would be great! You can actually leave old decoupler and engine - they come in very handy in some early applications, like satellite bus.

[Beale]

And yeah, separate names would be great! You can actually leave old decoupler and engine - they come in very handy in some early applications, like satellite bus.

The decoupler should probably have less mass! Eheheh.

But, some parts will have to remain anyway, the Monopropellant spherical tanks for example, I think there is some call for a Monopropellant "necklace" that is a single part, but it would be a shame to lose the old ball tanks.

Renaming things is good for compatibility, but wouldn't work great on some things long term. We would now otherwise have something like:

Tantares_Crew_1

Tantares_Crew_A

Tantares_CrewCapsule_A

Tantares_CrewDescentModuleCapsule_A

Tantares_PartThatHoldsKerbalsAndTakesThemBackToTheSurfaceOfKerbin_A

Edited June 17, 2015 by Beale

[T'Flok]

I'm liking the new vostok already, that decoupler part will be useful thing to attach the main pod to something bigger!

[passinglurker]

I dunno the solution seems a bit puzzle piece like and if the decoupled has a odd sized top it can't be used as a standard decoupler for 0.9 m parts the earlier mock ups and drawings propsed an arrangement that reduced part count and maximized the components capacity to be swapped around in Lego like fashion with no funny business while still leaving an impression of vostok-ness why isn't it being considered any more?

As for the upper stage parts I do think they at least need to have their textures optimized

And please don't REQUIRE the radial tanks to make a working vostok options are nice though

[Beale]

I'm liking the new vostok already' date=' that decoupler part will be useful thing to attach the main pod to something bigger![/quote']

Many thanks!

I hope it will be useful, but still I feel it is a fairly niche part.

I dunno the solution seems a bit puzzle piece like and if the decoupled has a odd sized top it can't be used as a standard decoupler for 0.9 m parts the earlier mock ups and drawings propsed an arrangement that reduced part count and maximized the components capacity to be swapped around in Lego like fashion with no funny business while still leaving an impression of vostok-ness why isn't it being considered any more?

As for the upper stage parts I do think they at least need to have their textures optimized

And please don't REQUIRE the radial tanks to make a working vostok options are nice though

The mockups a few people made looked good, until the modelling began.

With a 0.9375m Decoupler, you end with something like this:

As for texture optimizations on the upper stage, yeah this will probably have to happen. They are starting to look visually a bit archaic.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Beale

[Niemand303]

I don't quite understand what you're describing

Something like this?

http://puu.sh/isnPT/56323441d5.jpg

Kinda, but with the upper node on the border levels, and offset slightly the bottom node for the capsule.

[T'Flok]

Personally I don't mind having that sort of niche part, IMO it makes having that pod on my latest design that much sweeter (i.e ejecting the pod with the pilot in case of dire emergency from the main craft!) Currently my ship looks like this:

I built that ship with new Almach capsule in mind. Now you can see why I'm itching for the new vostok and it having RPM screens too (my ship has RPM cameras pointed at all sides).

[pTrevTrevs]

Regarding the Vostok upper stage, I personally think that it needs a new model, not because it looks ugly, but because it isn't sized correctly compared to Vostok.

Orthographics for proof: http://andegraf.com/rockets/soyuz.htm

Check the Luna and Vostok rockets, they share the same Block E (?) upper stage. Vostok's appears longer because of the fairing over the engine. Currently, the Tantares upper stage is sized as if that fairing were part of the fuel tank. With that extra length, plus a decoupler and a fairing base, you have an unrealistically long upper stage for Vostok, and it just looks silly.

[biohazard15]

Regarding the Vostok upper stage, I personally think that it needs a new model, not because it looks ugly, but because it isn't sized correctly compared to Vostok.

Orthographics for proof: http://andegraf.com/rockets/soyuz.htm

Check the Luna and Vostok rockets, they share the same Block E (?) upper stage. Vostok's appears longer because of the fairing over the engine. Currently, the Tantares upper stage is sized as if that fairing were part of the fuel tank. With that extra length, plus a decoupler and a fairing base, you have an unrealistically long upper stage for Vostok, and it just looks silly.

Frankly, the whole R-7\Soyuz (the rocket, not the craft!) needs a MAJOR overhaul - not models, but balance. It's wildly off the balance now.

[Beale]

Kinda, but with the upper node on the border levels, and offset slightly the bottom node for the capsule.

Ah, I think I get you now!

But, I have to say - won't it end up with the same problem?

Personally I don't mind having that sort of niche part' date=' IMO it makes having that pod on my latest design that much sweeter (i.e ejecting the pod with the pilot in case of dire emergency from the main craft!) Currently my ship looks like this:

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

I built that ship with new Almach capsule in mind. Now you can see why I'm itching for the new vostok and it having RPM screens too (my ship has RPM cameras pointed at all sides).

Nice... er, lander? Ahaha

But, if it will find its use, I'm glad.

Regarding the Vostok upper stage, I personally think that it needs a new model, not because it looks ugly, but because it isn't sized correctly compared to Vostok.

Orthographics for proof: http://andegraf.com/rockets/soyuz.htm

Check the Luna and Vostok rockets, they share the same Block E (?) upper stage. Vostok's appears longer because of the fairing over the engine. Currently, the Tantares upper stage is sized as if that fairing were part of the fuel tank. With that extra length, plus a decoupler and a fairing base, you have an unrealistically long upper stage for Vostok, and it just looks silly.

Hmmm, you're right... It is a lot smaller than the model I currently have.

Yeah it does need a model re-do too then

Frankly, the whole R-7\Soyuz (the rocket, not the craft!) needs a MAJOR overhaul - not models, but balance. It's wildly off the balance now.

The models too! They are ancient.

Yep yep I totally agree.

The balancing is not my strong point, I've noticed a lot of stuff is blatantly overpowered when I finally have time to play the game (The Proton, for its lack of TWR has huge capabilities).

I can take on suggestions for new stats from anyone, might be a while until I release another update for TantaresLV though.

[Niemand303]

Ah, I think I get you now!

But, I have to say - won't it end up with the same problem?

The bulk will be of smaller size. Or you are planing on making a 0.625 decoupler ring instead of 0.625-1.25 adapter decoupler?

[T'Flok]

Nice... er, lander? Ahaha

It's an all-purpose spaceship (take-off, landing, mining, scanning, science gathering, exploration, orbital wrestling. etc).

[passinglurker]

Many thanks!

I hope it will be useful, but still I feel it is a fairly niche part.

The mockups a few people made looked good, until the modelling began.

With a 0.9375m Decoupler, you end with something like this:

http://puu.sh/isHvz/e3e1456d26.jpg

As for texture optimizations on the upper stage, yeah this will probably have to happen. They are starting to look visually a bit archaic.

haha! excellent that I can work with give me a bit to come up with some more refined mock up drawings.

[passinglurker]

Ok not exactly to scale it but hopefully gets the idea across

basically move the node down a bit to line up with the inner diameter of a 0.9375m part because the vostok is sitting inside the ring not on top so they can't possibly be flush unless the decoupler was razor sharp or there was a large depressed ring around the vostoks heat shield neither would be considered desirable. this coupled with making the the decouple a smidge taller would eliminate or at least minimize the bit of the heat shield that pokes out the bottom to the point that it would visually fit in the depression that caps the top of most stack mountable parts. Then just bevel the edges of the decoupler for looks and you are golden as any other situations involving decouplers can be solved with offset and any situation that doesn't have a decoupler wouldn't matter because baring crashes and explosions you'll never see the parts separate to expose your evil clipping wizardry.

as for not killing everyone's existing crafts with the revamp why not simply retire the almach name? put this pod in the vostok folder but name it something else that way the old almach files are not replaced when people update. Seems better than twisting the other half of the naming scheme to avoid double names

Edited June 18, 2015 by passinglurker

[CoLdKiLLa]

I am having a bug where the Farshot engine ignites on launch pad without staging, please help. I have KAS, KIS and Mechjeb also installed.

[T'Flok]

Speaking of KIS. Not sure which mod to blame for this particular bug but here goes it's description: Entering Kvant module either removes or forces items into my kerbal's inventory that are there or not there thus effectivly destroying whatever my kerbal was carrying. That bug does not occur if I use crew transfer, only when I enter from the hatch.

Update: Argh, that bug occurs with anyhting that does not have an IVA. I guess it's KIS then.

[DGatsby]

Ok, someone's going to have to explain T'Flok's reference to me... Totally beyond me. Heh.

To answer all of your questions, I haven't decided what's going in it yet. I have no ability to configure or create IVAs at the moment. I want it to be able to hold crew, charge, and a bit of monopropellant, but I don't want Kerbals to be able to EVA out of it. That means no hatch. Hatches are ugly. Crew can only go in via crew transfer. No idea how this will work in game. As I said, first experience with part creation.

Texture is far from done. Even the model could be better. Think I might make the raised panel divisions shallower. I'll wait for input from other add-on authors.

Next up will be a pair of CBMs for it, and possibly a PMM, however I'm not sure what Beale is planning to do as far as CBMs and PMMs go, so I'd defer to his parts for now.

Bernoulli Logistics Module (feat. Buran Buran)

http://i.imgur.com/Cxr8jczl.png

http://i.imgur.com/a22JAwH.png

http://i.imgur.com/aW4OalT.png

http://i.imgur.com/eUY2n9G.png

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

http://i.imgur.com/jx9N6hN.png

http://i.imgur.com/jWS4YSR.png

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

http://i.imgur.com/Cxr8jcz.png

Alpha release will be tomorrow night, though it's fairly useless at the moment. Consider this album also the teaser for a Buran craft file featuring a lot of Tantares parts. I think I'll forgo the launcher until AB Launchers is up and running again.

Looks great! Also, what skybox are you using?

[Guest]

Buran Buran? I loved their hit, "Hungry Like the Volk!"

Beale, if you need to break things to make room for even more awesome stuff, go ahead and break it. I live to experiment and tinker. You bust it up, I'll rebuild it with the better stuff you've provided.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Jack Wolfe