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

[legoclone09]

36 minutes ago, Markush100 said:

I have a problem. whenever i add some capsule, (vostok capsule or the 4 man can) i cant see the kerbal portraits. so it is impossible to EVA. Its really bugging me.

There is no IVA for them, and I think you can EVA from the right click menu.

[CobaltWolf]

48 minutes ago, legoclone09 said:

There is no IVA for them, and I think you can EVA from the right click menu.

@Markush100 you have to gibe the right click on the hatch, b0ss.

[Markush100]

5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

@Markush100 you have to gibe the right click on the hatch, b0ss.

thanks b0ss.

[Beale]

On 3/30/2016 at 6:41 PM, SirKeplan said:

@Beale It seems there's an issue with the Alnair_Parachute_A and Alnair_Parachute_B parts models, Maybe missing UVs. it's not a problem in stock, but it breaks the part for some reason when setting it up with RealChute.

(tried importing the parts with blender, this is the error "KeyError: 'bpy_prop_collection[key]: key "Spica_Parachute_A_Canopy_Spica_Parachute_A_Canopy_auvMat.mainMaterial" not found'")

 

That's a tricky one! They are using a shared model I think, not sure what's causing the error...

On 3/30/2016 at 0:10 AM, CobaltWolf said:

T-th-thanks senpai...

Real talk tho the Black Arrow parts should be either basic or general rocketry (I vote basic - it's a tiny rocket), and the Blue Streak should be advanced or heavy (I vote advanced, with the Titan 1).

Very strongly agree  

 

Phobos Grunt  

Question:

3 Legs - Like Reality?
It's accurate, but three legs looks a little odd on the octagonal shape.

4 Legs - Like Current?
Neat, simple to use, but not accurate.

 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Beale

[captainradish]

Octagonal for sure. The oddball third landing strut would royally f*** with my sense of design. I may honestly never use an otherwise wonderful part because the landing leg looks off-kilter.

Perhaps if you made two versions: a hexagonal smaller one with three legs and an octagonal larger one with four? Kind-of like the in-game hex/octo cores.

Edited March 31, 2016 by captainradish

[InsaneDruid]

3-way ftw! No question. The oddity is beautiful.

 

PS: 4way is impossible btw, for one of the sides is occupied by the "boom" of the sample transfer conduit.

Edited March 31, 2016 by InsaneDruid

[Starbuckminsterfullerton]

9 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

There is no IVA for them, and I think you can EVA from the right click menu.

@Beale Isn't there a 'placeholder' IVA that gives you crew portraits in a black background for parts with unmodeled internals? Might be a good place for it.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Starbuckminsterfullerton

[Beale]

34 minutes ago, captainradish said:

Octagonal for sure. The oddball third landing strut would royally f*** with my sense of design. I may honestly never use an otherwise wonderful part because the landing leg looks off-kilter.

Perhaps if you made two versions: a hexagonal smaller one with three legs and an octagonal larger one with four? Kind-of like the in-game hex/octo cores.

15 minutes ago, InsaneDruid said:

3-way ftw! No question. The oddity is beautiful.

 

PS: 4way is impossible btw, for one of the sides is occupied by the "boom" of the sample transfer conduit.

Hehehehe, the only answer I could expect, both  

I think on this occasion having both options probably is best.

 

4 minutes ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

@Beale Isn't there a 'placeholder' IVA that gives you crew portraits in a black background for parts with unmodeled internals? Might be a good place for it.

Indeed there is, it should be used on every part without IVA, I think I have forgotten the Vostok though! already fixed.

[curtquarquesso]

I've been away from the thread for a while, but I'll chime in on the Grunt. 

Have you considered making the legs separate? That'd be a better solution than having both a three-legged and a four-legged Grunt. With 1.1 pre-release out, you can finally start making landing legs knowing that they're not going to be rendered obsolete any time soon. 

For the sample return capsule, (if planned) how a bout a tiny version of he Hamal descent capsule? Not sure at the moment what size would be best, but you could go down to 0.3125 like some of the parts in Taerobee are.

[captainradish]

On the same note, I know it's not cannon, but can we get a version of the impactor that has a much much higher impact rating? When I first saw this thing I was thinking something along the lines of using it like a data retrieval pod that didn't need a chute. Suffice to say, my first trip with it ended up with it scattered across the landscape. I would love a version that can withstand very high speed 200 M/s+ impacts.

[Table]

1.1 compatability?

[passinglurker]

On 3/30/2016 at 10:29 AM, RabbitOfDogs said:

10 minutes ago, Table said:

 

 

 

 

 

[captainradish]

11 minutes ago, Table said:

1.1 compatability?

Mostly. I've seen an issue with the antennas not wanting to transmit, but other than that everything (so far) has been working for me.

[Table]

2 minutes ago, captainradish said:

Mostly. I've seen an issue with the antennas not wanting to transmit, but other than that everything (so far) has been working for me.

alright thanks

[passinglurker]

(Mobile forums are weird and buggy)

Shower thought. (and I've been gone since 1.05 dropped so maybe this conversation happened and I missed it) Does the soyuz pod even need a door anymore with the ability to transfer crew without a visible hatch?

[captainradish]

1 minute ago, passinglurker said:

(Mobile forums are weird and buggy)

Shower thought. (and I've been gone since 1.05 dropped so maybe this conversation happened and I missed it) Does the soyuz pod even need a door anymore with the ability to transfer crew without a visible hatch?

Well, I suppose it does if you want to leave it...:)

[passinglurker]

Just now, captainradish said:

Well, I suppose it does if you want to leave it...:)

Yeah but isn't that what the orbital module is for? you don't want to open the door to a vacuum when there isn't enough room for you both to wear helmets now would you? Think of the poor co-pilot

[captainradish]

4 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

Yeah but isn't that what the orbital module is for? you don't want to open the door to a vacuum when there isn't enough room for you both to wear helmets now would you? Think of the poor co-pilot

But how do you get out of the pod when back on Earth? I think the real Soyuz is reversed: the orbital module doesn't have a hatch, does it? I'll have to look that up.

 

Edit: nope, you're right. I'll be damned. The descent module DOESN'T have a hatch.

Edited April 1, 2016 by captainradish

[passinglurker]

Just now, captainradish said:

But how do you get out of the pod when back on Earth? I think the real Soyuz is reversed: the orbital module doesn't have a hatch, does it? I'll have to look that up.

My point is this wasn't possible before now so it wasn't something thought about and the door was simply accepted and even taken for granted. Now it could possibly be a balance implication of picking the small, efficient, compact pod. Basically in gaining a seat in this form factor you lose a door sort of thinking...

[curtquarquesso]

@Table, You've gone to about a dozen different add-on release topics and copy-pasted:

1 hour ago, Table said:

1.1 compatability?

Please stop.

42 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

My point is this wasn't possible before now so it wasn't something thought about and the door was simply accepted and even taken for granted. Now it could possibly be a balance implication of picking the small, efficient, compact pod. Basically in gaining a seat in this form factor you lose a door sort of thinking...

Interesting idea. I think the only problem with this is that you can't EVA kerbals out of the capsule once you've landed. The 0.625m node on the top isn't large enough to act as a hatch, and it's obstructed by the parachute. You'd have to side-mount or integrate the parachute into the side of the capsule.

Edited April 1, 2016 by curtquarquesso

[captainradish]

39 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

My point is this wasn't possible before now so it wasn't something thought about and the door was simply accepted and even taken for granted. Now it could possibly be a balance implication of picking the small, efficient, compact pod. Basically in gaining a seat in this form factor you lose a door sort of thinking...

The seat is unusable, however. The Soyuz (in this game) flies exactly the same if you have the orbital module or if you don't.

I am well aware from a gameplay standpoint the orbital modules are 100% usable as pods (I used one as a Vostok for a long time), but from an RP standpoint they are not. I have no problem getting rid of the hatch as the RL Soyuz doesn't have one, but only because it's now unneeded.

BTW, I apologize of I mistook what you were saying. It sounds to me like you're saying you can use the descent pod to carry two kerbals into orbit or attach the orbital module to carry three.

[passinglurker]

2 minutes ago, captainradish said:

The seat is unusable, however. The Soyuz (in this game) flies exactly the same if you have the orbital module or if you don't.

I am well aware from a gameplay standpoint the orbital modules are 100% usable as pods (I used one as a Vostok for a long time), but from an RP standpoint they are not. I have no problem getting rid of the hatch as the RL Soyuz doesn't have one, but only because it's now unneeded.

BTW, I apologize of I mistook what you were saying. It sounds to me like you're saying you can use the descent pod to carry two kerbals into orbit or attach the orbital module to carry three.

You are correct you did mistake what I was saying. I was saying you can use the low mass the decent pod to carry two kerbals and the even lower mass orbital module as an airlock. Naturally you can't carry a 3rd kerbal despite the open seat because if the orbital module has been balanced correctly its not going to survive the heat of reentry. So its nothing more than swap space and a place to put more batteries and reaction wheels that didn't fit in the already tight descent module.

That was the philosophy behind soyuz the part that returns to earth is as stripped down and bare bones as possible while all the resources and amenities are cheaply put in orbit and service modules that are discarded at the end of the mission. Potentially kerbal is far enough along now that those aspects of soyuz's design could be captured.

 

The question is is it better to ballance the presently very capable soyuz decent module to reflect this by striping it down and putting more on the orbital module  or is it better to keep the soyuz decent module self sufficient and capable for lego like swaping regardless of the ballance implications? Both sides have merit.

[captainradish]

5 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

You are correct you did mistake what I was saying. I was saying you can use the low mass the decent pod to carry two kerbals and the even lower mass orbital module as an airlock. Naturally you can't carry a 3rd kerbal despite the open seat because if the orbital module has been balanced correctly its not going to survive the heat of reentry. So its nothing more than swap space and a place to put more batteries and reaction wheels that didn't fit in the already tight descent module.

That was the philosophy behind soyuz the part that returns to earth is as stripped down and bare bones as possible while all the resources and amenities are cheaply put in orbit and service modules that are discarded at the end of the mission. Potentially kerbal is far enough along now that those aspects of soyuz's design could be captured.

 

The question is is it better to ballance the presently very capable soyuz decent module to reflect this by striping it down and putting more on the orbital module  or is it better to keep the soyuz decent module self sufficient and capable for lego like swaping regardless of the ballance implications? Both sides have merit.

Gotcha.

I use the Soyuz module like in real life: I use both parts (or sometimes the bigger orbital module) and have a crewmember transfer from the descent module to the orbital module. I only wish you can transfer both. Is the real life module capable of having both cosmonauts in it at the same time?

I can also see the merits of both sides. I could also argue that the attachment point on the top of the craft can serve double duty as the airlock if you don't include the orbital module if the game supports such a thing. That would satisfy both sides.

Edited April 1, 2016 by captainradish

[passinglurker]

 

1 minute ago, captainradish said:

Gotcha.

I use the Soyuz module like in real life: I use both parts (or sometimes the bigger orbital module) and have a crewmember transfer from the descent module to the orbital module. I only wish you can transfer both. Is the real life module capable of having both cosmonauts in it at the same time?

Given the issues we have with how kerbals are shaped I don't think it would matter how many cosmonaut's can fit in the orbital module in real life

[captainradish]

1 minute ago, passinglurker said:

 

Given the issues we have with how kerbals are shaped I don't think it would matter how many cosmonaut's can fit in the orbital module in real life

I'm more thinking that if IRL both cosmonauts can fit inside the orbital module then both kerbalnauts should be expected to as well. It can't be comfortable to ride all day inside the descent module.