[1.12.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [27.0][18.05.2024][VA Revamp]

[passinglurker]

It's not that obvious.

Try it yourself with this rocket, it will flip if you try and use the proper method.

Just, seemingly not quite as severe as tjsnh is describing.

Really it makes getting an apoapsis lower than 100km pretty much impossible, it's true.

and what about keeping the COM as forward as possible? you know heavier payload, lighter engines, no stacking tanks (weld the two together for a test? or just put all the oxidizer in the top part and all the liquid fuel in the bottom) etc... would that mitigate the issue? a rocket should fly like a rocket after all if its not then we can't consider it properly configured(I wish I had time to test this stuff myself )

[tjsnh]

Using "the 5 ton solution" I mentioned above, beginning the gravity turn at pretty much any altitude/speed above 250m/s works pretty well, and allows for more fine grained control of orbital altitude.

[passinglurker]

Using "the 5 ton solution" I mentioned above, beginning the gravity turn at pretty much any altitude/speed above 250m/s works pretty well, and allows for more fine grained control of orbital altitude.

So it's the problems imposed on us by stock. The engines are to heavy and the draining stacked tanks makes the COM slide back. There are some ways to fight this like using the com_offset config value to put all the core stages tanks mass towards the top, or making the side boosters single piece like I said all along, or rebalancing the engines to be much lighter but less efficent to compensate. Either way we can't rely on stock alike behaviors to fix this one.

[Lucius]

Meh I played around with the beta FG and i'll tell you this:

Yes, its a little tipsy and surly and uncooperative, but as summed up before: "y'all are gravity turning wrong". FG flies like a fairly real rocket. If you get yourself more than 5 degrees outside of angle of attack, expect to start flipping. When you lose your booster tanks, don't expect to do more than 3 degrees AoA. You should be doing a long, slow, wide gravity turn starting at just under 100m/s. Set up mechjeb to keep your max q under 30k, your max speed under 30m/s, and your max AoA before booster sep to 6 degrees, 3 degrees after booster sep, and a nice long 40 percent turn. Watch how it handles with mechjeb at the controls, and get a feeling for what the grav turn on this bad boy really is.

There is no flaw to this rocket, it's just... ice skating in a cement truck. You need to handle it with some respect, not whip it around. Treat it like a lady!

[tjsnh]

So it's the problems imposed on us by stock. The engines are to heavy and the draining stacked tanks makes the COM slide back. There are some ways to fight this like using the com_offset config value to put all the core stages tanks mass towards the top, or making the side boosters single piece like I said all along, or rebalancing the engines to be much lighter but less efficent to compensate. Either way we can't rely on stock alike behaviors to fix this one.

It seems to be kindof a combination of the "new" stock aero, and how the parts weights/positions impact the assembled launcher's COM.

As I'm not-the-author-of-the-config-files , the "5 ton solution" works well for me and my mod since it's only impacting one part (reduces MM bloat). Until/Unless the entire rocket's bucket of parts are entirely rebalanced (both for COM and for payload-to-orbit : the R-7 series is SERIOUSLY overpowered in my opinion, capable of easily pushing a soyuz-mass payload into solar orbit) the simplest fix, for me anyway, is going to be just sticking a bunch of lead weights onto the bulge tank with a MM entry

Also - if anyone is having trouble with the stock decoupler being too wimpy : I used MM to bump it's ejection force up to 500 and it now pushes the boosters clear of the central stage's engines.

[Wuwuk]

Beale you RealFuel config don't work in new RealFuel 10.6.1.

Engine ignitions limit lost and engine config duplicates.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Wuwuk

[passinglurker]

Meh I played around with the beta FG and i'll tell you this:

Yes, its a little tipsy and surly and uncooperative, but as summed up before: "y'all are gravity turning wrong". FG flies like a fairly real rocket. If you get yourself more than 5 degrees outside of angle of attack, expect to start flipping. When you lose your booster tanks, don't expect to do more than 3 degrees AoA. You should be doing a long, slow, wide gravity turn starting at just under 100m/s. Set up mechjeb to keep your max q under 30k, your max speed under 30m/s, and your max AoA before booster sep to 6 degrees, 3 degrees after booster sep, and a nice long 40 percent turn. Watch how it handles with mechjeb at the controls, and get a feeling for what the grav turn on this bad boy really is.

There is no flaw to this rocket, it's just... ice skating in a cement truck. You need to handle it with some respect, not whip it around. Treat it like a lady!

Every.

Single.

Time.

Me: rockets tip too much we should try to figure out how to make them tip less

The Next Poster: naaah just suck it up and learn to fly newbie.

Honestly it gets old. We are flying the same unrealistically assembled and stated rockets in a new semi realistic atmosphere how is it not clear that they are not meshing well?

I'm not saying piloting skill shouldn't be a factor or that we should try to eliminate tipping entirely because it is a real issue faced by engineers, but for the sake of this being a fun game out should be an order of magnitude more manageable when flying and intuitive when things go wrong.

[Wuwuk]

I found a bag in TantaresLV 13.

Here the scrinshots:

This occurs when I using "Return to launch" in flight.

Decreases part, which was chosen first in the construction of the rocket in the VAB.

This occurs only with V-2.

[VenomousRequiem]

Well he removed the V-2 so it doesn't really even matter.

[Guest]

I found a bag in TantaresLV 13....

Version 14 has already been released, and the V-2 moved to another parts mod.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Jack Wolfe
Rats! Venemously ninja'd!

[Wuwuk]

Version 14 has already been released, and the V-2 moved to another parts mod.

I'm still using version 13.

And V-2 is not yet in Taerobee.

And since I need a V-2, I would like to

somehow fix it.

[passinglurker]

I'm still using version 13.

And V-2 is not yet in Taerobee.

And since I need a V-2, I would like to

somehow fix it.

Set rescale factor in the config to 1 then set the scale in the model node too 1.25. If you did not understand the previous instructions don't use any v2 parts as your root part. If you did not understand either of the previous instructions find a way to make due without the v2 or postpone your plans until beale releases it in the taerobee mod.

[tjsnh]

Every.

Single.

Time.

Me: rockets tip too much we should try to figure out how to make them tip less

The Next Poster: naaah just suck it up and learn to fly newbie.

Honestly it gets old. We are flying the same unrealistically assembled and stated rockets in a new semi realistic atmosphere how is it not clear that they are not meshing well?

I'm not saying piloting skill shouldn't be a factor or that we should try to eliminate tipping entirely because it is a real issue faced by engineers, but for the sake of this being a fun game out should be an order of magnitude more manageable when flying and intuitive when things go wrong.

I have similar thoughts about flight sims. As a "real life" pilot, when I fire up a flight sim sometimes I don't want to have to worry about adjusting my elevator trim - I just want to fly and not worry about some of the minutia.

Similarly, when I fire up KSP I'm not looking for a perfect 100% simulation, and I want creations to be playable without an undue level of fuss. I don't think that's an unreasonable expectation.

In a game (fun), as opposed to a full simulation (education/training/practice for the "real thing"), the margin for error should be some level above zero.

Edited September 9, 2015 by tjsnh

[stratocracy]

Any idea why PPTS isn't appearing? don't say its the install, I did it exactly right, then ive done it again so the install isn't the issue.

[Wuwuk]

Set rescale factor in the config to 1 then set the scale in the model node too 1.25. If you did not understand the previous instructions don't use any v2 parts as your root part. If you did not understand either of the previous instructions find a way to make due without the v2 or postpone your plans until beale releases it in the taerobee mod.

I did as you said, but did not help.

If I understand you correctly of course.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Wuwuk

[tjsnh]

Any idea why PPTS isn't appearing? don't say its the install, I did it exactly right, then ive done it again so the install isn't the issue.

It's called the "tucano" in the tantares mod.

[curtquarquesso]

Moving to the Tantares thread to stay on topic:

I...

It...

They...

http://www.chongas.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/flanders.gif

To be serious, I'm not sure there is any reason I use them, I just think a bit of "gruffness" to loosen up the otherwise very plain texture maps.

http://puu.sh/k5GEa/3b4039be09.jpg http://puu.sh/k5GG4/6cd5c55eb6.jpg

Heh. I like the stripes on that fuselage piece. That makes a lot more sense. Doesn't make as much sense on the tops of parts.

For the top of the new R7 tanks, could you use the same modeling and texture techniques you used on the top of the Vostok, Proton, and ABLaunchers parts? I really preferred the rounded pressure vessel being visible on the tops of the tanks.

Just looks so much better. The tank butts you have on the current iteration of the R7 is more suited for the X-1 parts you've got going on.

Also a note on what ends up being the Soyuz S-III interstage. The fairing for the "Seal" needs a top ring on the truss. When it separates, it looks like a spiky crown. It doesn't look intentional either.

Any way the fairing and engine could get tweaked a bit to make it look a bit more like the real deal?

By flipping the interstage fairing 180º, it looks totally correct. Really simple fix. With the trusses attached to the top of the tank below it, you don't even need to remodel the interstage.

Here's a quick remodel I worked up. Let me know if you want it. The only fix needed in Unity would be adjusting the FX positions a bit. The overall dimensions are the same I believe. Doesn't even mess up the textures.

Edited September 9, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[curtquarquesso]

Also, in it's own post, because it's unrelated to the last post, I did some work on scaling for the basic set of vehicles that can be made in Tantares.

In order from left to right:

ATV: 2.5m with 0.9275m Russian Probe.

HTV: 2.5m with 1.25m CBM.

Cygnus: 1.5m with 1.25m CBM

Progress: 1.25m with 0.9375m Russian Probe.

PPTS: 2.5m with 0.9275m Russian Probe.

Apollo CM: 1.875m with 0.625m Apollo Probe.

Soyuz: 1.25m with 0.9375m Russian Probe. (0.625 for some earlier versions.)

Gemini: 1.5m with 0.625m Docking Interface

Mercury: 1.25m with 0.625m Docking Interface

Vostok: 1.25m with your face.

The Gemini numbers are perfect. Gemini was 90in, and Mercury was 75in. That's a ratio of 1.2. As it turns out, 1.5/1.25 also equals 1.2. With a 1.5m Gemini capsule, the Gemini SM would be 1.5m on top, and 1.875m on the bottom.

For the Apollo size, 1.875 is a compromise. The Apollo capsule was 3.9m, and the Soyuz is 2.2, which is a ratio of around 1.7. That being said, the Apollo capsule would be something like, 2.0m, but that's stupid, so 1.875m work.

The PPTS is perfect. It's a perfect size compared to the Soyuz capsule. Twice as large, exactly.

Cygnus could probably use a size increase up to 1.875m. 1.25m is still unfortunately too small. Now that they've moved on to the enhanced configuration, the current Cygnus is too small and stubby. That'd make the Antares 1.875m.

Because a lot of these scaling things make 1.5m a essential part size, I really would like the idea of a TantaresLight, or a TantaresExtra.

I know all this because I went to KSC on my 21st to check it out myself and "verify."

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I'm sorry. I think I have a problem.

Edited September 10, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[_Augustus_]

Also, in it's own post, because it's unrelated to the last post, I did some work on scaling for the basic set of vehicles that can be made in Tantares.

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

In order from left to right:

ATV: 2.5m with 0.9275m Russian Probe.

HTV: 2.5m with 1.25m CBM.

Cygnus: 1.5m with 1.25m CBM

Progress: 1.25m with 0.9375m Russian Probe.

PPTS: 2.5m with 0.9275m Russian Probe.

Apollo CM: 1.875m with 0.625m Apollo Probe.

Soyuz: 1.25m with 0.9375m Russian Probe. (0.625 for some earlier versions.)

Gemini: 1.5m with 0.625m Docking Interface

Mercury: 1.25m with 0.625m Docking Interface

Vostok: 1.25m with your face.

The Gemini numbers are perfect. Gemini was 90in, and Mercury was 75in. That's a ratio of 1.2. As it turns out, 1.5/1.25 also equals 1.2. With a 1.5m Gemini capsule, the Gemini SM would be 1.5m on top, and 1.875m on the bottom.

For the Apollo size, 1.875 is a compromise. The Apollo capsule was 3.9m, and the Soyuz is 2.2, which is a ratio of around 1.7. That being said, the Apollo capsule would be something like, 2.0m, but that's stupid, so 1.875m work.

The PPTS is perfect. It's a perfect size compared to the Soyuz capsule. Twice as large, exactly.

Cygnus could probably use a size increase up to 1.875m. 1.25m is still unfortunately too small. Now that they've moved on to the enhanced configuration, the current Cygnus is too small and stubby. That'd make the Antares 1.875m.

Because a lot of these scaling things make 1.5m a essential part size, I really would like the idea of a TantaresLight, or a TantaresExtra.

I know all this because I went to KSC on my 21st to check it out myself and "verify."

http://imgur.com/a/024y9

I'm sorry. I think I have a problem.

Personally I use the FASA Apollo, and I think that an ASTP docking adapter for Tantares and FASA would be nice.

[passinglurker]

Beale! I thought of a use for vostok's "service module" Monoprop fueled attitude control! not to be confused with RCS because config wise it would basically be reaction wheel that runs off monoprop, but since vostok used its thrusters for attitude control instead of propulsion or translation its functionally the same thing? basically the benefits are it can be justified as cheaper and earlier in the tree than electric reaction wheels and real RCS thrusters because of obvious disadvantages compared to each (consumes non-renewable resources, and is useless for propulsion), it could fit in the sputnik configuration and give it more control authority, and it lets you save your pods early game batteries for transmitting science!

Also, in it's own post, because it's unrelated to the last post, I did some work on scaling for the basic set of vehicles that can be made in Tantares.

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

I am reminded once again what a terrible procrastinator I am >.>...

[stratocracy]

thanks, im aware of that. What i had to do was paste tucano over from a gamedata file my friend sent me. So it was, was, the install. it works after i did that, but how odd that it would be weird like this.

[Beale]

Moving to the Tantares thread to stay on topic:

Heh. I like the stripes on that fuselage piece. That makes a lot more sense. Doesn't make as much sense on the tops of parts.

For the top of the new R7 tanks, could you use the same modeling and texture techniques you used on the top of the Vostok, Proton, and ABLaunchers parts? I really preferred the rounded pressure vessel being visible on the tops of the tanks.

http://i.imgur.com/63iVOxal.png

Just looks so much better. The tank butts you have on the current iteration of the R7 is more suited for the X-1 parts you've got going on.

Also a note on what ends up being the Soyuz S-III interstage. The fairing for the "Seal" needs a top ring on the truss. When it separates, it looks like a spiky crown. It doesn't look intentional either.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3396/4631780670_0f00179f74_b.jpg

Any way the fairing and engine could get tweaked a bit to make it look a bit more like the real deal?

By flipping the interstage fairing 180º, it looks totally correct. Really simple fix. With the trusses attached to the top of the tank below it, you don't even need to remodel the interstage.

Here's a quick remodel I worked up. Let me know if you want it. The only fix needed in Unity would be adjusting the FX positions a bit. The overall dimensions are the same I believe. Doesn't even mess up the textures.

http://i.imgur.com/0h5mRuml.png

http://i.imgur.com/or1hi6Sl.png

The tank ends I am torn on, the pressure vessel looks very nice in general, but it is a lot of polygons - for something that is generally never seen during flight.

I'd need to define a proper style too, notice all the pressure vessels look totally different.

Thoughts?

I will fix the inter-stages, yep - It is very ugly the "spike crown" that gets left currently!

Also, in it's own post, because it's unrelated to the last post, I did some work on scaling for the basic set of vehicles that can be made in Tantares.

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

In order from left to right:

ATV: 2.5m with 0.9275m Russian Probe.

HTV: 2.5m with 1.25m CBM.

Cygnus: 1.5m with 1.25m CBM

Progress: 1.25m with 0.9375m Russian Probe.

PPTS: 2.5m with 0.9275m Russian Probe.

Apollo CM: 1.875m with 0.625m Apollo Probe.

Soyuz: 1.25m with 0.9375m Russian Probe. (0.625 for some earlier versions.)

Gemini: 1.5m with 0.625m Docking Interface

Mercury: 1.25m with 0.625m Docking Interface

Vostok: 1.25m with your face.

The Gemini numbers are perfect. Gemini was 90in, and Mercury was 75in. That's a ratio of 1.2. As it turns out, 1.5/1.25 also equals 1.2. With a 1.5m Gemini capsule, the Gemini SM would be 1.5m on top, and 1.875m on the bottom.

For the Apollo size, 1.875 is a compromise. The Apollo capsule was 3.9m, and the Soyuz is 2.2, which is a ratio of around 1.7. That being said, the Apollo capsule would be something like, 2.0m, but that's stupid, so 1.875m work.

The PPTS is perfect. It's a perfect size compared to the Soyuz capsule. Twice as large, exactly.

Cygnus could probably use a size increase up to 1.875m. 1.25m is still unfortunately too small. Now that they've moved on to the enhanced configuration, the current Cygnus is too small and stubby. That'd make the Antares 1.875m.

Because a lot of these scaling things make 1.5m a essential part size, I really would like the idea of a TantaresLight, or a TantaresExtra.

I know all this because I went to KSC on my 21st to check it out myself and "verify."

http://imgur.com/a/024y9

I'm sorry. I think I have a problem.

That's so cool! Do you mind if I use this for the album?

Reminds me of:

Shots of KSC are very nice also, I am a little jealous.

Beale! I thought of a use for vostok's "service module" Monoprop fueled attitude control! not to be confused with RCS because config wise it would basically be reaction wheel that runs off monoprop, but since vostok used its thrusters for attitude control instead of propulsion or translation its functionally the same thing? basically the benefits are it can be justified as cheaper and earlier in the tree than electric reaction wheels and real RCS thrusters because of obvious disadvantages compared to each (consumes non-renewable resources, and is useless for propulsion), it could fit in the sputnik configuration and give it more control authority, and it lets you save your pods early game batteries for transmitting science!

That... is quite a nice idea - granted I would prefer it to have visible exhaust requiring a re-model. I will consider this.

thanks, im aware of that. What i had to do was paste tucano over from a gamedata file my friend sent me. So it was, was, the install. it works after i did that, but how odd that it would be weird like this.

It is available in the latest released version y'know

Edited September 10, 2015 by Beale

[passinglurker]

That... is quite a nice idea - granted I would prefer it to have visible exhaust requiring a re-model. I will consider this.

Visible exhaust or no some exhaust ports would have to at least be painted on any way because it's not like the monoprop is driving internal flywheel's. The biggest flaw with this plan I could come up with is people thinking they are inline rcs thrusters and complaining or reporting it to be bugged when it doesn't work as such so the part description should be very clear.

The lack of actual thrust compared to genuine rcs is important for it's balance niche(cheaper, lighter, lower tech, but consumes non renewables and is useless for propulsion) If it was configured for thrusting in unity but set to a thrust of 0 would that still create the desired visual effect? Though of course you'd only see the effect when rcs was on yet the "reaction wheel" would still function all the time.

---update---

The tank ends I am torn on, the pressure vessel looks very nice in general, but it is a lot of polygons - for something that is generally never seen during flight.

I'd need to define a proper style too, notice all the pressure vessels look totally different.

Thoughts?

Here is a thought people playing for looks would be more likely to have processing power to spare so what you could do is make a separate collider-less "dome cap" mesh that fits snugly into the standard tantares style fuel tank depression and use a MM config with MODEL nodes to weld them in place as an "optional graphics upgrade", and bam! you've basically invented a universal flat cap to dome cap fuel tank converter for those who want looks while preserving lower poly flat parts those who don't care as much.

That being said I'd rather have a closed or mostly closed flat texture than be stareing into a dark abyss for my endcaps

Edited September 10, 2015 by passinglurker

[curtquarquesso]

The tank ends I am torn on, the pressure vessel looks very nice in general, but it is a lot of polygons - for something that is generally never seen during flight.

I'd need to define a proper style too, notice all the pressure vessels look totally different.

Thoughts?

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about everything being super uniform. Different rockets are different. Let them be different. Differences in design, especially in color, really help with catalog identification. Because most of the tanks are more or less variations of white and grey, the tops are a strong identification tool. Moreover, polygon count has never had severe effects on KSP performance. It's part count, and textures that are the biggest issues, and those should get somewhat resolved with the Unity 5 update.

Soyuz's exposed pressure vessels vary a bit. The third stage is very pronounced, and rounded, while the core stage is more subtle.

Proton's look about right at the moment. I can't find many images of the pressure vessels exposed.

Ariana's LFO tank could really benefit from the look going on in the 5m Energia tank. I think it'd be a nice and accurate look.

With Black Arrow and Blue Streak, I don't know enough about either rocket to know much about what their pressure vessels looked like. They look about right, though different colors would help to tell them apart from the other rockets.

I will fix the inter-stages, yep - It is very ugly the "spike crown" that gets left currently!

Cool. The problem also applies to the "Walrus" booster engine.

That's so cool! Do you mind if I use this for the album?

I can compose a better image if you give me a little time. What are your thoughts on all the scaling nonsense?

Reminds me of:

http://www.shokabo.co.jp/author/8758/fujicapsuleC1.jpg

Is that a challenge? Guess I've another photo to recreate.

Edited September 10, 2015 by curtquarquesso

[InsaneDruid]

Soyuz's exposed pressure vessels vary a bit. The third stage is very pronounced, and rounded, while the core stage is more subtle.

http://i.imgur.com/KQ4htHrm.jpg

Thats because the Core Stage upper end isn't the pressure vessel itself (on most russian designs). Its a heat shield to deflect the third stage's exhaust flame, because the upper stage fires when the lower stage is still burning, thus preventing the need for extra ullage motors. Thats why you see so many open, girder-like interstages on Soyuz, Proton, N1, Zenit. They are open to let the exhaust flow out. Protons third stage fires its 4 vernier engines that sit in little flame trenches that are carved out of the second stage while the second stage is still firing.

Proton's look about right at the moment. I can't find many images of the pressure vessels exposed.

You can see the pressure vessel of Protons second and third stage on many images and drawings. Its a (near) half-sphere.

Second stage:

Third stage: