[1.12.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [26.0][18.12.2023][Things are happening]

[VenomousRequiem]

10 minutes ago, hraban said:

Basic model of an RD-0162. 1.775m long, 1.25m diameter, ISP 321 (TWR) 356 (VAC), ~500 kN Thrust with LOX/LNG. All datas for stock KSP. 

 

Is that the one for the Soyuz-5?

Either way, if you include that in Contares, I don't think I'll be able to use it, at least not until 1.1 comes with 64x. Contares' memory footprint is... Questionable. I really like it but with it come memory issues, and with memory issues comes... And anyone can vouche for me here... Really, really weird glitches. 

KSP reaching it's memory limit is the wabbajack of video games... You never know what it's going to do.

[hraban]

9 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said:

Is that the one for the Soyuz-5?

Either way, if you include that in Contares, I don't think I'll be able to use it, at least not until 1.1 comes with 64x. Contares' memory footprint is... Questionable. I really like it but with it come memory issues, and with memory issues comes... And anyone can vouche for me here... Really, really weird glitches. 

KSP reaching it's memory limit is the wabbajack of video games... You never know what it's going to do.

Who really has a clue uses just the best from uncounted mods (> 80) and gets no strange behavior of KSP (32bit). 

In future Contares is divided into different areas and will be continuously improved. Tantares is also not fallen from the sky perfectly.

 

[the_pazter]

what parts do I use for the Cygnus?

[Beale]

3 hours ago, hanhan658 said:

 If you play with Realism Overhaul, you will notice that the Shenzhou orbital module is the only piece of the Shenzhou ship...

Is it or... i have missing parts or i havent just find it, if yes which categorie is the rest of the modules in...

PS, I talking about missing parts in most of the posts because i always felt i have missing parts and maybe true.

If you had mentioned the Shenzou before, I could have helped you much quicker.

No, there are no other Shenzou parts, just the OM.

It is possible you have missing parts, but I am not really sure what could be missing, unless you can show examples.

1 hour ago, the_pazter said:

what parts do I use for the Cygnus?

Like this (Big)

Or like this (small)

Hope this helps  

[OTmikhail]

Hey @Beale since it seems you are getting into weird off sizes (which are becoming so much more accepted thanks to BDB) do you plan to make any 1.5m or 1.875m stuff to possibly make Kosmos, Tsiklon, Dnepr rockets? That would be super cool since to my knowledge no one has made those rocket parts for KSP yet. If you do not, no worries, but if you do my admiration and respect for you will have no bounds.

[VenomousRequiem]

2 minutes ago, OTmikhail said:

Hey @Beale since it seems you are getting into weird off sizes (which are becoming so much more accepted thanks to BDB) do you plan to make any 1.5m or 1.875m stuff to possibly make Kosmos, Tsiklon, Dnepr rockets? That would be super cool since to my knowledge no one has made those rocket parts for KSP yet. If you do not, no worries, but if you do my admiration and respect for you will have no bounds.

Speaking of BDB, I already modeled the Dnepr first stage engine, and it'll be included... At some point...

[CobaltWolf]

10 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

Speaking of BDB, I already modeled the Dnepr first stage engine, and it'll be included... At some point...

Didn't you lose that when your HDD died? And do we REALLY want to delay Saturn all the more?

10 hours ago, OTmikhail said:

Hey @Beale since it seems you are getting into weird off sizes (which are becoming so much more accepted thanks to BDB)

>> Accepted
>> Biggest complaint against BDB

@Beale got a lot of flak for his decision to use an off size in the new Gemini. BDB is very far from the average user's palate, and I don't think he'll get good feedback if he does so. With that said 1.875m is already in Tantares, so he should definitely make some more stuff in that size, as well as 0.9375m. Wait, do people hate 1.5m that much?

[Starbuckminsterfullerton]

7 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Wait, do people hate 1.5m that much?

I don't, but I can see why it's a tough sell. 1.875 is ok because it is exactly between 1.25 & 2.5, it equals exactly three .625, and half of 3.75, it should almost be stock, the gap between sizes 1 and 2 is double any of the other stack diameters, and plus you have the precedent set by HGR, Tantares, etc. making it even more supported than the 5m and above diameters. 

1.5 and .9375 have none of that. They barely exist outside of BDB (and Tantares? @Beale verify me because I haven't run the mod recently), and they aren't evenly divisible by any other sizes. It's like introducing a new MkX spaceplane profile; cool, but you're limited to the parts in the mod.

[VenomousRequiem]

49 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Didn't you lose that when your HDD died? And do we REALLY want to delay Saturn all the more?

I emailed it to you I think, either way I can do it again. And... shhh... maybe they won't notice if you don't bring it up...

It's already on the roadmap, no?

[Andem]

3 hours ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

I don't, but I can see why it's a tough sell. 1.875 is ok because it is exactly between 1.25 & 2.5, it equals exactly three .625, and half of 3.75, it should almost be stock, the gap between sizes 1 and 2 is double any of the other stack diameters, and plus you have the precedent set by HGR, Tantares, etc. making it even more supported than the 5m and above diameters. 

1.5 and .9375 have none of that. They barely exist outside of BDB (and Tantares? @Beale verify me because I haven't run the mod recently), and they aren't evenly divisible by any other sizes. It's like introducing a new MkX spaceplane profile; cool, but you're limited to the parts in the mod.

That's my only beef with Tantares and BDB. I'm restricted by the 1.5 parts to make specific rocket variants. They just don't work as well as the pre existing sizes. They fit poorly and I would personally wait a year if it meant some of the parts would get a more Stockalike profile.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Andem

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

I don't, but I can see why it's a tough sell. 1.875 is ok because it is exactly between 1.25 & 2.5, it equals exactly three .625, and half of 3.75, it should almost be stock, the gap between sizes 1 and 2 is double any of the other stack diameters, and plus you have the precedent set by HGR, Tantares, etc. making it even more supported than the 5m and above diameters. 

1.5 and .9375 have none of that. They barely exist outside of BDB (and Tantares? @Beale verify me because I haven't run the mod recently), and they aren't evenly divisible by any other sizes. It's like introducing a new MkX spaceplane profile; cool, but you're limited to the parts in the mod.

42 minutes ago, Andem said:

That's my only beef with Tantares and BDB. I'm restricted by the 1.5 and .9375 to make specific rocket variants. They just don't work as well as the pre existing sizes. They fit poorly and I would personally wait a year if it meant some of the parts would get a more Stockalike profile.

I totally understand the gripe with 1.5m. I eventually settled on letting it happen because it is accurate (within acceptable deviation) for a lot of things, such as Gemini, Thor/Delta, etc. There is so much variations within the 1.25m to 2.5m size range for IRL rocket recreations that just one intermediate size (1.875m) isn't enough to handle it all.

However 0.9375m a) is in Tantares and b) is an intermediate size between 0.625m and 1.25m. While not tremendously useful for rockets it does have a lot of uses for parts in payloads. That's why I singled out 1.5m as something to complain about, since to my knowledge 1.5m has neither of those things going for it.

[Andem]

1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

I totally understand the gripe with 1.5m. I eventually settled on letting it happen because it is accurate (within acceptable deviation) for a lot of things, such as Gemini, Thor/Delta, etc. There is so much variations within the 1.25m to 2.5m size range for IRL rocket recreations that just one intermediate size (1.875m) isn't enough to handle it all.

However 0.9375m a) is in Tantares and b) is an intermediate size between 0.625m and 1.25m. While not tremendously useful for rockets it does have a lot of uses for parts in payloads. That's why I singled out 1.5m as something to complain about, since to my knowledge 1.5m has neither of those things going for it.

Taking some time to do some math I discovered that the 1.5 meter parts had no mathematical relation to the other parts in the game added by most mods. To get the appropriate rescale, I believe you would have to scale them to 0.83 the original size. I can't try this ATM, but I'm eager to hear any results!

 

I formally retract my earlier statement about the .9375 as they scale to the 3.75 meter parts.

[Beale]

10 hours ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

I don't, but I can see why it's a tough sell. 1.875 is ok because it is exactly between 1.25 & 2.5, it equals exactly three .625, and half of 3.75, it should almost be stock, the gap between sizes 1 and 2 is double any of the other stack diameters, and plus you have the precedent set by HGR, Tantares, etc. making it even more supported than the 5m and above diameters. 

1.5 and .9375 have none of that. They barely exist outside of BDB (and Tantares? @Beale verify me because I haven't run the mod recently), and they aren't evenly divisible by any other sizes. It's like introducing a new MkX spaceplane profile; cool, but you're limited to the parts in the mod.

I don't much like 1.5m for reasons covered here. However, 0.9375 is more similar to 1.875m, being a nice intermediate size, it divides nicely into some other sizes.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Beale

[MrMeeb]

Personally, I don't mind the off-sizes, as long as they have various adapter options. As a builder, I like having multiple options for various shapes and sizes that all fit into the stockalike styling.

Now stop arguing and give me that little truck! I have plans for it!

Edited March 28, 2016 by MrMeeb

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, Beale said:

I don't much like 1.5m for reasons covered here. However, 0.9375 is more similar to 1.875m, being a nice intermediate size, it divides nicely into some other sizes.

Yeah there really is no defending 1.5m. Either you like using it or you don't.

[Thraken]

3 hours ago, Beale said:

I don't much like 1.5m for reasons covered here. However, 0.9375 is more similar to 1.875m, being a nice intermediate size, it divides nicely into some other sizes.

This is a very elegant depiction of my feelings on "stock-alike" sizes.

[ModZero]

On 18 March 2016 at 11:59 AM, hendrack said:

For those that play with USI life support, I took the extra cfg for TAC and edited it to support USI. The values are rough guesses, change to own preferences. I am new to making MM .cfgs, so please point out any errors or suggestions. 

So, looking over this, you added supply storage to all the modules. But USI works differently — habitation/comfort mods should have extra habitation, habitation multipliers, and/or recyclers. Also, if a module is specialised for long-term habitation, it should have some extra replacement parts storage (it's a hidden resource representing "wear and tear" of the module). You shouldn't really include supplies storage per se, unless it's actually a cargo module.

There is a short comment in LSModule.cfg:

Spoiler

//Suggested settings are based on part mass for consistency.  
// 
//For dedicated hab parts (no other generators, etc.):
//  Kerbal Months should equal mass * 5
//    ReplacementParts = 100 * crew capacity + 100 * Kerbal Months. 
//
//For parts that act as hab multipliers (dedicated or bundled with other functions/converters),
//a multiplier equal to the tonnage works well.
//
//For recyclers, their percentage should be mass / crew capcity (i.e. the UKS Pioneer Module at 3.75t = 75%)
//at crew capacity 5.  Increasing crew cap should result in an increase in mass.
//i.e. a 12-crew recycler that weighs 7.5 tons should have a recycler percentage equal to 7.5 / 12 = 62.5%
//Recyclers require (per crew capacity) 0.2 EC and 0.000002 ReplacementParts with a cap of 75%.
//If water is used as an input (0.0002 per crew capacity) the cap can be extended to 90%

Also, there's a support patch in Nertea's (anxiety problems: should I tag him so he knows he's being mentioned, or should I not do that, because that would add to the forum noise he gets? Argh) station parts module — might be worth checking out. I'll try to look at it later today, but last time I tried I got a bit overwhelmed with the variety of parts, I'd never be able to test all of it, so I'd have to just use the hints.

Oh, and while I'm talking about hints: Recyclers should be rare. In stock, it's just the lab that has it (at 70%, which is quite good). The best part that USI part that doesn't require external input is the Pioneer module — recycles at 75%, AFAIK. There's also, I think (I'd have to check the modules) aeroponics, that does 90%, but takes 0.002 water per day of operation.

USI looks like a module simpler than TAC-LS, but it's actually quite complex, and does a fairly deep simulation. If you just stuff supplies everywhere, you're going to get really heavy crafts — and then, if you install UKS, it will really mess things up for you if it's not set up correctly.

EDIT: I'll tag @RoverDude, just in case he likes/knows this mod enough to offer hints ;-)

Edited March 28, 2016 by ModZero

[hendrack]

I made that little patch to be able to use Progress and Soyuz replica crafts to supply my orbital DOS stations. Those stations lack any parts to generate supply or recycle anything. Hence the simplicity: make Progress to deliver nomnomnom until its gone and deliver nomnomnom again until crew rotation. My quick and dirty MM patch wasn't meant to deliver the depth of the complete USI chain. Those Almaz/Salyuz were not meant to sustain life through hydroponics and recycling as far as I know, they were all depandant from supply crafts. 

For long term habitation there are a couple other mods already that use the complete USI chain of resources, but I guess it wont hurt if I look closer into it, because I don't like mixing the stock-a-like look of MIR stations with the USI parts. They look very well, but it would hurt my eyes looking at them aesthetically.

I also used the Davon Supply mod and slapped its mechanics on a fuel tank part from Beale's black arrow craft (there's a screenshot in the 'what did you do today' topic) for use in my station. 

You are right of course with all your remarks, but for my personal gameplay choices it made more sense.

Edited March 28, 2016 by hendrack

[ModZero]

15 minutes ago, hendrack said:

My quick and dirty MM patch wasn't meant to deliver the depth of the complete USI chain. Those Almaz/Salyuz were not meant to sustain life through hydroponics and recycling as far as I know, they were all depandant from supply crafts. 

That's mostly fine, one issue here is that once you install UKS, it actually changes the settings for USI-LS (I think it just activates the hab functionality), so people would have some weird unexplained behaviour. Doesn't particularly matter for you if the way you use it works, but it's best people take that into account ;-)

[hendrack]

18 minutes ago, ModZero said:

That's mostly fine, one issue here is that once you install UKS, it actually changes the settings for USI-LS (I think it just activates the hab functionality), so people would have some weird unexplained behaviour. Doesn't particularly matter for you if the way you use it works, but it's best people take that into account ;-)

Its good you pointed this out. I wasn't quite aware of the replacement parts because as I expanded my orbital station, the modules contained some replacement parts every time (becasue Roverdude's MM patches add them automatically to some parts) and never ran into issues (using MKS Lite). I'll make another patch, but I have to look more into USI before.

Edited March 28, 2016 by hendrack

[Starbuckminsterfullerton]

14 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

There is so much variations within the 1.25m to 2.5m size range for IRL rocket recreations.

However 0.9375m a) is in Tantares and b) is an intermediate size between 0.625m and 1.25m.  That's why I singled out 1.5m as something to complain about...

True, and for a historical pack using an off size is perfectly acceptable, since you're aiming for correct scale and providing all of the necessary parts in that size.

I never thought about how well .9375 fits in though; seeing how well it lines up with existing diameters in Beale's illuminating diagram, I may just have to make some .9375m tanks...

7 hours ago, Beale said:

I don't much like 1.5m for reasons covered here. However, 0.9375 is more similar to 1.875m, being a nice intermediate size, it divides nicely into some other sizes.

[Stack size wedding cake]

This is the best explanation of the stack size paradigm and why 1.875 belongs in it that I have seen. 

[the_pazter]

are you planning to make the Soyuz pod a 3 manned, or is there a way to change it in the .cfg file

[Beale]

13 minutes ago, the_pazter said:

are you planning to make the Soyuz pod a 3 manned, or is there a way to change it in the .cfg file

Change "CrewCapacity = " in the config.

I will make it 3 crewed, when anyone can demonstrate how to possibly fit three Kerbals in the size cabin  

[RabbitOfDogs]

19 minutes ago, Beale said:

Change "CrewCapacity = " in the config.

I will make it 3 crewed, when anyone can demonstrate how to possibly fit three Kerbals in the size cabin  

@Beale that will be hard to do when their helmets are triple the width of their shoulders... not enough room in the pods for the IVA... take the stock 2.5 pod for example, that can only fit 3 by using a tiered seating arrangement...

[Beale]

20 minutes ago, RabbitOfDogs said:

@Beale that will be hard to do when their helmets are triple the width of their shoulders... not enough room in the pods for the IVA... take the stock 2.5 pod for example, that can only fit 3 by using a tiered seating arrangement...

Still after many years, I cannot write clear sarcasm online...

Edited March 28, 2016 by Beale