[OLD]Tundra Exploration

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

It'll probably have some type of probe core in it so you can land the first stage with something like FMRS.

How about an SAS part that sits on top of the first stage, and also includes a probe core, and maybe RCS for stability if necessary.

[hieywiey]

How about an SAS part that sits on top of the first stage, and also includes a probe core, and maybe RCS for stability if necessary.

It would be better to have it integrated into the fuel tank itself, as fewer parts = less memory usage, which ='s less lag.

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

It would be better to have it integrated into the fuel tank itself, as fewer parts = less memory usage, which ='s less lag.

I don't like it integrated in. Having all of those in their own one part sounds good to me.

The pods are great as all-in-ones, because, well, they're pods. But something like a stage is, in my mind, better to have in multiple parts. Not only will having a separate part such as this make it useful for those who want to build something else with the parts given (such as people do with Tantares), it makes more sense gameplay-wise. It's more fun and engaging to build, it allows a simulation of a "dumb" Falcon non-reusable stage, it plays better in for if anyone's using this on career mode, and the right-click menus are just more straightforward. The pod has a large menu, but it's meant to be used once in orbit, mainly. On launch, when one needs to do something quickly, such as (de)activate SAS, it's much better to have one part to right-click on.

That, and having an integrated probe core in a fuel tank is silly. It doesn't seem realistic, and it seems like it could easily be abused, gameplay wise.

Anyway, tygoo will let us know what he thinks. This is just my suggestion.

[tygoo7]

I don't like it integrated in. Having all of those in their own one part sounds good to me.

The pods are great as all-in-ones, because, well, they're pods. But something like a stage is, in my mind, better to have in multiple parts. Not only will having a separate part such as this make it useful for those who want to build something else with the parts given (such as people do with Tantares), it makes more sense gameplay-wise. It's more fun and engaging to build, it allows a simulation of a "dumb" Falcon non-reusable stage, it plays better in for if anyone's using this on career mode, and the right-click menus are just more straightforward. The pod has a large menu, but it's meant to be used once in orbit, mainly. On launch, when one needs to do something quickly, such as (de)activate SAS, it's much better to have one part to right-click on.

That, and having an integrated probe core in a fuel tank is silly. It doesn't seem realistic, and it seems like it could easily be abused, gameplay wise.

Anyway, tygoo will let us know what he thinks. This is just my suggestion.

It'll probably be a separate part.

[hieywiey]

It'll probably be a separate part.

How about you have a choice between a fuel tank without the probe core built-in, to be used with a separate probe core part; and a fuel tank part with the probe core built-in. To make everyone happy! You could do it easily by just making a part where the probe core is welded to the passive (the one without the probe core) fuel tank.

[TheMaster99]

I personally don't see the need to merge the core and the fuel tank, and certainly no reason to include versions both with and without. It's only a single part difference, and I find it hard to agree with the "less parts -> less lag" argument because it's only a difference of a single part. I can't see a single part ever having a significant impact on performance.

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

I personally don't see the need to merge the core and the fuel tank, and certainly no reason to include versions both with and without. It's only a single part difference, and I find it hard to agree with the "less parts -> less lag" argument because it's only a difference of a single part. I can't see a single part ever having a significant impact on performance.

I agree with this. And having two parts that are nearly the same bloats the part catalogue. A little bit, anyway. It's still one part.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I had a look at QuizTech's interesting engine, and it appears that it doesn't use a plugin. It's all in the part config. I'm not an expert on this, but, looking through it, it seems to set different engine IDs when either one engine is running or all, in basically the same way the stock RAPIER engine does, using two separate "module"s for each ID. I'm sure you've already given it a look, but... I thought I'd try to help.

However, the configs seem to only show a primary and a secondary engineID, whereas the Falcon 9 has about 3 different engine configurations, if I remember correctly. 9, 3 across the middle, and just the centre 1. I watched the

because I thought I remembered seeing that in a launch animation, but it wasn't in there. So if anyone could confirm this, that would be very helpful. Otherwise, 9 and 1 sounds like a good set of 2 engineIDs. As long as 1 engine has enough thrust to land the stage!

Secondly, about the part mentioned above, that video does clearly show that there's an RCS system to manoeuvre in space. However, I would suggest it to use Lf+Ox, like the stock vernier engine, to avoid having extra resources (and weight!) to the stage.

EDIT: The engine configurations are in

, which... is not by the SpaceX channel, so take it with a grain of salt. It also shows the second stage having a heat shield to return as well, which may be a now scrapped idea by SpaceX, but could be a very interesting idea for this mod. And, to make it optional, all it would need is a heat shield part (or the stock one) and a set of landing legs (though those could be managed with stock as well).

Sorry for the long post. I hope it helped with some ideas.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Z3R0_0NL1N3

[tygoo7]

So modeling is done, now to move on to texturing... The probe part will just be a small little 2.5m inline probe, but it'll fit in better with the F9 texture. I don't really want to have it built into the fuel tank if people want to use that for other rockets other than the Falcon 9 since it is bigger than the orange tank.

-snippity snip-

Thanks for the info and it did help with some ideas. I also noticed while playing my 1.0.4 career mode that Porkjet's nuclear engine has 2 modes so the 2 mode engines for the F9 is definitely possible.

Yes the Falcon 9 has 3 engine modes which I have noticed from playing in Orbiter with it. I will probably do 9 and 1 since it lands with 1 and 3 is used for only a short amount of time.

I have also noticed that in Orbiter, I'll probably make a little RCS part too to go with it.

I'm not too sure about making the second stage reusable but like you said, you can easily do that with stock parts.

[Kartoffelkuchen]

You should really do all 3 engine modes. One with 9 engines for launch, the 2nd with the center engine and two surrounding engines for the boostback manuever and the 3rd mode with only the center engine firing.

Also, just to say, it is no big memory footprint if you split up the engines from the tank. In fact, if they share one UV Map, the footprint is about 500kb, referring to hoe big the size of your model is. Having all the engines as singles allows you to make the "engine-out capatability" like on the real Falcon, meaning that if one engine fails (for example if you'd use DangIt!) you can still safely go to orbit. And the biggest argument of course is that you can use the engine in other creations then too.

I had to think about the same thing when I was working on my Falcon 9 for SELV, and came to that solution. It's just my opinion.

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

You should really do all 3 engine modes. One with 9 engines for launch, the 2nd with the center engine and two surrounding engines for the boostback manuever and the 3rd mode with only the center engine firing.

Also, just to say, it is no big memory footprint if you split up the engines from the tank. In fact, if they share one UV Map, the footprint is about 500kb, referring to hoe big the size of your model is. Having all the engines as singles allows you to make the "engine-out capatability" like on the real Falcon, meaning that if one engine fails (for example if you'd use DangIt!) you can still safely go to orbit. And the biggest argument of course is that you can use the engine in other creations then too.

I had to think about the same thing when I was working on my Falcon 9 for SELV, and came to that solution. It's just my opinion.

As much as I think all of us want the three engine modes, I don't think it's possible without a plugin. The two engine modes uses a modified config of the stock RAPIER, which only allows only two engineIDs.

As to that thing about separate engines, I had the same thought about DangIt, but you might want to ask Ippo about that more. There's a lot of mods that have parts that use multiple engines in one part. Tantares, MRS, or SpaceY, to name a few. Even stock has a multi-nozzled engine! SpaceY even has its own (3.75m ) Falcon engines. I'm sure there's a way for DangIt to make separate engine modules burn out without disabling the whole part, but that's something I'm going to ask Ippo. There is also Kerbal Mechanics. I'm going to ask there too.

And I do believe the engine part is separate from the tank. That can be used on other 2.5m parts easily, should you wish.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Z3R0_0NL1N3

[tygoo7]

I kind of want to just do a single engine part since the Merlin engines were not modeled to be a separate part and I think it would be kind of a hassle putting them on 1 by 1.

Sadly I believe there can only be 2 modes like Z3R0 said because it's a modified RAPIER config. And yes it should fit with other 2.5m parts nice if you wish.

So here's some texture progress. The texturing seems to be a bigger project than I expected considering the amount of parts. Does the texture for the main tank look good or does anyone have any ideas? I wasn't sure what to put on this amount of space.

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

Hmm... It looks nice, but it's, in stockalike style, grey of course. This is where I'm not sure if a logo would be a good idea. Why not put the mission flag large across the tank? Also, are the ends done in the curved "real" tank style, or are they just flat?

Here's a picture of the Falcon showing that it has a line running along the tank similar to the one on the Stock orange tank. Also, this is the v1.0, but... there's that grey/black band at the bottom. That could be a good spot for the probe core, perhaps (but I like it better at the top).

Anyway, grey looks good! Pure white in stock stands out too much. I'm not too sure what to add. I only wonder how well this will match up with the colour of the stock fairings, for those who want to use a cargo Falcon.

[tygoo7]

Hmm... It looks nice, but it's, in stockalike style, grey of course. This is where I'm not sure if a logo would be a good idea. Why not put the mission flag large across the tank? Also, are the ends done in the curved "real" tank style, or are they just flat?

http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/100314-space-spacex-vlarge-2a.jpeg

Here's a picture of the Falcon showing that it has a line running along the tank similar to the one on the Stock orange tank. Also, this is the v1.0, but... there's that grey/black band at the bottom. That could be a good spot for the probe core, perhaps (but I like it better at the top).

Anyway, grey looks good! Pure white in stock stands out too much. I'm not too sure what to add. I only wonder how well this will match up with the colour of the stock fairings, for those who want to use a cargo Falcon.

The ends are flat since that was easier to make and should be more modular. I'm not too sure how good a logo would look, do you guys think a logo would look good? A logo would make it look more like a Falcon 9 IMO though. I was planning on putting a mission flag on the second stage tank instead probably.

Thanks for the pic btw, I might do a model revision of the first stage tank since the original texture just wasn't saying "Falcon 9" to me.

[Kibble]

If you're adding rings to the tank texture, FYI only the fuel tank uses ring-and-stringers, the LOX tank is monocoque, with no rings. Incidentally, the fuel tank is also where the logo would be painted, because once it's fueled, the cold LOX tank is covered in frosty condensation.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Kibble

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

The ends are flat since that was easier to make and should be more modular. I'm not too sure how good a logo would look, do you guys think a logo would look good? A logo would make it look more like a Falcon 9 IMO though. I was planning on putting a mission flag on the second stage tank instead probably.

Thanks for the pic btw, I might do a model revision of the first stage tank since the original texture just wasn't saying "Falcon 9" to me.

I'm honestly not too big on logos. It makes it feel more "real world" than Kerbal. But something needs to be put on it, methinks.

[Beale]

I kind of want to just do a single engine part since the Merlin engines were not modeled to be a separate part and I think it would be kind of a hassle putting them on 1 by 1.

Sadly I believe there can only be 2 modes like Z3R0 said because it's a modified RAPIER config. And yes it should fit with other 2.5m parts nice if you wish.

So here's some texture progress. The texturing seems to be a bigger project than I expected considering the amount of parts. Does the texture for the main tank look good or does anyone have any ideas? I wasn't sure what to put on this amount of space.

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

Thought of adding a light brick pattern?

Or some form of splitting / panelling.

The texture is nice, but I think sometimes it is a struggle to make large flat areas look good, it's nice to break it up a little bit.

Up close the F9 is a very clean body, but there is a little panelling, splits, bolts, etc.

Can't wait to see more

Edit: Quick Photoshop!

Edited July 7, 2015 by Beale

[tygoo7]

I'm honestly not too big on logos. It makes it feel more "real world" than Kerbal. But something needs to be put on it, methinks.

Alright, will probably keep it logoless then.

Thought of adding a light brick pattern?

http://puu.sh/iQOk8/12b930aee0.jpg

Or some form of splitting / panelling.

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/images/e/ea/C7_Brand_Adapter_-_2.5m_to_1.25m.png

The texture is nice, but I think sometimes it is a struggle to make large flat areas look good, it's nice to break it up a little bit.

Up close the F9 is a very clean body, but there is a little panelling, splits, bolts, etc.

http://puu.sh/iQOsz/01763a384a.jpg

Can't wait to see more

Edit: Quick Photoshop!

http://puu.sh/iQOM9/5afe2dd348.jpg

Thanks for some of the ideas Beale! I will probably do something similar to your photoshop and the adapter part you posted since that style looks pretty cool to me.

[tygoo7]

New texture is only this far in, and it's already looking better IMO lol.

[tygoo7]

Wow, did that take a long time to texture...it's been like 2 straight hours now without stopping.

So it looks like First stage tank is nearly complete, just a few more bits to texture like the bottom part which is grey and the top and bottom bases. Then to texture the easier bits like the second stage tank, engine, legs, second stage engine, and grid fins. For the RCS, I am just going to use the stock vernier since that uses Liquid fuel and Oxidizer I believe and it fits in pretty good.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[kaue4arp10]

Wow, did that take a long time to texture...it's been like 2 straight hours now without stopping.

So it looks like First stage tank is nearly complete, just a few more bits to texture like the bottom part which is grey and the top and bottom bases. Then to texture the easier bits like the second stage tank, engine, legs, second stage engine, and grid fins. For the RCS, I am just going to use the stock vernier since that uses Liquid fuel and Oxidizer I believe and it fits in pretty good.

http://imgur.com/a/T5LAh

Wow, that looks pretty good, btw, any ideas of how the interstage fairings are going to be?

[tygoo7]

Wow, that looks pretty good, btw, any ideas of how the interstage fairings are going to be?

They will be the fairings generated by the second stage engine.

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

http://imgur.com/a/T5LAh

Wow! That looks very much nicer. I can't wait to see it released!

[tygoo7]

Some more progress...

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

Some more progress...

http://i.imgur.com/DBl8LPZ.png

Wow! I'm very hyped about this!

Just a question, and I don't mean to sound nitpicky, is the upper engine supposed to be so big compared to the first stage engines? It either seems too big, or those seem to small. Just curious. Keep up the good work!

[tygoo7]

Wow! I'm very hyped about this!

Just a question, and I don't mean to sound nitpicky, is the upper engine supposed to be so big compared to the first stage engines? It either seems too big, or those seem to small. Just curious. Keep up the good work!

I too am really hyped to see this thing finished.

About the engines, the size may be an illusion due to the pics being taken in Orthographic mode. Do these pics look any better?

Javascript is disabled. View full album