• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1137 Excellent

About Raptor9

  • Rank
    KSC Aerospace Concepts

Profile Information

  • Location Central US
  • Interests Anything and everything aerospace-related.

Recent Profile Visitors

4863 profile views
  1. I assume you're referring to the LV-3C and the BM-series modules. That being the case, the drop down text box in the VAB below the craft title will have a series of action groups listed for each payload configuration. Since you mentioned the BM-PL, the following is the list for that payload: LV-3C Action Groups: [1] Initiates BM-PL lift sequence from LV-3C [3] Toggles LV-3C Engines BM-PL Action Groups: [1] Activates 24-77 Lift Engines [2] Toggles Landing Legs [3] Deactivates 24-77 Lift Engines The vertical lift engines that allow each payload to "hop" off the LV-3C to the surface is thrust-limited so that for each payload/cargo rack you should place the throttle at ~50% prior to initiating the lift sequence via Action Group [1]. This will ensure a smooth, clean and controlled separation from the LV-3C lander itself. The BM-PL and BM-H are identical in use, but the cargo rack that lifts the BM-A, BM-P, BM-U, and BM-4H modules are a little different so make sure you look at those and perform a good pre-seperation check.
  2. @Firemetal & @jacob backer, thanks. Welcome to the forums BTW, @jacob backer.
  3. Not if you're trying to ensure that a common visual appearance or functionality was included. If you know you may be adding new content down the road, and you're working on existing content, it might make sense to hold off on the stuff you're working on until your future plans solidify, since they may impact your current work. Example: Let's say they had released the overhauled rocket parts already. Down the road, they release the expansion pack with new parts that may take advantage of some new lighting effect or texturing method they use (not a programmer, obviously ), and they look different than the base game's parts. Now it's right back to square one in that you have two different visual schemes or appearance standards in the game. Of course, this would only matter to those that purchase the DLC, but the predicament is still valid. I'm just spit-balling here.
  4. I was thinking about this yesterday, and one might speculate that this expansion is why the rocket part overhaul was cancelled. Maybe Squad was already in the early planning or concept phases of this expansion pack and figured it might be wise to iron out future development plans before possibly having to redo any work later. For all we know the mission builder or history pack functionality might have impacted the implementation of the rocket part overhaul somehow. Again, this is pure speculation, but I hope perhaps a rocket part overhaul might get rolled into the development cycle of this expansion. Not as a DLC, but a way to ensure a common standard or appearance consistency across the base game and the DLC pack, like you said.
  5. @SQUAD, this KSP Weekly has been a joy to read. The magazine was entertaining and humorous, the LEM-style lander can screenshot was eye-watering, and the additional announcement of the expansion has already gotten me hyped, even though I know it must be some time before I can get my hands on it. I can't wait to see the next KSP Weekly. Does anyone know if The Kerbal Chronicles is going to be a recurring event?
  6. I should also note that I always launch all my rockets keeping the G-meter no higher than 2 G's. Anything above 2 and I'll continuously throttle down to keep the acceleration under control. If you keep the throttles maxed on these rockets you'll probably be encountering drag losses along with a difficult gravity turn.
  7. This is an awesome announcement!! Really looking forward to hearing more details on this. As for the imminent debate that will undoubtedly follow about more purchase requirements...I'll also gladly pay for such an expansion as well. EDIT: Also, it should be pointed out that the Tumbler post (linked by Darth Vader) was made in April 2013 for clarification.
  8. ...the exception being Kerbals of course; I assume that was implied?
  9. Hi @Hajii, welcome to the forums. I understand what you mean regarding business travel. I myself am currently messing around with KSP on a laptop while on a business trip. Unfortunately, there isn't a way at the moment to download all my craft at once. However, you're not the first person to ask for this, and I've been looking at ways to set up a series of mass downloads. Namely, how do I have a setup that makes the process easy to download, but also efficient enough for me to quickly update the links whenever I update any craft files, which happens on occasion especially after KSP updates. So I am working on it.
  10. That looks awesome! I've been trying to get a "Rocinante"-looking asteroid miner/ore hauler using the biggest MPD thruster, but could never get anything I was satisfied.
  11. That made me laugh pretty good. I usually side with Squad with news like this when the community turns sour on them. In the past year or so, a lot of relatively vicious and dissatisfied posts followed Squad "KSP Weekly" posts. I still think a lot of it was people just never being happy with what was reported about current development because we all have quite grand "wishes" for what we want out of KSP. Unfortunately, some people tended to vent their disappointments by trashing Squad's decisions and/or progress. However, having said that, this particular series of events in my opinion was an exception to what has normally occurred in the past. I've been playing KSP since early alpha stages in late 2011, so I've seen how the usual development-release-development-release cycle has been handled in the Daily Kerbal section over the past several years. Historically, whenever Squad has used a "super-secret project" announcement, it was something that they hadn't mentioned at all, and was genuinely a total surprise to the fan base. Squad has teased us with images/clues before leading up to a big feature release, but those were hardly treated as something from Area 51. The best evidence of how misleading this all was is the past several KSP Weeklys spent entire paragraphs detailing the development work of the localisation, but at the end had a blurb about their "big secret thing" they've been working on. In my mind, that alludes to two distinct and separate things. I'm not trying to make light of how much work went into the localisation; I'm no programmer so I wouldn't know. I even commented on a past KSP Weekly how I thought KSP being available in more languages would further grow the community and interest in space/aeronautics (I still believe that). I'm merely saying the Public Relations side of it all was fairly misleading. So to summarize, while I have always given Squad the benefit of the doubt, and have always occupied the "Squad doesn't owe us anything" camp, they did sort of shoot themselves in the foot with how this was handled.
  12. I've dabbled in that area from time to time, a pure rocket suborbital spaceplane, but I never really found much use or fun out of it. I even tried doing the mothership-drop method, but again, never got it to my liking. I'm pretty picky when it comes to what I publish.
  13. Obviously Squad doesn't have the Dang It! mod installed... I'll let myself out...
  14. Well, the purpose of the 'Porpoise' (see what I did there? ) was to provide better surface access to it's payload since it's a horizontal lander. Regarding the B-model 'Porpoise' specifically, as a propellant transport it has the advantage of being able to "taxi" to the side of the mining rig to plug in directly. Otherwise, you would need to have the miner on wheels to drive to the propellant lander, or have a "fuel truck" rover shuttle between the two (which can get tedious). A LITE with landing legs and an additional fuel tank docked on top would be more efficient (and less expensive) in that role since there would be less hardware mass riding along (the HLV-5's array of small landing thrusters and additional Vernors for instance), but again it would require a different approach to propellant loading on the surface. So a little bit of column A, a little bit of column B.
  15. That depends on how much efficiency you want to squeeze out. Personally, I prefer to use a low-thrust engine with higher Isp to get more delta-V in the long-run; even if that means I have to do several burns at periapsis prior to the final escape trajectory burn. So to answer your question, I would use just a single NITE with additional tankage. Without summoning the wrath of other players that disagree, TWR doesn't mean much to me unless you get below 0.10-ish. If it's above 0.25, I'm satisfied. Using a 9-ton Rhino engine to achieve a TWR of 0.75 during a trans-Duna injection burn in vacuum is a waste IMO. The NITE wasn't designed to take payloads to a planetary surface, so I can't speak for how the design will work out.