totm june 2018 Work-in-Progress [WIP] Design Thread

[Heckspress]

open broadcasting system

[Majorjim!]

9 hours ago, He_162 said:

I was trying to work with Nvidia and it's recording features in GeForce Experience, but it doesn't seem to want to open up the ingame overlay in anything but the launcher, and it won't automatically come up when I launch KSP from steam either. Anyone wanna help me?

I've never used it.. I bought Bandicam, it's good.

[Majorjim!]

Ok folks,

 Here is something truly in the spirit of this thread. Something I thought I would never show. My WIP Space shuttle. Allow me to share why I believed it would never been seen. Firstly I have never been a big fan of shuttles and seeing as I had never made one I wanted to try my hand. It was coming together very nicely, I wanted to make it a bit special and make a stock first, a working Canadarm. This I did. After finishing the arm and orbital and deorbital/landing test, also successful, I discovered that @sgt_flyer was working on a stock canadarm for @selfish_memes shuttle. His was a better arm than this one and my excuse is he was only working on the arm.

 The arm can release payloads up and out and clear of the shuttle and also pick up satellites and dock them back into the shuttle bay. Each part is a separate craft held together with of course my tiny thermo hinges. Each one is controlled independently. I also really wanted to go all out with the look of the shuttle so I painstakingly recreated the exact shape of the craft.

 Anyway, I decided to focus 100per cent on just my main projects, constellation mainly so this sat on the back burner. I have the main tank and boosters made for it, but it still needs work, work that is going into bigger, better, harder builds. I came across these pics when putting together an album for my completed curiosity rebuild and thought I would share them with you folks.

 

 

More pics in the spoiler.

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sgt_flyer]

@Majorjim! you should check out the MK1 diverterless supersonic intake well placed, with a few small radiator panels, it can make a really cool looking OMS pod

[septemberWaves]

I'll continue the shuttle trend, I think

This is the prototype of Space Shuttle Valery.

When I say prototype, I mean the shuttle works but the launch vehicle needs a bit more tweaking. It's close to functional though; it works with MechJeb's autopilot as long as your intended parking orbit is exactly 75km and you separate the launch vehicle before circularization.

Here's the test flight:

Spoiler

Main engine ignition.

Liftoff. The launch vehicle is a modified Cinnabar 3 core, but it lacks wings and uses a single Moa engine instead of two Fulcrum engines, as the Moa has more gimbal range.

The high thrust of the Moa engine means that the vehicle breaks the sound barrier quickly.

Main engine cutoff, stage separation.

OMS engine ignition.

The shuttle circularizes after a 180° roll.

Here is the docking mechanism for the shuttle, as well as some instrumentation.

Re-entry went perfectly, although I overshot both the KSC and the island runway.

The shuttle turns north, in order to land on land. It is theoretically capable of a water landing, but I did not wish to test that.

Landing in the dark is rather difficult, but nevertheless the landing was successful.

The Space Shuttle Valery is a low-tech space shuttle. It is a cheap crew transport that would have worked in conjunction with the Janus 4 transport to ferry kerbals to/from the Medusa Orbital Laboratory, although it is now the only vehicle that will do that, since the Janus 4 transport is likely to be decommissioned. It has half the crew capacity of the Janus 4, but is significantly cheaper to launch. The downside is that it requires a pilot on board for the landing process.

Edited November 30, 2016 by eloquentJane

[Jefzor]

I'm working on "The Control Freak". craft file here

It's a super manoeuvrable jet, mainly for performing stunts around the KSC buildings. My philosophy was to save as much weight as I could, and go for a lot of wings with a lot of control surfaces. 

By no means am I an experienced craft builder, and I don't mean to pat myself on the back, but it's working really, really well. 

Pro's:

Spoiler

- Very easy to control

- Very tight turning radius

- Light weight (just under 4T)

- Can reach 1000 m/s

- Can pull at 150G (at max speed)

- Can still fly at 30 m/s

- Flies well whithout SAS

- Doesn't need a long runway to land or take off 

Cons: 

Spoiler

- Limited fuel

- Not heat resistant

- Pilot can't get out

- Loses a lot of speed when turning fast

- No yaw control (yaw is for noobs anyway :p)

 

Screenshots: 

Spoiler

 

Flying through the tunnel: 

 

Flying under the bridge: 

Cruising at sea level

 

 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Jefzor

[Triop]

Working on a MiG 21

Edited December 1, 2016 by Triop

[Majorjim!]

13 hours ago, sgt_flyer said:

@Majorjim! you should check out the MK1 diverterless supersonic intake well placed, with a few small radiator panels, it can make a really cool looking OMS pod

Yeah I saw those, I think the radiators look better alone though. They always seem a bit low, the real OMS pods are really huge on the shuttle. I would go so far as to say the OMS pods I made are the best looking I have ever seen here. Yup, I'm proud of them!  And don't we all think this of out own stuff..?

 Thanks for the tip though! 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Majorjim!
Stop editing it!

[Gman_builder]

On 11/29/2016 at 9:47 PM, He_162 said:

I was trying to work with Nvidia and it's recording features in GeForce Experience, but it doesn't seem to want to open up the ingame overlay in anything but the launcher, and it won't automatically come up when I launch KSP from steam either. Anyone wanna help me?

Ive also had problems with Nvidia Geforce experience. I jsut ended up buying this program called D3Dgear for 15 bucks. Works great, you can record anything you want and you have all the options and setting you could possibly need.

[Triop]

Into SSTO's at the moment...No orbit yet with this design, but there are many engine configurations to try...

Lots of work to be done here...

Edited December 2, 2016 by Triop

[He_162]

I have yet after a day or two been able to load my craft when physics crashes my game. No explosions, it just crashes on the pad, or in the first 100m of flight.

Here is one of two screenshots (same pic, different angles)

 

The He970, 44,800 ton vehicle capable of taking 5 kT to orbit. With a powerful PC.

[Triop]

1 minute ago, He_162 said:

I have yet after a day or two been able to load my craft when physics crashes my game. No explosions, it just crashes on the pad, or in the first 100m of flight.

O yes, the crashes.....Soon™ we have to jump off the hype train.

[He_162]

Just now, Triop said:

O yes, the crashes.....Soon™ we have to jump off the hype train.

Im working on lowering part count. Soon™

[Triop]

Soon™ This will be my new favorite vessel:

I love my new airframe, now to make it fly.

 

[septemberWaves]

@Triop I am liking these unconventional spaceplane designs. By the way, Editor Extensions Redux might help you with construction.

[Triop]

1 minute ago, eloquentJane said:

@Triop I am liking these unconventional spaceplane designs. By the way, Editor Extensions Redux might help you with construction.

Thank you, I will take a look at that.

Not a big fan of mods, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

[septemberWaves]

10 minutes ago, Triop said:

Not a big fan of mods, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

I can see some modded plane parts in that screenshot, I assumed you would be fine with a utility mod that doesn't even add any parts. And besides, even stock builders like Rune often use EER; it's not as though it's cheating, it just helps to do things like n-fold symmetry (up to n=20 by default) and removes the need for quite so many cubic octagonal struts in a lot of circumstances.

[Triop]

12 minutes ago, eloquentJane said:

I can see some modded plane parts in that screenshot, I assumed you would be fine with a utility mod that doesn't even add any parts. And besides, even stock builders like Rune often use EER; it's not as though it's cheating, it just helps to do things like n-fold symmetry (up to n=20 by default) and removes the need for quite so many cubic octagonal struts in a lot of circumstances.

Question, If I use this mod for a stock plane, will people be able to download it as a stock plane, not having the mod installed ?

Edit: " I can see some modded plane parts in that screenshot"

Haha, you got me there, yes, I'm checking out some different cockpits . . . But I'm not using them for publications.

Spoiler

 

Edited December 2, 2016 by Triop

[septemberWaves]

3 minutes ago, Triop said:

Question, If I use this mod for a stock plane, will people be able to download it as a stock plane, not having the mod installed ?

Yes. EER improves the functionality of the vehicle editor in the VAB/SPH, but it doesn't add parts or do anything that breaks stock vehicles. Some things that are done by it can't be accomplished with the stock vehicle editor (such as optional surface-attachment for all parts) but vehicles built with those techniques don't require EER to be installed in order to function.

Example: I think several of Rune's spaceplanes have engines attached with the surface-attach functionality of EER (at least I think it's Rune who I'm thinking of here), but that only means that they can't be properly reverse-engineered with a fully stock game. They work fine for unmodded installs.

Edited December 2, 2016 by eloquentJane

[Columbia]

Well.. this is what I've worked on so far on the Titanic.

I added the masts, a lot of deck detail, improved the ship's steering ability, made the funnels taller and stuck jet engines inside them to make smoke.

I broke it a lot of times during the process, though..

 

 

You know you screwed up when your ship replica looks like its own damn shipwreck.

[Castille7]

13 minutes ago, Columbia said:

Well.. this is what I've worked on so far on the Titanic.

This is looking awesome Columbia! Very nice work 

[Castille7]

These Submarines need a lot of work to complete. As for now I have an Attack Sub named Man O' War and the second Sub in the distance is not named yet. The Man O' War has an 8 round of Torpedoes on the bow. Both are moving on the water ok but neither are diving yet. Also this is my first time messing with a GIF Animation on the forums, not sure how or if it can be viewed without clicking on it. The Animation takes a little while for the Torpedo to launch.

http://imgur.com/ZIA703V

 

 

[__Ultimatum]

The W.A.T.F Shuttle Mk2 WIP

 

It is based off of this concept art. 

[Rune]

On 2/12/2016 at 2:26 AM, eloquentJane said:

Yes. EER improves the functionality of the vehicle editor in the VAB/SPH, but it doesn't add parts or do anything that breaks stock vehicles. Some things that are done by it can't be accomplished with the stock vehicle editor (such as optional surface-attachment for all parts) but vehicles built with those techniques don't require EER to be installed in order to function.

Example: I think several of Rune's spaceplanes have engines attached with the surface-attach functionality of EER (at least I think it's Rune who I'm thinking of here), but that only means that they can't be properly reverse-engineered with a fully stock game. They work fine for unmodded installs.

Yup, Editor Extensions allows you to do some impossible things in stock (ignoring the offset rules and being able to turn surface attachment on/off seem to jump to the top of my head), but mostly it is just so helpful when building in order to be precise. With the ability to center a part with respect to another in two axises at the press of a key, you can actually build do things like a symmetrical design without using the symmetry option, and still be sure that everything is where it's supposed to be.

Mind you, I can build without it. But not so neatly, and not so fast. And both files would work just the same whether I have EE installed or not, of course.

On 2/12/2016 at 1:57 AM, Triop said:

Soon™ This will be my new favorite vessel:

I love my new airframe, now to make it fly.

 

I like the looks, but I can't help but feel like you must be leaving some node open somewhere, and that carries a big drag penalty. Then again, you have so much thrust there...

 

Rune. The symmetry options, I don't use them so much. The angle limitations other than 15º increments, OTOH, are a godsend.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Rune

[septemberWaves]

39 minutes ago, Rune said:

The symmetry options, I don't use them so much. The angle limitations other than 15º increments, OTOH, are a godsend.

The angle limitations are so incredibly useful. Particularly the 1º increments; without using those I doubt I'd've had the patience to get my space shuttle working (most of my patience relies on the ability to be precise).

Interestingly enough, I don't use the extra symmetry options much either, even though I have launch vehicles that have 5 and 7 SRBs - I tend towards using an asymmetrical design inspired by making stock-system-balanced Atlas V replicas a while ago.

Edited December 3, 2016 by eloquentJane