• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,019 Excellent

About Raptor9

  • Rank
    Spacecraft & Rocket Dealer

Profile Information

  • Location United States
  • Interests Anything and everything aerospace-related.

Recent Profile Visitors

11,731 profile views
  1. Raptor9

    KSP Weekly: Mapping with Magellan

    Nice! Last week I mentioned that I might actually start using the RT-10 and RT-5; this week I'll admit I'll probably start using the Mk1 pod in other uses besides Mercury analogues. Love the texture-switching and the new spiffy IVA. Really like the new probe cores too. I'm interested to see what you might do with the QBE and Rovemate cores. My two cents, I wish the Rovemate itself was smaller and more compact, or at the very least, less generic-looking. As it stands, I've been using the QBE since it's easier to integrate into small remote-control rovers; despite the Rovemate having enhanced scans on the surface. An example is my Curiosity-inspired Duna rover. If I were to try to use the Rovemate, it would dwarf the wheels and the sensors, and require the skycrane to be much bigger with more delta-V/TWR, a larger launch vehicle, etc etc. Also, could you please change the Rovemate navball orientation so that it looks across the horizon in line with the long axis of the Rovemate's housing, instead of straight up. Otherwise another control axis like a docking port needs to be added to use the Rovemate as a rover core.
  2. Most realistic and useful crafts (in the vanilla game) on the forum. That said it all. ;)

    Can I make some arts for your crafts? It will too long, but it will! If you accepted, of course. :)

  3. @Jester Darrak, bug hit me again...sort of. After 2.5 months of not touching KSP, I'm (temporarily) back to the drawing boards. A couple days ago I started a new project. I know I have a lot of open and existing projects that are still languishing on my hard drive, not to mention I never finished updating all of my legacy craft files for 1.4.x. However, I'll take inspiration wherever I can get it. I use the term "sort of" because when this project is finished and released, I'll probably take another break from KSP until 1.5 is released.
  4. Raptor9

    KSP Weekly: Thrusting into the future

    I think this is a good point, especially since the majority of the current player base came on board after v0.25 was released when Porkjet's spaceplane parts were added. As such, I'd be willing to bet that most people associate "yellow stripes" with monoprop parts, despite the alternate textures introduced in 1.4.0. Regarding the RT-10 and RT-5 revamps, I'm satisfied for the most part. With the exception of the legacy 2.5m Rockomax Brand Decoupler, I always thought the existing RT-10 and RT-5 were the most hideous parts in the library, and I never used them. But now I might. They kind of remind of a stack of gunpowder rolls that were used on Iowa-class battleships in their main guns. More powder rolls, the further it goes...kinda like the RT boosters.
  5. Raptor9

    KSP Weekly: Closer to Bennu

    Cheer up everyone; remember this planet has puppies and pizza.
  6. The theory behind it was to do the opposite of the stereotypical space shuttle configuration. Instead of having the high-gimbal Vector engines on the spaceplane, I put a single Vector on the booster rocket, with fixed-nozzle aerospike engines on the SVR-23 which rode piggyback on the booster. However, this configuration never really achieved a satisfactory level of controllability during ascent to orbit. I never was particularly adept at SSTO spaceplanes, so the SVR-23's were my attempt to get around that by just launching them vertically in a partially-reusable configuration. In the end, the SVR-23 was probably better described as a proof-of-concept prototype than a spacecraft with practical use. Not my best work by any metric.
  7. @SiriusRocketry, I'm afraid not. I learned to hate the SVR-23's so much I just deleted them from my KSP folder, and when I did my 1.4 update with all the new brochure graphics, I deleted all the outdated ones. Not that they take a lot of hard drive space, but with so many it was becoming a headache to keep them organized.
  8. Raptor9

    No more rover flipping

    I wouldn't call that an accurate explanation. The main reason they move at a snails pace is because of the transmission delay. If you move at 0.5 m/s (1.1 mph/2.4 kmh), with anywhere from 4 to over 20 minutes of communications delay between Earth and Mars, your rover will have traveled 120 to 600 meters by the time you get the video feed of an approaching obstacle. Not to mention that a steering input takes just as long to be sent back to Mars, meaning the rover will have traveled a total of 240 meters to 1.2 km by the time the steering command actually takes effect to avoid that obstacle. The resources and money invested into the mission is also an important factor to take it slow, but even if you had an unlimited budget and time, the comms delay would still restrict your operational pace. With Curiosity on Mars, JPL plans the day's movements by analyzing the rovers immediate surroundings using it's many cameras, planning the sequence of actions, sends the commands to the rover, and then monitors via the much-delayed telemetry feed. Of course, this leads to some levels of required autonomy on the rovers part. If you want something similar, check out the Bon Voyage mod that lets you give rovers a destination; and they drive there on their own (even in the background, like how you leave ISRU operations running and come back to it a few Kerbin days later). If you're looking for a stock solution for your real-time, hands-on driving mission, then it comes down to a mix of engineering problems to solve, and deliberate/reasonable driving. 1) As others have said, try to design a rover with a low center of gravity and a wide wheel base. A wide wheel base is important in the longitudinal axis as well as the lateral. It does you no good if your rover does forward flips if you need to slam on the brakes suddenly. As @Gargamel mentioned, if you need a higher clearance for the anticipated terrain, you will need to take that into account with how wide your "footprint" needs to be. Keep your heaviest parts as low as you can, like RTG's or LFO tanks if you plan to run fuel cells. 2) Adjust the suspension and friction settings in the wheels' part action window for your target celestial body, and then test, tweak, re-test. If you want to test a Mun rover, bring up the Alt-F12 menu and hack gravity to 0.16, and then drive the rover around the KSC. For Duna, put it at 0.30; for Eve use 1.7, etc. 3) I personally turn down the wheel friction fairly low so that the rover tends to slide a lot. It can be fun for sure to do power slides on the Mun, but more importantly it keeps it from flipping over if you over-steer. This can also lead to the rover sliding across the surface when parked, so I just max out the friction setting of one or two of the wheels when I stop, like setting the parking brake. A good rover can be just as difficult to design IMO as a well-balanced aircraft. You're trying to design something that has to take into account multiple physics effects, while maintaining a reasonable mass and keeping it small enough to be packaged and transported somewhere "out there". Lastly, while I agree on the blandness of the terrain, especially Duna, rovers definitely can play an important part in certain hard-to-reach locales like Eve or Tylo. The more biomes you can reach per surface expedition, the easier it is. I know a lot of people try to bypass the thick sea-level Eve atmosphere by taking a rover down to research sites at lower elevations, and then driving it to the peak of a high mountain to launch back to orbit.
  9. @Jester Darrak, unfortunately not. I've tinkered with a few projects here and there over the past month or two, but that's about it. It has, however, given me time to gather some more ideas, so that's good.
  10. Raptor9

    KSP Weekly: Lunar Water

    That new pod looks awesome. I especially like the fact the nose cap is adjusted for size. I hope the Mk1-3 gets the same adjustment down the road as well, so it better matches up with the 1.25m parachutes, nose cones, and the conical service bay. Can't wait to see what else is being worked on for v1.5.
  11. Raptor9

    KSP Weekly: The Solar Visit

    You know, I've been an active user of these forums for many years now. I usually refrain from posting outside of the Spacecraft Exchange, but I do try to keep up with and read the forums every couple days at least. In my opinion, there are two solidly consistent aspects about the KSP forums. 1) Every KSP player has an individual play style that differs in some way from every other player. "Stock purists", "Mod it 'til it breaks!", "Spaceplane jockeys", "Rocket slingers", "Surface base colonists", "Station builders", "Minimalists", "Part count hogs", "Cinematic visualists", "Performance pixeleers", "Interstellar nomads", "WWK dogfighters". 2) Every single one of us want @SQUAD to prioritize development to support our own individual desires (features, bugfixing, etc), creating a wide swath of opinions on who is "right" and who is "wrong", but ultimately trying to justify to each other why our preferences and viewpoints outweigh the others. Almost every KSP player is extremely passionate about some aspect of the game. You would have to be passionate about KSP in some way to stick with it beyond the tutorial missions or achieving your first stable orbit. Unfortunately, passion is a strong motivating emotion, that can easily feel threatened by disagreeing opinions. This is why half the moderating posts in the Announcement and KSP Weekly threads are reminders to keep it civil and constructive. Rarely are any opinions decisively changed on the internet, and people feel much more comfortable expressing strongly-worded statements to others online. This is a reality of the internet and the "plugged-in" world we live in. However, this is why it is even more important to consider the content, and lack of visual body language and verbal connotation, when posting a face-less text-only forum message. Bottom line, forum responses addressing civility and criticism shouldn't be taken as an attack on an opinion, but rather an indicator that one or more fellow forum users have undoubtedly mis-interpreted the message as being mean, harsh, or offensive; or maybe they just misunderstood the message entirely.
  12. Raptor9

    KSP Weekly: The Solar Visit

    I would love more parts that look optimized for the harsh vacuum of space with silver or gold foil look, like the small xenon and LFO tanks. I've mentioned this before; I think having a dual variant family of the 1.25m FL-T (or even 1.875m tanks if we were getting really ambitious) in gold mylar would be interesting for building vacuum-only ships or landers. Beyond just the visual appeal of having gold mylar-wrapped tank vessels lacking the rigid black-and-white rocket hulls, you could adjust the stats of each variant to make it a calculated trade off during VAB assembly. When compared to an existing FL-T400, a 1.25m diameter gold-wrapped cylinder with rounded ends (like the R-11 Baguette) would have lower mass, but also lower impact and heat tolerance, while occupying the same length and diameter space of the FL-T400. Instead of filling this thread with a bunch of pictures, I'll just link the feedback post I made on the bugtracker, which has a better visual example of what I had in mind. And while I'm dreaming , it would be nice if we could switch between gold and silver textures; or LFO and LF-only for making LV-N powered vessels. I'm ignorant when it comes to normal/specular maps, but I imagine such variants might be heavier on resources and counter to what @SQUAD is trying to accomplish.
  13. Raptor9

    KSP Weekly: Ultima Thule

    Ohhhh, fingers crossed for the remote possibility of getting 1.25m versions of the R-11 'Baguette' and R-4 'Dumpling' gold-mylar-wrapped external tanks, or 2.5m version of the 1.875m "cage" decoupler... (and a fix for the MH structural tube drag) two cents delivered
  14. Raptor9

    I'm joining the Squad Team!!!

    @Just Jim, I'll hop on the dog-pile and say Congratulations. "You were supposed to bring balance to the force, not join the dark side!" (For all those Star Wars fans out there, I paraphrased on purpose. Don't set me on fire)