Raptor9

Members
  • Content Count

    1,523
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,635 Excellent

About Raptor9

  • Rank
    Spacecraft & Rocket Dealer

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

15,198 profile views
  1. No internet connection required for play, please. After download, installation, and any needed activation, I hope I can continue to play it if I never connect to the internet ever again. Figuratively speaking of course.
  2. @SQUAD I'm still processing all of this, however if there is one thing I would ask for (even though I know you aren't making KSP 2, but you talk to Star Theory apparently), is that KSP 2 be available to play without an internet connection. That is one thing that has ruined a lot of games for me. I travel a lot, and when I bring my gaming laptop with me, KSP is one of the few games I can still play without an internet connection. In the meantime, I look forward to continuing playing KSP 1.8 and beyond. I salute you.
  3. Sorry for the late reply, I don't why I didn't get notified of thread activity. Anyway, the only place the SEV Mustang is available is part of the EV-4 Hab+Lab (SEV). It comes pre-mounted on it for ease of outfitting an EV-4 for missions to Gilly. The ER-4 that @Jestersage linked above is what the SEV is based on, so if you're looking for the rover version, that would be it. The SEV 'Mustang' specifically is only for zero-G or ultra-low-G operations.
  4. I will always maintain that whatever makes the player feel inspiration, is the right path to take. What's interesting is that you can have players that bring their KSP game to a crawl with high part counts to emulate appearance or function. Take EJ or @Azimech, they build large complex contraptions that are meant to replicate complicated functions of real life designs, and then you have others that add high part counts simply to create a very precise shape solely to replicate the appearance. I do think there are some players that box themselves unnecessarily into certain design constraints, because they feel they are supposed to. I've seen some players argue with others over minute details of a craft and whether or not it's "accurate" to it's real-life counterpart. Who cares? @Rocketology built a space shuttle that looks quite different from the real-life STS, because he felt it performs better. I've used the MEM lander can on other, non-Apollo lander designs, and I did not use it on my Apollo LEM analogue. Again, the most important thing is to design craft in whatever way makes you feel motivated to keep hitting that KSP.exe icon.
  5. There really wasn't much deciding at all with those two. I just didn't want to waste the funds delivering the LV-1H and LV-1U one at a time in a similar fashion as the LV-1S shelter; I just decided to deliver them in a dedicated cargo rocket without any crew, with them double-stacked in the fairing. If you're asking in more general terms like the EV-2C and LV-2A or C, then it's really based on their real-life concepts and proposals for dual-manifested rockets. Sometimes, it costs less to launch a pair of spacecraft on two small rockets versus one big one, but I don't mind spending a little extra to avoid the time required to conduct two launches and a rendezvous. Not to mention depending on your proficiency, you may end up eating into your mission propellant conducting the R&D maneuvers. So it really comes down to weighing the pros and cons of single- or dual-manifesting a rocket.
  6. Nope, it was simply a RockoMax HubMax Multi-port Connector, with 6x Rockomax Brand Adaptor 02's attached to it, and 6x Sr Docking Ports attached to those. Really simple, but turned out to be not useful; at least not with anything I wanted to build.
  7. Unfortunately, it appears that the rotor blades do not have the capability to control attitude of rotor craft via cyclically-feathering blade pitch as helicopters do; despite the rotor blades' PAW having Pitch/Roll/Yaw toggles. For the moment, conventional helicopter designs will require other means to control attitude, such as reaction wheels.
  8. I'm no modder, so I suck at reading output logs, but I would start with removing Wild Blue Industries.
  9. @Neil Kerman, have you tested it in a stock KSP install with no mods? I doubt the craft file is the issue, however it does include Making History DLC parts. If you don't have that installed, it won't work.
  10. $25 and 1 cent?....that's making my OCD get the Forest Whitaker eye.
  11. Yep, I'm aware of that. But everytime I try a test flight, control in all three axes is either unpredictable or nonexistent. Do helicopters need a KAL for the rotor blades to be able to perform proper and sufficient attitude control?
  12. It seems to me that the rotor blades have been (either on purpose or inadvertently) programmed exactly like the prop blades, as a means of strictly propulsion. However the pitch/roll/yaw functions appear to be included in case someone wants to use these devices as fixed control surfaces (for whatever reason, but KSP is a lego-like system where people use parts for all sorts of reasons). To make matters worse, the spinning rotor blades themselves are adding a gyroscopic stabilization effect, reducing the effectiveness of reaction wheel parts to "cheat" attitude control into the rotorcraft. Cyclic feathering of helicopter rotor blades in itself doesn't produce pitch/roll effects. Cyclic feathering induces tilt of the rotor disc, which in turn offsets the total lift vector of the rotor system from the Center-of-Mass to produce the pitch/roll effects. However, since the KSP rotors are not mounted on articulating hinges, nor can the rotor blades themselves flex to allow rotor disc manipulation (as in the case of rigid-rotor systems), no actual positive attitude control is occurring. There are some physical changes happening, but I believe they are a side-effect of how the rotors are interacting with the KSP physics engine. I'm working on a graphic to illustrate possible changes to the KSP rotor parts to make this possible, or at least predictable. But I need more time to flesh out the behavior before submitting a feedback report on the bugtracker.
  13. I'm quite familiar with phase lag (been flying helos professionally for over a decade) and the engineering techniques involved, like blade pitch horns, offset control servo inputs, etc, but it's not that complicated. They're just design techniques built into the aircraft's control system to achieve the required input in advance of the desired effect. However, just so there's no confusion here on the forum, blade flapping is used to counteract dissymetry of lift in directional flight, not affect phase lag. And the lead/lag motion of a rotor blade (on some rotor systems, not all) is used to compensate for conservation of angular momentum as a result of the flapping motion.
  14. Depending on how accurately KSP's physics models real life, we may be going down the rabbit hole of unexpected behavior. When you factor in gyroscopic precession (55 secs in the actual info starts), if you want to pitch a helicopter forward, the blades increase pitch 90 degrees prior to crossing the tail of the helicopter, not at the tail. Helicopter Lessons in 10 minutes or Less is a good Youtube channel to look through to understand the intricacies of helicopter aerodynamics and physics. However, since I have no idea how these parts actually interact with the KSP physics simulation, I have no way of knowing whether this is a thing or not.