Woopert

The advanced boosters pictured there are generic designs used for NASA SLS concepts, probably because they don't want to favor one company and show their design or something. The actual advanced boosters are mostly likely to be Dynetics/Aerojet Rocketdyne's Pyrios with the dual F-1B engines, Orbital ATK's Dark Knights SRB, or Aerojet Rocketdyne's liquid rocket boosters. There's also a Northrop Grumman design and probably a few others. Here's some PDF's with concept images of some various advanced booster concepts. http://www.asee.org/Crumbly_ASEE_Final.pdf http://smdsymposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Crumbly-presentation.pdf

I did these calculations as well a while ago when comparing KSP parts to real life. Great minds think alike The current design uses a four RL10C-2 upper stage. J-2X was underfunded so they opted to use engines that already existed or ones that could me modified. All SLS designs are going to use four engines. They decided not to use five because, I believe, they wanted part commonality and they didn't want to run out of them as quickly. That being said, yours is probably one of the best SLS's I have seen in a while. I really, really like it a lot. Keep up the good work mate! I also haven't seen any Block 2 SLS's, especially ones with the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) design.

I don't think so, as far as I know. Which isn't much I think it mainly helps with reducing RAM usage. I've heard that RAM usage can drop in half in OpenGL or DX11 mode. Oh, and DX11 mode is different from the default. What do you use? I can see how better frame rates for high part counts would be useful. I was just clarifying because because DX11 mode is a user enabled thing, in case I confused anyone.

Good question, I probably shouldn't be using OpenGL on my main KSP install since memory is fine there. I used to be able to run DX11 mode but for some reason I get weird black spots on the KSC buildings and parts turn pink. I prefer DX11 mode but it stopped working and I have no idea why. I use OpenGL then for my main KSP install and my RSS install.

Rune, what kind of graphics card do you have? There's a way around the anti-aliasing issues with OpenGL. I play with OpenGL and with anti-aliasing. You have to go to Nvidia's control panel (probably a similar one for AMD) and find programs, then find KSP and enable anti-aliasing and override the settings. I use 4x MSAA.

Hey man, I made a flags mod. No worries though. Kerbal Stuff is truly amazing.

Huzzah! Are you going to add the separation motors to it? That would be a dream come true.

Actually, it's the opposite of that Most real life engines have gimbal ranges around 2-4 times greater than KSP. The F-1 engine had a range of 6 degrees, the SSME a range of 10.5 degrees for pitch control, etc. The four engine cluster engine in KSP has a gimbal range of 0.25, which is utterly ridiculous because it gives you so little control over the rocket. Similarly, I would like to see SRB's be given gimbal capability as we'll. Many real life SRB's have gimballing and in the case of the STS, they were vital for the functioning or the system. Before booster separation they actually had to null the position of the SRB gimbals. Cheers

Thanks all, I solved the problem though To explain what I did wrong in case anyone else makes this mistake, I only created faces on the bottom half of triangles. Turns out you need to create triangles all the way around for it to work. Oh, and I did try the boundary option. Didn't do much but once I figured out what was wrong I didn't even need it.

Thanks mate, that was really helpful. I'm having some issues with the wireframe modifier though. There's some issues where the edges and faces meet. Pictures below. Thanks

Oh, I don't think that's what I meant. Here's another screenshot. I highlighted the edges that I want to change. Basically I want them to go from being basic edges to being solid tubes. How would I go about taking the edges I made by using the F key and make them into actual tubes with geometric depth? Thanks

Long time no see, all! I recently started playing with Blender a bit and I'm working on an upper stage engine. I have connected vertices into edges/lines and want to know how to add depth to them or solidify them (I know there is a solidify filter, but it doesn't seem to work with edges, just faces). Below are two pictures: one of which is my view in Blender and another is a picture of a rocket design of which I am inspired by. Blender view Inspiration from real rocket Thanks all!

I agree with all of you. I've been wishing for a set between 1.25 and 2.5 meters for a while now and as awsumindyman pointed out, 1.875 meters is the logical size. Some examples that show this is necessary are with building SLS replicas, the boosters are much too narrow and short when using 1.25 meter boosters on 3.75 meter tanks; building Ares I replicas or any rocket that uses a first stage that is narrower than its above upper stage; and for building radial boosters on 2.5 meter tanks  1.25 meter boosters look a bit silly on these. I can't believe they made 0.23.5 without adding larger boosters, especially with the SLS theme, because you can't even build an SLS with the standard booster (you can with clipped parts but you shouldn't have to go through all that work in a polished game). What I also find ridiculous is how shortly for which the SRB's burn. There is no reason why a booster should run out before the rocket is even doing its gravity turn; i.e., unless you use clipped boosters with thrust limiter set down for longer burn times, you'll be dropping your boosters straight onto the launch pad. Branching off from bigger tanks is my wish for segmented boosters. Adding 1.875 meter SRB's would be a wonder for constructing large SLS replicas or large STS replicas. Another thing to note is that real life SRB's are usually in segments, usually consisting of the motor segment, the nose cone with built in separator rockets, and the actual fuel segments. Usually they increase the thrust when adding more segments, like is being done with the Space Launch System. The Space Shuttle used lower thrust four segment boosters whereas the SLS will use higher thrust five segment boosters. You can see how it all ties together and it really makes sense. The 2.5 meter parts and 3.75 meter parts blend really nicely and you can make rockets with a 2.5 meter lower stage and 3.75 meter upper stage without looking silly. When trying to apply that to 2.5 meter and 1.25 meter parts it is simply much too small. The 1.25 meter SRB's can be nice as radial boosters. Examples below.

I joined in 0.18.2, purchasing the game in January of 2013. KSP was a lot different then, but still really awesome. I waited until October of 2013 to make an account, largely because I was away from home from May-August of 2013 for personal reasons.

The problem I have with SAS is that it doesn't properly utilize what's available to it. I was testing a Space Shuttle with Mk55 engines, which now have 5 degrees of gimbal range, and the SAS system doesn't even use that! It just sits the engines in their original positions or close to it; meanwhile, using manual control is enough to keep the Space Shuttle flying straight. I just wish it was as simple as SAS holds whatever position you tell it, nothing more, and it will utilize engine gimbals to point them in whatever direction will keep the rocket stable. Better use of Vernor engines by SAS would be great to fix as well.

Rune, this looks really cool! I like how you captured the look of the X-37B with a relatively low part count. The screenshot you have there with the cargo bay exposing the engine and Kerbals inspecting it is clever, too. Questions: do you use Claw's Stock Bug Fix Modules in your install? I noticed some of your craft had issues with booster separation without it, but once installed they worked like a charm (it fixes the radial decoupler bug in KSP).

Absolutely not! Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is a military base and is very strict. Taking pictures while on the base is actually illegal. KSC is much more liberal with its rules and is a NASA facility. That being said, NASA and other companies do use USAF's launch pads with permission. Another thing to note is that KSC is NOT actually on Cape Canaveral; rather, it is located on Merritt Island. Cheers

Hey, don't mean to necropost but do you have a craft file for this? This is really amazing  I tried building an aircraft carrier with wing parts and found it took too much tinkering to try it. I also didn't use the plates like you did, which I assume adds increased resistance to explosions from hard landings. All in all, your design looks very smooth and clean, and I like it. The batteries in on the deck look sweet.

Hey-oh, I'm ethnically 50% Polish. I'm an American, though. Looking forward to what you make! Have some rep since you don't have any yet.

I agree with Maximus97. It's so cool to see the exhaust from jets taking off. For those that don't know what he is talking about, see these pictures. Wouldn't that be awesome in KSP?!

That's quite timely... I recently updated an Ariane 5 from last year, too! Looking forward to see how it's like. Knowing how your designs are, it will probably end up looking better than mine. - Here's mine - Old design for horrible comparisonI find I'm a lot more tidy now with my designs and try to make it look clean. About 7-zip, it can unpack RAR files but not create them. I honestly don't have a problem with WinRAR and if it's comfortable for you, then use it. I just like the simplicity of 7-zip.

I always use MechJeb with my craft. That's a good tip: if any of you make a lot of rockets and don't have much time to fly crafts yourself, try MJ! I feel the hate for it has come and gone, which is good as it's a personal choice. I find it a logical choice to use it just for the time it saves. It also allows for a consistent flight profile of with you can test your craft. That being said, if I were doing an actual playthrough as opposed to craft designing and testing, I would probably fly without MJ. Your tips you gave were very good! Have some rep

Thanks Gus, means a lot from a builder like you. Also, thanks to you and Rune for the rep, that was very kind. I already rebuilt it, no worries. Wasn't too bat, the design itself is actually quite simple and only took five minutes to rebuild. The hardest part was finding out how to approach making the lifter. Building heavy lifters is pretty easy, but I find it difficult to meet my criteria, which is to make a smooth, easy on the eyes craft and one that looks reasonably realistic, too. I plan to build a rocket family, probably from about 5 to 200 metric tons. Those heavier ones are going to be challenging so I hope to make it work. Also, the fairings in 1.0 will be really nice to have for lifters, and that applies to every builder out there.

Not related to the thread, but I recommend 7-zip. You can still unzip (or "un-RAR" ) ZIP's, RAR's, and 7z's and you can create 7z files, which have better compression than ZIP and RAR. Also, it's open source and really is free, so you don't get bugged about purchasing anything. Another thing is it doesn't change the look for ZIP file icons as WinRAR does, which is something I like as I think the default icon blends better with Windows. Anyways that's just my little rant. Never understood why more people everywhere (Minecraft, KSP, etc) use WinRAR when 7-zip is available. My friend uses WinRAR and every time I try to unzip something I get interrupted by the purchase screen. Sorry guys, I apologize for this long and pointless rant post I've said it before, but I love your crafts Kurotenshi. I use your fairing designs for my rockets when I play.

Alright, time for me to catch up. Does this mod work with Distant Object Enhancements now? In February of last year I used this and DOE in tandem and it was quite fun. I saw on GitHub there was a not about something with compatibility with DOE. The reason I ask is because for 0.24, Rubber Ducky mentioned that the mods were then incompatible. Cheers, and thanks for keeping this mod going, along with MOARdV for keeping DOE going