Jump to content

[1.2 - 1.4] Lithobrake Exploration Technologies 0.4 (2016-10-12)


Recommended Posts

Hey NecroBones, I want to thank you for your 3 man LanderCan, it looks wonderfull!

Since I started using the 2 man landercan from the HGR 1.875 mod I have been looking for a 3 man replacement for the stock mk2, and this one just fits beautifully to the line as a replacement! :)

A thing I noticed though, the Y size/scale of the model seems a bit off? Is this correct?

Comparing door size to other stock doors, it's rather small and squarish vs rectangular what you see in most models. Changed the Y scale to 1.275 and overal it looks imo more in proportion. But that is just me :)

Keep it up! Will be following the mod!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh, stretching it is certainly fine, but yes, that's how it's meant to be. It's supposed to be a lightweight lander pod, similar in overall "size" to the 1-man lander pod, just a lot wider to accommodate three people and all their equipment. So it's a sort of squashed look.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I was looking a t the new biiiiiig bay of SpaceY Expanded and thinking it would be nice to have 1.25 and 2.5m using the same design. The 2.5m already here is nice but a bit too tall having bays of the same height the stock ones without the troublesome doors would be great not mention of an octogonal bay fitting perfectly the LTE lander can for example one with folding doors on the four large sides and another with only 2 folding doors.

Vahal, a lot of idea, no skill. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

This is great, I especially like the three-man lander can. Two small things though: The three-man can should have some monoprop tanks, and I would really like drogue versions of the chutes, especially the radial one. It would be great for landing huge spacey SSTOs :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is great, I especially like the three-man lander can. Two small things though: The three-man can should have some monoprop tanks, and I would really like drogue versions of the chutes, especially the radial one. It would be great for landing huge spacey SSTOs :)

Yeah, I do think some drogue versions could be useful. I don't remember how much space is left over in the textures (I'm away from my main computer tonight), but there are always ways to work around that too. ;) (pretty much the same models can work, just with different mapping)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
How do you feel about making some big wheels or tracks? I have a plan for a really big rover based out of 3.75m/mk3 parts, but the stock wheels just dont look big enough.

Kerbal Foundries may sate your desire in this respect...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey,

How do you feel about making some big wheels or tracks? I have a plan for a really big rover based out of 3.75m/mk3 parts, but the stock wheels just dont look big enough.

Wheels are a "maybe" right now, mainly because I need to see how things change in the Unity 5 update before I'll know what I can do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

About wheels I made some nice rovers with this 3 men can. It fits really nicely the structural beams parts to build compact and cool looking vehicle.

Here the RULE Argonaute a medium class utility rover able to make some long trips. Hope you will like this one who will travel on Duna with its cousin, the RSL Odysseus (basically an Argonaut with as much science stuff I could stick on it :sticktongue: )

1446775544-screenshot-2015-11-06-03-03-42.png

1446775561-screenshot-2015-11-06-03-04-11.png

1446775564-screenshot-2015-11-06-03-05-05.png

The Odysseus

1446776080-screenshot-2015-11-06-03-13-21.png

1446776282-screenshot-2015-11-06-03-12-57.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup NecroBones, it is very handy to drive. I tweaked front brakes to be quite soft and the Argonaut can make its way nicely. I will build a bigger version with more wheels to improve the cross country ability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How are the IVAs coming along?

Sadly, so far they're not. I just haven't had the time+energy to do them yet. I'm hoping in the next few months things will settle down a bit and I can come back to the more long-term projects like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm posting this update in several of my mod threads, since it pertains to each of them. I believe all of these mods are probably working acceptably for now, with MRS needing the most love due to the changes in jet engines and air intakes. So I've marked them all as compatible with 1.0.5 except MRS.

I've gone through the part CFG changes, and the patch notes, and built a laundry list of things to go over and tweak. Most of these are somewhat broad categories (like liquid fueled engines), rather than single parts, but I have a screenshot of my notes below. :) I may get some done today, but tomorrow will probably be the more productive day since I have Wednesday off from work for the holiday. Pardon the chicken-scratch. My handwriting is particularly bad when I'm rushing. :)

LjJqaDh.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much testing, but released:


0.3 (2015-11-11) - KSP 1.0.5 update.
- Switched the 4-man capsule's "generic" IVA over to use the Mk3 shuttle's IVA instead, so that all 4 Kerbals are EVA/IVA selectable.
- Moved "CHANGELOG" to the mod's directory.
- Updated bays to use current cargo bay thermal stats and allow door deployment limit.
- Parachutes now use new contract constraints.
- Command pods use new maxTemp and skinMaxTemp values.
- 4-man capsule uses new buoyancy settings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
[quote name='Psycho_zs']Great mod!
A small nag though: X3 lander can should weight at least 3t. Stock mk2 can weights 2.66, so X3 is a bit lightweight for its size.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's a tough call here. It's based on the stock one-man lander pod, which only weighs 0.6. I went with 3x that, and rounded up to 2.0. Maybe 2.8 might be fair so that it's at least heavier, but I think in comparison the stock Mk2 is a little overweight.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I think you're right.
If we derive from Mk1 can, funny things happen:
All three cans have the same height, but differ in diameter (roughly x1.5 for Mk2, x2 for X3). So, simplifying everything: they scale in two dimensions, by square law:
Mk1 can: 0.6t
Mk2 can: 0.6â‹…(1.5^2)=1.35
X3 lander can: 0.6â‹…(2^2)=2.4 < almost as stock Mk2.
After throwing in a few kilos, as we aren't in a fairy tale, Mk2 would be 1.6t and X3: 2.8
You could set X3 mass to 2.8 and provide an optional patch to rebalance Mk2 lander.

I've settled with this patch for myself:
[code]
@PART[LETlander2mX3]
{
@mass = 2.8
RESOURCE
{
name = MonoPropellant
amount = 70
maxAmount = 70
}
}
@PART[mk2LanderCabin]
{
@mass = 1.6
}
[/code]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Psycho_zs']Both 2.5 octagonal service bays have the same mass and fuel capacity. Is that intentional? Their tanks differ in size.[/QUOTE]

At the moment, yes, that was intentional. The reason is that I wasn't sure which size would be more useful to people, but it was only meant to be one part. So I was looking for feedback on which size worked better.

But since they're both probably useful, I probably should just give them separate stats and keep them both.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='NecroBones']At the moment, yes, that was intentional. The reason is that I wasn't sure which size would be more useful to people, but it was only meant to be one part. So I was looking for feedback on which size worked better.

But since they're both probably useful, I probably should just give them separate stats and keep them both.[/QUOTE]

Both sizes are very useful. I use this lander tank more than anything out there due to the shape of it and the fact it has an equipment bay. Granted, you can't do an "Apollo style" rocket design to fit the tanks, but that just gives me an excuse to design something else unique. I know you are working on the IVA's on this, so I won't say anything about that. Edited by lynwoodm
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure you can make an Apollo, just tweak around to fit some external fuel tanks. Now I have to configure my install, but I can quickly make a lander Apollo style.

My only concern about the big bay is the size gap between the bay and the pod. So it can be troublesome to make your kerbal to use ladder. its asset is to have more room making it THE probe bay. If it had more fuel that would even better :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...