Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

After having huge CoM issues on the first HLV, I decided to create an entirely new model, the HLV2. 

CoM issues have been resolved and in the process I think I figured out what went wrong with the first model. Hope to correct and publish that one too.

So here it is, the Konstellation HLV.

 

Another quick update:

Added the agricultural, hab and science/Comms modules. Amongst others, enjoy:) PS. Texturing still sucks but it is improving:)

lkWQ0pH.png

4D20OSV.png

XSQCkJY.png

 

 

UPDATE: Added the transfer stage and some more texturing.

xR6fGOb.png

0aY1uuM.png

wj2eBdl.png

KNsGrDV.png6TOTQ2m.png

Download: Spacedock

Installation: You know the drill. Copy the Moonprint folder into the gamedata folder.

Building: The MAV decoupler connects to a second node on the rear of the lander (the non-conical part).

              A standard docking port can be placed underneath the nosecone, it connects to a hidden node just underneath the top of the capsule.

              The cargo conatiners require KIS to be functional otherwise they are there for show.

            Aeroshell  - In production, texturing stage. the aeroshell has two holes, one at the top one at the bottom to stow parachtes and covers to ensure aerodynamics. The chutes are for parachute assisted seperation.

            Lander frame RCS - Now integrated in to the frame as a LFO vernier engine. Ensues more stability during atmospheric deceleration

In modeling:

ISRU; ORE TANKS

DEPENDENCIES: Community Resource Pack

 

The textures are WIP. I am really terrible with texturing:(

Suggestions are welcome:)

Edited by DocBones
Update

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool to see you working on this again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

^Not first.

Nice work, Doc. 

Edited by Jimbodiah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The decoupler for the AV only wants to attach after being flipped. 

Regardless, this is pretty cool I have to say. The landing gear are awesome, I'd like to see them as separate pieces for other uses.

More observations:

There are loads of places to go with the cargo modules. I could see choosing from part storage, to ore, etc.

The Isp and thrust of the engines is way over the top.

 

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, tater said:

The decoupler for the AV only wants to attach after being flipped. 

Regardless, this is pretty cool I have to say. The landing gear are awesome, I'd like to see them as separate pieces for other uses.

More observations:

There are loads of places to go with the cargo modules. I could see choosing from part storage, to ore, etc.

The Isp and thrust of the engines is way over the top.

 

Hi,

Thanks for the kind words. The gear was initially designed as a stand alone and I ended up using it for the frame. I'll see what I can do about releasing it as a stand alone part.

There is way more to this part pack than meets the eye. The cargo units will be expanded to hold different cargo and hab and science parts are in the works and all will fit within the frame. As for the power and ISP I know at the moment it is a little overpowered and the resources are possibly over the top. I calculated the resources based on the tank size and respective volume. The engines are offset power wise to compensate for the different weights of the bow tanks and the mav thus offering stable flight. Use the built in rcs to keep it level;) moreover with the cargo units full it requires that much power to be able to sustain twr

Oh and the decoupler I will fix. Thanks for the heads up. Actually any suggestions are welcome.

The orbital transfer tank and nuclear engines are modeled and in game, they are not textured however. I would be more than happy to give you an alpha test of you like.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant stand alone within this mod. The frame/gear, and then the gear, just because :) .

I think realistic engine thrust and Isp are critical, so it isn't over powered. Perhaps the cargo mass needs to drop. Are the default cargo tanks empty, unless filled with KIS/KAS stuff? Perhaps there should be copies for testing with some reasonable mass as "boilerplate" for testing.

This is really quite cool, though! I've tried horizontal landers before and they always crash, lol.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes, the cargo tanks are empty by default, with kis they can manage about 10 tons a piece, also the reason the built in vernier engines are as strong as they are. 

Yes, the gear... Because...... Science:)

Edited by DocBones
Train.... Really? I meant reason!! Damn autocorrect!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm torn between my current SSTU ways (as few parts as possible), and wanting the ascent stage of the lander to have the tanks separate. I'd like this, because assuming the vehicle has enough space in the open "bay" in the center, players could use alternate 2.5m command pods.

Another interesting idea might be an entirely symmetrical version. Taper both sides like the bow (for tighter fairing integration, since I'm not sure if biconics work in KSP), widen it slightly, and have the cargo a little smaller. The engines could then be on 2xBow Tank, and an ascent vehicle could be optional (for use as a rover delivery, perhaps). A "bridge" across the top (inside) could allow a probe of some sort to control it, and the ability to add a decoupler).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tater said:

I'm torn between my current SSTU ways (as few parts as possible), and wanting the ascent stage of the lander to have the tanks separate. I'd like this, because assuming the vehicle has enough space in the open "bay" in the center, players could use alternate 2.5m command pods.

Sstu indeed, one of my favorite mods. But I do not see that being a problem. The tanks should be easy enough to separate and could well be added so that players can add their own pod. However for the moment I want to finish the hlv I am so close. And the texturing ..... Did I mention the texturing..... Ohhhh the texturing! Keep those suggestions coming!!!! I'm digging it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll get a chance to mess with it some more later this evening I think.

What will be the hardest thing is balance, frankly. Doing it mechanically (tweaking the engines) can't be the thing, because if the player loads the cargo differently, it'll crash.

What it ideally needs is a dynamic way to keep the CM where you want it, and I am unsure how or if that is possible. I'm afraid it needs a balancing resource of some sort. Or specific cargos that are not interchangeable. A more generic framework (once you get the first sussed out) might be easier, because as long as the cargo is symmetric, and hanging in the middle, you're good. Or hanging on each side and symmetric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, tater said:

I'll get a chance to mess with it some more later this evening I think.

What will be the hardest thing is balance, frankly. Doing it mechanically (tweaking the engines) can't be the thing, because if the player loads the cargo differently, it'll crash.

What it ideally needs is a dynamic way to keep the CM where you want it, and I am unsure how or if that is possible. I'm afraid it needs a balancing resource of some sort. Or specific cargos that are not interchangeable. A more generic framework (once you get the first sussed out) might be easier, because as long as the cargo is symmetric, and hanging in the middle, you're good. Or hanging on each side and symmetric.

I hope you had a chance to try it out. The vernier engines can actually tolerate about 1.5 tons difference on the loadout. But the entire thing is dependent on the loadout being symetrical, if there is one thing we have all learnt from ksp is that asymetrical building will lead to rapid unplanned disassembly. Naturally this will not be a problem for ore tanks and the like. However if you are going to insist on loading asymetricaly then I suggest using TCA that should keep it all straight.

Your previous suggestion was not bad, I had already thought about it when I created my first landing frame. The frame was unfortunately a bust the CoM was off somehow, but I think I have it sorted, so as soon as I finish this one I will release the other. The original supported two bow tanks for a "just cargo setup. You can take a look at it here. It was also bigger at 5m diameter with a 6 meter fairing diameter. It's slightly more rectangular shape made it posible for a cargo only lander.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I experimented a little and I can get a capsule and 20 tons landed (tanks literally stuck on the side as a test) with SSTU engines with vastly lower thrust (to munar surface) I'd think that for Duna I'd have chutes, anyway, and could use less propellant---and that is for MUCH lower thrust/Isp engines.

From a player design standpoint, I still think the ideal would be a lander frame and propellant/engine parts that are 100% symmetric, with perhaps cargo on the bow and stern, as well as dead center (for any AV added).

The point of the asymmetrical aspect is to use fewer engines, and bring the propellant in the AV tanks, which I get. You could use smaller engines, since you'd have more (4 on the frame, and as many as needed on the AV). I like this more simply because in KSP, design is half the fun, and it allows the player more flexibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2017 at 2:09 PM, tater said:

The Isp and thrust of the engines is way over the top.

I was thinking it was just right in an RSS environment. May have to give this a try!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Handles like a dream, although I do think the engines are a bit overpowered. I recommend using MechJeb's differential throttle option in tandem with it's landing autopilot. 

Edited by hieywiey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see some capability to hold a rover (perhaps you can add your own rover specifically for this, and have it like the MMSEV). Additionally, I wish that the cargo containers had more space (both volume and more slots).

Also, the windows are too light colored. They should have a deep blue, almost black, instead of an ice blue.

 

Even so, your progress so far is amazing. Keep up the good work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Raptor22 said:

I would like to see some capability to hold a rover (perhaps you can add your own rover specifically for this, and have it like the MMSEV). Additionally, I wish that the cargo containers had more space (both volume and more slots).

Also, the windows are too light colored. They should have a deep blue, almost black, instead of an ice blue.

 

Even so, your progress so far is amazing. Keep up the good work!

Hi Raptor,

Many thanks for your feedback.

The rover capability is already in modeling, however I might have to make a new frame or adjust the current one to accomodate a decent size rover. As for the cargo modules, for the time being they will stay that way, possibly I will add additional cargo module for a cargo only lander or make the current ones configurable. The windows will improve over time I as the texturing slowly gets reworked:)

Keep those suggestions coming.  

Edited by DocBones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish to intend to fully use this for a replication of Race To Mars, mainly for the aeroshell. Great work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2017 at 9:24 AM, The-Doctor said:

I wish to intend to fully use this for a replication of Race To Mars, mainly for the aeroshell. Great work

Hi,

Good to know, I am currently working on the cons satellite and exploration Rover. Did you try the holed heatshield? Is it worth keeping or just to much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DocBones said:

Hi,

Good to know, I am currently working on the cons satellite and exploration Rover. Did you try the holed heatshield? Is it worth keeping or just to much?

I honestly think that you should keep it. It helps you not smash into the terrain on Duna. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raptor22 said:

I honestly think that you should keep it. It helps you not smash into the terrain on Duna. 

Thanks for the feedback. At the moment it is in testing but I will consider leaving it in the pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2017 at 6:52 AM, DocBones said:

Hi,

Good to know, I am currently working on the cons satellite and exploration Rover. Did you try the holed heatshield? Is it worth keeping or just to much?

haven't played KSP in months, won't until May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now