Jump to content

[ 1.3.X - 1.4.X ] Internal RCS


Recommended Posts

 

Internal RCS

Monopropellant and Liquid fuel RCS thrusters

without encasement, so they can be placed everywhere

and don't harm aerodynamics or smooth shape of your spaceship

Download:

Spacedock

KSP 1.3.X - 1.4.X

5J6G9m8.jpg

Htv7y1Y.jpg

Thrusters have 90, 60, 45 and 30 degrees nozzles

(monopropellant with polished metal, LFO slightly bigger and full black)

MP thrust - 1.5kn  ISP 100-240 (stock)  Cost - 200

LF thrust - 4kn  ISP 140-260 (stock)  Cost - 400

 

TMv3rNw.jpg

Now you can add RCS to almost any part

FrI6nhl.jpg

and any small vessel that don't have enough space for stock modules

f9T7Wel.jpg

also they can be hidden inside stock wings

 

Some placement required precise rotation and movement

so RCS Build Aid mod can be very helpful

 

Little more images here

Edited by NESD
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

God, there goes the the part count

Good point.  Some bi- and quad- variants may be worthwhile, but I've already been putting a limited number of single thrusters on command pods for re-entry control anyways, so I'm not panicking just yet.

Edit: The amount of parts to sort through in the command and control tab, on the other hand....

Edited by KSPrynk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks nice, though I get the feeling that besides the Mk3 cockpit simpler straight+90° angle ones would be plenty.

I'm guessing the Mk.3 cockpit is what inspired you for this one? If so, isn't it possible to add functional thrusters to the single part that is the Mk3?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@KSPrynk  RCS tab not too much overloaded by parts, compared to fuel or engines tab. I have installed  Near future pack and some other big mods

so this tab almost empty for me :D

@linuxgurugamer  Vessel part count not bigger than same variant with "Place Anywhere" RCS

Reaction wheels in all command pods make RCS usage for attitude control almost useless,

one or two rcs per movement axis in most cases is enough

@Jognt  I make it mostly for MK2 parts, because i don't like multiple boxes with tubes

scattered around sleek shuttle body. They not only looks ugly, also it greatly increase drag.

This parts can be placed almost invisibly . . .  or not

oOr4t5I.jpg

don't forget about Fore by throttle button, it's a pretty small engines for satellites,

maybe I fill your part list little more and make configs for Engines tab :wink:

Just a joke, if I do this, it will be placed into archive, so you can unpack it manually if needed

 

Now I try to find complete information about stock part switcher, maybe it's possible to

reduce part count in library to single item.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NESD said:

@linuxgurugamer  Vessel part count not bigger than same variant with "Place Anywhere" RCS

Reaction wheels in all command pods make RCS usage for attitude control almost useless,

one or two rcs per movement axis in most cases is enough

Oh, I wasn't criticizing. But I play with Mandatory RCS, which makes RCS absolutely necessary, so I have to think about how many RCS parts I put on a vessel.  The numbers can add up very quickly

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NESD said:

 I make it mostly for MK2 parts, because i don't like multiple boxes with tubes

scattered around sleek shuttle body. They not only looks ugly, also it greatly increase drag.

This parts can be placed almost invisibly . . .  or not

 

I'm not sure how I forgot about the Mk2 parts after all the time I spent trying to hide RCS on my spaceplanes... *facepalm*

Sorry about that! Is CKAN planned for this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@linuxgurugamer  This is a tail section of this shuttle

MBrgIgb.jpg

because i'm trying make a full flight without reaction wheels only on RCS ( successfully )

so if you don't dock this to 300+ parts station, all be fine

@Jognt Same thing, my better solution is

r09YMiY.jpg

if you don't have wing tips near COM just place it on top and bottom sides

Attitude control by reaction wheels of course

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks nice though I have to question both the notion that these are going to significantly reduce drag as well as the notion that the stock part 'greatly increase(s) drag'. They are somewhat smaller than the stock 4 way RCS but close in size to the linear RCS part. I also notice that you scaled down the maximum_drag field but that is only used under very specific circumstances and never when drag cubes are in play for a part. Either a player would have to have their PhysicsGlobals drag model set to spherical or you would have to set the part's drag model to spherical or one of the other drag models that actually use maximum_drag for anything. (minimum_drag is no longer used as best as I can ascertain)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Starwaster I don't know how it actually works, I just set both parameters to 0.001 ( because recommended placement of this part is inside parent part)

and check it with F12 key, red arrow almost invisible. Drag of stock RCS subtle on rockets or shuttles, but on underpowered SSTOs that long time flying inside atmosphere

it's valuable, some SSTOs can reach low orbit ,  but after adding only 4 RCS blocks they lost more than 100 m/s delta with same launch style

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm liking this so far, on my little HGR Gemini look-alike.  Single thrusters and symmetry is OK for a simple craft, but a compact bi-directional part would be a great next evolution.  I think going to a part switcher utility is a good idea for the various angle variants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NESD said:

@Jognt I'm a modeller but not scripter, I can only use copy/past method and don't know

all parameters of cfg file. PhysicsSignificance  disable physics model?

I'm not a modder, but from what I've read so far that flag turns a part 'physicsless'. Meaning that its mass/drag is added to the parent part instead of being seperate.
Most science experiments, the stock RCS thrusters, and lights have this flag set.

Again, I'm not a modder, so I don't know how much of a difference it makes. I just noticed its absence compared to most of the stock stuff.

Edited by Jognt
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NESD said:

@Jognt I'm a modeller but not scripter, I can only use copy/past method and don't know

all parameters of cfg file. PhysicsSignificance  disable physics model?

12 minutes ago, Jognt said:

I'm not a modder, but from what I've read so far that flag turns a part 'physicsless'. Meaning that its mass/drag is added to the parent part instead of being seperate.
Most science experiments, the stock RCS thrusters, and lights have this flag set.

Again, I'm not a modder, so I don't know how much of a difference it makes. I just noticed its absence compared to most of the stock stuff.

The mass of the part is added to the overall craft (meaning the part will still affect DeltaV, for instance) but does not affect the center of mass, amongst some other peculiarities I can't remember. The big thing is the CoM - you can mount instruments to a probe without making it crazy unbalanced, and adding RCS won't compound any torque issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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...