NESD Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 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 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 Now you can add RCS to almost any part and any small vessel that don't have enough space for stock modules 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 March 25, 2018 by NESD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedala Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 That is awesome! It's always bugged me that so many of the command modules have obvious RCS on the models, but it doesn't work. Now we can just throw some working ports over them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtedastro Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 nice, real nice. great idea and thanks. cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSPrynk Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 This IS a great idea. Looking forward to trying these out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxgurugamer Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 God, there goes the the part count Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSPrynk Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 (edited) 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 March 25, 2018 by KSPrynk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxgurugamer Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 One, ok, two words: Filter Extensions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jognt Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NESD Posted March 25, 2018 Author Share Posted March 25, 2018 @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 @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 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 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxgurugamer Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jognt Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NESD Posted March 25, 2018 Author Share Posted March 25, 2018 @linuxgurugamer This is a tail section of this shuttle 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 if you don't have wing tips near COM just place it on top and bottom sides Attitude control by reaction wheels of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 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) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NESD Posted March 25, 2018 Author Share Posted March 25, 2018 @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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSPrynk Posted March 25, 2018 Share Posted March 25, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jognt Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) @NESD After looking at the .cfg files I'm wondering if there's a specific reason for why you didn't use the "PhysicsSignificance = 1" flag? Edited March 28, 2018 by Jognt *spacing* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Reonic Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Any plans to add tweakscale compatibility? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 Ooph. I LOVE this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiscoSlelge Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 A very nice idea and pretty useful ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocketology Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 @NESD Don't take this the wrong way, but I think I LOVE YOU! :-P Thank you for creating this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NESD Posted March 28, 2018 Author Share Posted March 28, 2018 @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? @KSPrynk @DJ Reonic It's a simple "one day mod" that I build for myself, any things possible but I don't know how fast @RocketPCGaming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jognt Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 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 March 28, 2018 by Jognt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDplay Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 I like what I see here. Instant download. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theonegalen Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 Beautiful work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.