Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[blowfish]

Is the Thunder 4B-3 used for anything?

[Raptor9]

On 1/10/2016 at 10:14 AM, blowfish said:

Is the Thunder 4B-3 used for anything?

Yeah, it's the lifter for bringing the NTR stages to orbit for assembling the EV-3 'Clipper'.  You can see the sub-spoiler in the EV-3 expandable section.

Another update to the craft file list, the LV-3B.  This one I've been working on for a while, just couldn't get satisfied with the design until now.  Its purpose is to compliment the LV-3A 'Bullfrog' later-generation Mun landers, and provides a long-term research facility, as well as a pair of rovers.  It's sent ahead of the crewed lander to autonomously arrive at the proposed landing site, preferably where two or more biomes border each other to maximize scientific value.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Raptor9

[XKerman]

A deployable rover ramp.... are you kidding me? haha i've been waiting for the LV3C and its better than I expected!  

Awesome creations Raptor9!!!

[Raptor9]

4 hours ago, XKerman said:

A deployable rover ramp.... are you kidding me? haha i've been waiting for the LV3C and its better than I expected!  

Awesome creations Raptor9!!!

Glad you like it.

Meanwhile, back at the SPH RAC Cell, some blueprints that have been around for quite some time on my hard drive (since KSP 0.25) are about to make a "resurrection"...

[chadgaskerman]

you should reincarnate the XV series

 

[Raptor9]

On ‎1‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 10:37 AM, chadgaskerman said:

you should reincarnate the XV series

Oh I've been wanting to, believe me.  At the moment, there is an apparent bug at zero airspeed in that one engine robs intake air from the other, causing the craft to flip over to one side when you throttle up.  I have one last trick I'm gonna try this evening; but after that, I'm afraid the XV program will have to be put on indefinite hold again.  I'll update this post with the test results tonight.

-----UPDATE-----

I have some good news regarding the XV series.  After messaging @Cupcake... about this issue, he asked to double-check to ensure the engines/intakes were mounted symmetrically.  While the engines were in fact mounted using symmetry, that made me think to try mounting each engine assembly individually.  Throttled up and no flipping over this time, so I'm going to try to rebuild one of the XV designs and mount the engines separately.  Hopefully this solution works.

-----UPDATE-----

Another update: for some reason I cannot reproduce this solution not using symmetry when placing the engines, using symmetry, using symmetry when placing the intakes but not the engines, vice versa, (a whole bunch of other ways of building the engine mounts).  I give up for the night; too frustrated.  Wasn't the asymmetric thrust/flameout issue fixed several KSP versions ago??

Edited January 13, 2016 by Raptor9

[Raptor9]

In other news, I've posted an SPH and VAB directory in their respective sections on the first page.  This should hopefully help players decide what craft file download best suits their needs, instead of opening and closing each spoiler tag one at a time.  Also, I plan on releasing more subassemblies, the bulk of which (initially) will be individual station modules.  Players can plug-and-play with these to construct whatever station they need (or contracts require); and as subassemblies they'll be more readily available to place them in/on their own launch vehicles.  I'm still trying to figure out how best to organize and present them as a whole, and make sure their root attachment node is appropriate so players aren't trying to flip them around when pulling from the subassembly list.

Edited July 30, 2017 by Raptor9

[selfish_meme]

33 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

In other news, I've posted an SPH and VAB directory in their respective sections on the first page.  This should hopefully help players decide what craft file download best suits their needs, instead of opening and closing each spoiler tag one at a time.  Also, I plan on releasing more subassemblies, the bulk of which (initially) will be individual station modules.  Players can plug-and-play with these to construct whatever station they need (or contracts require); and as subassemblies they'll be more readily available to place them in/on their own launch vehicles.  I'm still trying to figure out how best to organize and present them as a whole, and make sure their root attachment node is appropriate so players aren't trying to flip them around when pulling from the subassembly list.

 

Are you going to have a complete ISS assembly as well as all the parts? I was looking for one recently and couldn't find much.

I thought they fixed the intake symmetry bug, I remember there was an intake symmetry mod to correct it.

[Raptor9]

On 1/15/2016 at 2:30 PM, selfish_meme said:

Are you going to have a complete ISS assembly as well as all the parts? I was looking for one recently and couldn't find much.

Sure, I was going to release it as an "Example Station" along with a couple others.  It's just going to take more time to get everything organized since there's over twenty modules to publish.

On 1/15/2016 at 2:30 PM, selfish_meme said:

I thought they fixed the intake symmetry bug, I remember there was an intake symmetry mod to correct it.

Yeah I thought so as well, but apparently not.  The craft that I rebuilt are completely from scratch in 1.0.5, no files or saves were imported, so that wasn't the cause.  I'm planning to stay on top of it, maybe find the root cause through another series of experiments.  But for now, I'm going to focus on pushing those subassemblies and a new spaceplane out the door.

-----Update-----

Here we have a pair of rovers published as subassemblies.  The first one is the same rover that can be found pre-loaded into the descent stage of the LV-1B 'Frog'.  The ER-1 'Rat' is a no-frills barebones rover for basic science readings away from Munar landing sites.  The second rover is the ER-2 'Ferret'.  It has more sensors, power reserves/generation, and an integrated probe core for remote control.  It comes pre-loaded into the LV-3C 'Bullfrog' research lander.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Raptor9

[Rune]

Holy boop dude, your presentation skills are something to be envious of. And that ISS looks awesome! Are you for hire?

 

Rune. R-SUV pays in cookies.

[Raptor9]

On 1/16/2016 at 10:18 PM, Rune said:

Holy boop dude, your presentation skills are something to be envious of. And that ISS looks awesome! Are you for hire?

Rune. R-SUV pays in cookies.

Thanks, but I only accept Chips Ahoy

So far, I've only uploaded the first ten SM-series station subassemblies.  KerbalX users can only upload 10 craft/subassemblies in a 24-hr period to prevent the entire first page from being blanketed with one user's stuff.  I'll have to resume uploading tomorrow afternoon, and finish the last three Monday.  To be clear, these are just subassemblies; there are no actual space stations uploaded (yet).  As the fine print at the bottom states, all of these subassemblies (except for the SM-Main Solar Array T-assemblies; SM-MSAT) fit in the CRG-100 Mk3 cargo bay, which is the longest one in the parts list and also the same size cargo bay as my SVR-16 'Ranger'.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Raptor9
Removed image url

[JWOC]

4 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Thanks, but I only accept Chips Ahoy

So far, I've only uploaded the first ten SM-series station subassemblies.  KerbalX users can only upload 10 craft/subassemblies in a 24-hr period to prevent the entire first page from being blanketed with one user's stuff.  I'll have to resume uploading tomorrow afternoon, and finish the last three Monday.  To be clear, these are just subassemblies; there are no actual space stations uploaded (yet).  As the fine print at the bottom states, all of these subassemblies (except for the SM-Main Solar Array T-assemblies; SM-MSAT) fit in the CRG-100 Mk3 cargo bay, which is the longest one in the parts list and also the same size cargo bay as my SVR-16 'Ranger'.

Raptor9, Oh my gosh these modules are so cool 

[chadgaskerman]

On 12/01/2016 at 4:53 PM, Raptor9 said:

Oh I've been wanting to, believe me.  At the moment, there is an apparent bug at zero airspeed in that one engine robs intake air from the other, causing the craft to flip over to one side when you throttle up.  I have one last trick I'm gonna try this evening; but after that, I'm afraid the XV program will have to be put on indefinite hold again.  I'll update this post with the test results tonight.

-----UPDATE-----

I have some good news regarding the XV series.  After messaging @Cupcake... about this issue, he asked to double-check to ensure the engines/intakes were mounted symmetrically.  While the engines were in fact mounted using symmetry, that made me think to try mounting each engine assembly individually.  Throttled up and no flipping over this time, so I'm going to try to rebuild one of the XV designs and mount the engines separately.  Hopefully this solution works.

-----UPDATE-----

Another update: for some reason I cannot reproduce this solution not using symmetry when placing the engines, using symmetry, using symmetry when placing the intakes but not the engines, vice versa, (a whole bunch of other ways of building the engine mounts).  I give up for the night; too frustrated.  Wasn't the asymmetric thrust/flameout issue fixed several KSP versions ago??

Have you tried adding one or two of the radial adjustable ramp intakes along the centre line of the craft

Edited January 17, 2016 by chadgaskerman

[DMSP]

Awesome!

 

[Rune]

Actually, I do have one tiny thing to suggest... those ISS trusses are a tiny bit thin, compared to the faithfulness of the rest of the thing. It might look better if you did something like this instead, and you will need more shuttle flights to lift each truss segment like the real thing:

It isn't too part-heavy, too, and about 1.25m in diameter so perfect for standard ports. Plenty of space to mount stuff in, and it actually look very similar to the real life thing, which also has an octagonal cross section with four white sides.

 

Rune. Hope it helps!

Edited January 17, 2016 by Rune

[DMSP]

May I ask, how do you launch the SM-MSAT?

[Raptor9]

On 1/17/2016 at 3:07 AM, chadgaskerman said:

Have you tried adding one or two of the radial adjustable ramp intakes along the centre line of the craft

Well, I was trying to find out where the bug is occurring, since my testbed (which worked fine) literally was a cockpit, 1.25m LF tank, tailcone, two short I-beams holding a pair of J-33 engines with circular intakes.  When I built a new craft using (what I thought) was the same order of part placement in the engine nacelles, it flipped over again.  I know if I place a bunch of intakes on the craft it will work, but it's the asymmetric intake bug I'm trying to pin down.

On 1/17/2016 at 6:18 AM, Rune said:

Actually, I do have one tiny thing to suggest... those ISS trusses are a tiny bit thin, compared to the faithfulness of the rest of the thing. It might look better if you did something like this instead, and you will need more shuttle flights to lift each truss segment like the real thing:
(snip)

That does look more accurate to the ISS truss, however I'm not trying to make it look 100% like the actual ISS, just a reasonable KSP analogue.  I'm not a big fan of accurate replicas.  Here comes the "personal opinion" soapbox part:  When someone covers an aircraft with panels and wing surfaces patched/clipped together to emulate the lines of an F-22 for example, or clips a series of Mk1 In-line cockpits to make an elongated canopy for a two-person cockpit like an F-14, that in my opinion is a waste of part count, and the patched wing shape looks terrible to me.  Another example is clipping a bunch of fuel tanks in to each other to make a Saturn V replica.  In my KSP play-style, I don't care for that at all.

I admittedly do my own fair share of part clipping and offsetting, but it's generally to streamline or achieve a minimum amount of aesthetics, not to replicate a specific aircraft or spacecraft.  IMHO, replicas are cool for screenshots, but not for performance and gameplay optimized craft.  Obviously, most of my craft designs have a real-life craft that heavily influences the design (which are listed below each brochure print), but they all have a slew of inaccuracies when compared to their real-life counterpart.  I prefer to imitate function of design, not appearance of design.  But of course, this is just my own preference.  I'm not knocking anybody that does build replicas, or clips fuel tanks into each other, etc.  If that's what keeps them playing KSP, more power to them.

I hope this didn't offend anybody, that's just how I manage my build and play style is all.  But yes, Rune's truss is more accurate to the ISS.

On 1/17/2016 at 6:25 AM, DMSP said:

May I ask, how do you launch the SM-MSAT?

Just toss a bunch of them into a fairing on top of a rocket. You should be able to put four of them, side-by-side, into a fairing before it starts getting too oversized.  In this example, just two of these rocket launches would outfit an entire ISS-style station.  It's not exactly pretty, but there really was no other way to pull off the extra-large Main Solar Arrays without separating these T-assemblies in pieces, making them even more wobbly when assembled.  The rocket in the picture was my heavy-lifting 'Titan 4C', way too powerful for this payload, I just grabbed it as an example.

EDIT: Second & Third Photos.  That's one way to recover a Kerbal that wasn't paying attention to his/her EVA fuel gauge...the E.M.U. to the rescue.  Have the stranded Kerbal grab onto the bottom hand holds, and hold on.  Isn't this the scene from Gravity?

Edited June 22, 2019 by Raptor9

[DMSP]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

Well, I was trying to find out where the bug is occurring, since my testbed (which worked fine) literally was a cockpit, 1.25m LF tank, tailcone, two short I-beams holding a pair of J-33 engines with circular intakes.  When I built a new craft using (what I thought) was the same order of part placement in the engine nacelles, it flipped over again.  I know if I place a bunch of intakes on the craft it will work, but it's the asymmetric intake bug I'm trying to pin down.

That does look more accurate to the ISS truss, however I'm not trying to make it look 100% like the actual ISS, just a reasonable KSP analogue.  I'm not a big fan of accurate replicas.  Here comes the "personal opinion" soapbox part:  When someone covers an aircraft with panels and wing surfaces patched/clipped together to emulate the lines of an F-22 for example, or clips a series of Mk1 In-line cockpits to make an elongated canopy for a two-person cockpit like an F-14, that in my opinion is a waste of part count, and the patched wing shape looks terrible to me.  Another example is clipping a bunch of fuel tanks in to each other to make a Saturn V replica.  In my KSP play-style, I don't care for that at all.

I admittedly do my own fair share of part clipping and offsetting, but it's generally to streamline or achieve a minimum amount of aesthetics, not to replicate a specific aircraft or spacecraft.  IMHO, replicas are cool for screenshots, but not for performance and gameplay optimized craft.  Obviously, most of my craft designs have a real-life craft that heavily influences the design (which are listed below each brochure print), but they all have a slew of inaccuracies when compared to their real-life counterpart.  I prefer to imitate function of design, not appearance of design.  But of course, this is just my own preference.  I'm not knocking anybody that does build replicas, or clips fuel tanks into each other, etc.  If that's what keeps them playing KSP, more power to them.

I hope this didn't offend anybody, that's just how I manage my build and play style is all.  But yes, Rune's truss is more accurate to the ISS.

Just toss a bunch of them into a fairing on top of a rocket. You should be able to put four of them, side-by-side, into a fairing before it starts getting too oversized.  In this example, just two of these rocket launches would outfit an entire ISS-style station.  It's not exactly pretty, but there really was no other way to pull off the extra-large Main Solar Arrays without separating these T-assemblies in pieces, making them even more wobbly when assembled.  The rocket in the picture was my heavy-lifting 'Titan 4C', way too powerful for this payload, I just grabbed it as an example.

     

EDIT: Second & Third Photos.  That's one way to recover a Kerbal that wasn't paying attention to his/her EVA fuel gauge...the E.M.U. to the rescue.  Have the stranded Kerbal grab onto the bottom hand holds, and hold on.  Isn't this the scene from Gravity?

Thank you!

[Rune]

3 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

That does look more accurate to the ISS truss, however I'm not trying to make it look 100% like the actual ISS, just a reasonable KSP analogue.  I'm not a big fan of accurate replicas.  Here comes the "personal opinion" soapbox part:  When someone covers an aircraft with panels and wing surfaces patched/clipped together to emulate the lines of an F-22 for example, or clips a series of Mk1 In-line cockpits to make an elongated canopy for a two-person cockpit like an F-14, that in my opinion is a waste of part count, and the patched wing shape looks terrible to me.  Another example is clipping a bunch of fuel tanks in to each other to make a Saturn V replica.  In my KSP play-style, I don't care for that at all.

I admittedly do my own fair share of part clipping and offsetting, but it's generally to streamline or achieve a minimum amount of aesthetics, not to replicate a specific aircraft or spacecraft.  IMHO, replicas are cool for screenshots, but not for performance and gameplay optimized craft.  Obviously, most of my craft designs have a real-life craft that heavily influences the design (which are listed below each brochure print), but they all have a slew of inaccuracies when compared to their real-life counterpart.  I prefer to imitate function of design, not appearance of design.  But of course, this is just my own preference.  I'm not knocking anybody that does build replicas, or clips fuel tanks into each other, etc.  If that's what keeps them playing KSP, more power to them.

I hope this didn't offend anybody, that's just how I manage my build and play style is all.  But yes, Rune's truss is more accurate to the ISS.

I am 150% in agreement with you, and in fact I will one-up you. My "ISS-style" station is a measly 75 parts... and nowhere near as accurate as yours of course! For example, I turned the Russian segment into an ISRU refinery, and the US side has no perpendicular modules. I call it LPS, the acronym is pretty obvious, but still:

That's the engineering model, I still have to shoot a pic of it in orbit, but since that shot actually has way more info...

Anyhow, I just suggested that truss because I though it fit your detail/simplicity level, but I could have been very wrong of course, as was indeed the case! But hey, if built from long trusses, it can't be that bad, and it uses no offset, just building the four outer trusses from a surface-attachable part (a docking port, for example)... I'm clocking in my head about 14 parts for a 2m long truss, but only a jump to 22 if you make a 6m long one (2x long trusses in length, three wing surfaces per each two, two docking ports to cap the thing). Maybe someone else will find the idea interesting. If you consolidate each side of the truss into a single launch, you are looking at a part budget of ~60 for the structure of the truss. Which explains why I haven't done it, and why perhaps you won't either, now that I think twice about it... 60 parts is an extra ship docked, right?

 

Rune. It's strange to hear my own words back!

Edited January 17, 2016 by Rune

[Majorjim!]

4 hours ago, Rune said:

Actually, I do have one tiny thing to suggest... those ISS trusses are a tiny bit thin, compared to the faithfulness of the rest of the thing. It might look better if you did something like this instead, and you will need more shuttle flights to lift each truss segment like the real thing:

It isn't too part-heavy, too, and about 1.25m in diameter so perfect for standard ports. Plenty of space to mount stuff in, and it actually look very similar to the real life thing, which also has an octagonal cross section with four white sides.

 

Rune. Hope it helps!

I remember you posting this pic aaages ago! What happened to your ISS?

Looks up, riight..

Edited January 17, 2016 by Majorjim

[Rune]

Just now, Majorjim said:

I remember you posting this pic aaages ago! What happened to your ISS?

Never got built, of course. It got smaller and smaller until it was just the LPS engineering model: a station where even the freaking reaction wheels and computers are a separate module. I spread myself way too thin, and the price are dozens of unfinished projects. The upside is I always have stuff to choose for further development, and if I don't like where a design is going I can ditch it and go work on something else.

 

Rune. I had the Von Brauns, too.

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, Rune said:

(snip)
Anyhow, I just suggested that truss because I though it fit your detail/simplicity level, but I could have been very wrong of course, as was indeed the case! But hey, if built from long trusses, it can't be that bad, and it uses no offset, just building the four outer trusses from a surface-attachable part (a docking port, for example)... I'm clocking in my head about 14 parts for a 2m long truss, but only a jump to 22 if you make a 6m long one (2x long trusses in length, three wing surfaces per each two, two docking ports to cap the thing). Maybe someone else will find the idea interesting. If you consolidate each side of the truss into a single launch, you are looking at a part budget of ~60 for the structure of the truss. Which explains why I haven't done it, and why perhaps you won't either, now that I think twice about it... 60 parts is an extra ship docked, right?
(snip)

Actually, when I was designing the truss, one of the attempts was using the small rectangular wing suface parts like in your truss photo.  The reason I elected to use the 1x1 structural panels was because (as I chuckle to myself) to me the structural panels looked more sturdy and "heavy-duty" construction design, and the wing panels looked too..."clean"?  Regarding part count, when fully-assembled my ISS-alike station is over 600 parts, so I don't think a double-digit part count comparison really holds much significance.  (Come on, KSP 1.1, I need you)

27 minutes ago, Rune said:

(snip) I spread myself way too thin, and the price are dozens of unfinished projects. The upside is I always have stuff to choose for further development, and if I don't like where a design is going I can ditch it and go work on something else.

I end up doing the same thing, having a series of personal "projects" I work on in parallel.  Whenever something gets frustrating, like my XV-series VTOLs and that darned intake bug, I can reorient on another project.  I've been bouncing back and forth between my station modules and my X-21 Project 'Phoenix' all weekend.

Edited January 17, 2016 by Raptor9
1x1 panels, not 2x2...silly me

[Raptor9]

The last SM-series subassembly is now uploaded to KerbalX, the SM-MSAT (Main Solar Array T-assemblies), which extends the Gigantor XL solar arrays on the SM-TP2, P3, S2 & S3 pieces to ISS-scale Solar Array Wings.  These subassemblies were designed to be placed by the EMU (Extravehicular Maneuvering Unit), which is available as a standalone subassembly as well and also comes included as a pair with the SM-N3(EMU) station module.  A single EMU attaches to the T-portion of the MSAT, and simply flies the structure as any other ship since there is a monoprop tank and RCS thrusters integrated into the base of the T for RCS control balance.  As mentioned above, this is the only SM module not able to fit into the CRG-100 Mk3 cargo bay.

On to a more exciting note (exciting for me, because I'm a dork and I love this design), the SR-21A 'Phoenix' is now finished and uploaded to KerbalX.  Early iterations of this craft in v0.90 were actually VTOL capable, as seen in some legacy screenshots below.  Detail-oriented viewers of my Raptor Aerospace video on the first page would also notice some embedded shots of this aircraft doing it's thing (the only non-1.0.5 craft in the video because I miss it so much).  The legacy design was capable of lifting off vertically with a full load of fuel, making a circular 100x100km orbit to deliver 8 Kerbal passengers, and then returning to the KSC and landing vertically at the front of the spaceplane hanger.  It was the perfect crew shuttle between Laythe orbit and the surface - which has no runways obviously.  I'm hoping in the future Squad will be willing to add airbreathing VTOL-type engines, it's a niche piece for Kerbin and Laythe craft IMHO.  (As I say this I'm mentally willing @Porkjet to call an emergency teleconference with Squad about including something like this in stock KSP )

Anyway, back to the present 'Phoenix', it's obviously another SR-71 Blackbird-inspired airframe (SR in my KSP naming convention is Spaceplane Reusable, not Strategic Reconnaissance in the case of the real-life SR-71).  It has O-10 'Puff' monoprop thrusters for orbital adjustments and maneuvering, which allows it to conserve more LF+O.  Let me know what you guys think; this was, and still is my crown jewel of my spaceplane fleet (despite no VTOL capability )

 

Edited June 5, 2016 by Raptor9

[Rune]

2 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

The last SM-series subassembly is now uploaded to KerbalX, the SM-MSAT (Main Solar Array T-assemblies), which extends the Gigantor XL solar arrays on the SM-TP2, P3, S2 & S3 pieces to ISS-scale Solar Array Wings.  These subassemblies were designed to be placed by the EMU (Extravehicular Maneuvering Unit), which is available as a standalone subassembly as well and also comes included as a pair with the SM-N3(EMU) station module.  A single EMU attaches to the T-portion of the MSAT, and simply flies the structure as any other ship since there is a monoprop tank and RCS thrusters integrated into the base of the T for RCS control balance.  As mentioned above, this is the only SM module not able to fit into the CRG-100 Mk3 cargo bay.

On to a more exciting note (exciting for me, because I'm a dork and I love this design), the SR-21A 'Phoenix' is now finished and uploaded to KerbalX.  Early iterations of this craft in v0.90 were actually VTOL capable, as seen in some legacy screenshots below.  Detail-oriented viewers of my Raptor Aerospace video on the first page would also notice some embedded shots of this aircraft doing it's thing (the only non-1.0.5 craft in the video because I miss it so much).  The legacy design was capable of lifting off vertically with a full load of fuel, making a circular 100x100km orbit to deliver 8 Kerbal passengers, and then returning to the KSC and landing vertically at the front of the spaceplane hanger.  It was the perfect crew shuttle between Laythe orbit and the surface - which has no runways obviously.  I'm hoping in the future Squad will be willing to add airbreathing VTOL-type engines, it's a niche piece for Kerbin and Laythe craft IMHO.  (As I say this I'm mentally willing @Porkjet to call an emergency teleconference with Squad about including something like this in stock KSP )

Anyway, back to the present 'Phoenix', it's obviously another SR-71 Blackbird-inspired airframe (SR in my KSP naming convention is Spaceplane Reusable, not Strategic Reconnaissance in the case of the real-life SR-71).  It has O-10 'Puff' monoprop thrusters for orbital adjustments and maneuvering, which allows it to conserve more LF+O.  Let me know what you guys think; this was, and still is my crown jewel of my spaceplane fleet (despite no VTOL capability )

 

What's stopping it from being a VTOL SSTO in 1.05? I know it's very difficult now, but by no means impossible, and you can take out a substantial amount of horizontal powerplant IMO. For a design that big, I'd bet two RAPIERs are enough to take it to orbit (TWR >0.5 on the runway is all you need). You will of course need to rebalance the whole thing, taking out so much weight from the back... If you want, I am told I make a nice advisor, I could take a look at it.

 

Rune. Been learning how to tame VTOLs for a looong time.

[Dafni]

You have some pretty nice stuff, and a great way of presenting it.