Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Raptor9]

3 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

how do you decide to which two craft to pack at the same time, eg LV-1U + LV-1H combo?

There really wasn't much deciding at all with those two.  I just didn't want to waste the funds delivering the LV-1H and LV-1U one at a time in a similar fashion as the LV-1S shelter; I just decided to deliver them in a dedicated cargo rocket without any crew, with them double-stacked in the fairing.

If you're asking in more general terms like the EV-2C and LV-2A or C, then it's really based on their real-life concepts and proposals for dual-manifested rockets.  Sometimes, it costs less to launch a pair of spacecraft on two small rockets versus one big one, but I don't mind spending a little extra to avoid the time required to conduct two launches and a rendezvous.  Not to mention depending on your proficiency, you may end up eating into your mission propellant conducting the R&D maneuvers.  So it really comes down to weighing the pros and cons of single- or dual-manifesting a rocket.

[Neil Kerman]

Where can I find the SEV Mustang?

[Jestersage]

37 minutes ago, Neil Kerman said:

Where can I find the SEV Mustang?

https://kerbalx.com/Raptor9/ER-4-Mustang

[Raptor9]

On 8/8/2019 at 1:25 PM, Neil Kerman said:

Where can I find the SEV Mustang?

Sorry for the late reply, I don't why I didn't get notified of thread activity.  Anyway, the only place the SEV Mustang is available is part of the EV-4 Hab+Lab (SEV).  It comes pre-mounted on it for ease of outfitting an EV-4 for missions to Gilly.

The ER-4 that @Jestersage linked above is what the SEV is based on, so if you're looking for the rover version, that would be it.  The SEV 'Mustang' specifically is only for zero-G or ultra-low-G operations.

[Jester Darrak]

Guys, can you imagine seeing @Raptor9's rockets being launched in KSP2? That's gonna give me some major NSFW.

[Jestersage]

3 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Guys, can you imagine seeing @Raptor9's rockets being launched in KSP2? That's gonna give me some major NSFW.

Not if I can get it first :P.

That being said, with the Optimization, Raptor9's design will probably have minimal performance hit compare to low part count builds that I consider required for KSP1.

[Raptor9]

I'm not one to jump to speculation, rather than state simple hopes for future content in either KSP game.

However, I will tell a cautionary tale that some may have seen first hand.  In early 2012 Microsoft released a new product in their long line of Microsoft Flight Simulator games, called simply "Microsoft Flight".  In contrast to the legacy MFS games, which had the entire world to fly in and a fleet of aircraft and helicopters to choose from, Flight only had (IIRC) two small prop aircraft and you could fly only around Hawaii.  Additionally, in an "effort to appeal to aviation enthusiasts of all ages and skill levels", Microsoft Flight featured a "relaxed" (aka arcade) flight model compared to MFS, and the systems were rudimentary with few things to actually manage or do in the cockpit.  Within about six months the product had completely flopped due to "low sales".  I'm not saying something similar will happen at all, but it is a possibility; although I think it is a very remote possibility; that KSP 2 development could change some its core gameplay in such a way that the product is drastically different than KSP 1 in a negative way.

On the other hand, from watching the Developer Story trailer it sounds like Star Theory, in consultation with Squad, are looking to address some of the gaps in KSP 1 gameplay that the community at large has been seeking, such as off-world construction, surface-based colonies, large-scale ship/station/base construction, and interstellar travel to other star systems.  Further, the consistent theme of the Developer Story trailer is how Kerbal Space Program itself has inspired and encouraged real scientific learning and understanding.  Due to this overarching and consistent message, this leads me to believe that Star Theory will not only maintain the level of scientific fidelity of KSP, but is looking to improve or expand it in KSP 2 in areas that good portions of the community have been asking for, or have turned to the most popular mods to fulfill.

On a side note, to manage expectations, I would take everything in the cinematic trailer with a grain of salt.  Nothing in that trailer indicates final features.  Whether it's the new rover design or the fact that a lot of the ships were painted different colors like the Duna(?) spaceplane.

I say all this to emphasize that I'll be jumping into KSP 2 with as little expectations as I can manage.  Because let's be honest, I'm hyped as well.   I have way more faith in KSP 2 turning out to be the game we are all hoping it will be than I do the new, upcoming Microsoft Flight Simulator that was announced over this summer.

[Cisco Cividanes]

Hi again. 

I'm sort of back in the mix after a forced Hiatus. My old computer died a horrible death, and I got a new one which is more than able to handle KSP (Thank God!)

So, useless lead-up aside, I had a question for both Raptor and anyone else. Has anyone tried their hands at a Canidarm (1 or 2) model with the new robotics?

[Jestersage]

4 hours ago, Cisco Cividanes said:

Hi again. 

I'm sort of back in the mix after a forced Hiatus. My old computer died a horrible death, and I got a new one which is more than able to handle KSP (Thank God!)

So, useless lead-up aside, I had a question for both Raptor and anyone else. Has anyone tried their hands at a Canidarm (1 or 2) model with the new robotics?

Yes, and that creates a dilemma, especially in terms of Canadarm 1 for me.

The problem is that Canadarm1 is actually not as huge range in comparison to the many contraptions created in kerbalX, not to mention they do not extend or contract, which many other builders had does so using piston. More importantly, the issue of mapping them without using too much controllers is not resolved to my liking.

I hope Raptor will have a better solution 

[Raptor9]

10 hours ago, Cisco Cividanes said:

Has anyone tried their hands at a Canidarm (1 or 2) model with the new robotics?

I haven't really dove into the Breaking Ground DLC too much since I'm still on a KSP hiatus.  But we'll have to see.  A robotic arm for station assembly is on my list of things to investigate when I get back into the game.

While I'm here, I figured I should mention that based on a recent interview, it sounds like Star Theory is planning on keeping any existing part performance/stats as is when we start using their KSP 2 equivalents, as well as the original Kerbol system.  So it sounds like my existing designs won't have any sort of serious impact to their behavior or performance in game if they do in fact keep existing part behaviors consistent.  I find that hard to believe, but again, we'll see.  I'm assuming that I will still have to rebuild from scratch any design I wish to use in KSP 2.  All of this is still speculation and I could be 100% wrong by the time the game is actually released of course.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Raptor9

[Jestersage]

Hey Raptor, I recall you mentioned about "needing to satisfy your IVA criteria". Does this mean that, even if something can be piloted in third person view, if it's difficult to do so in 1st person view, you will redesign it?

[Raptor9]

49 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

Does this mean that, even if something can be piloted in third person view, if it's difficult to do so in 1st person view, you will redesign it?

Not necessarily.  An example of what I meant by that was I wouldn't design a surface module with the Mobile Processing Lab or Hitchhiker laying on their side.  When I have multiple crewed parts close together, I evaluate the IVA view on the launch pad before continuing the build to ensure that there isn't any sort of crazy clipped surfaces making the IVA's look weird.  And I also generally try to keep the outside view unobstructed for those screenshots or just admiring the view after finishing your base or space station.  Some of my rules I may bend on occasion, but requiring it to be landed in 1st person isn't a concern for me since I never do.

[Raptor9]

Had to upload a tweaked EV-2L 'Runabout'-Lightning craft file today.  I was assembling some stuff in orbit for the screenshot contest and after I docked an EV-2L to a station the thing tried to shake apart on me.  I know the hazards of docking ships to large stations and/or motherships with a parts set to autostrut to Heaviest part, and I thought I had corrected this issue on the EV-2L back in March when I discovered it.  Apparently not, or I may have reverted the change somehow.  Anyway, the corrected EV-2L with the Mk1-3 pod set to autostrut to Grandparent is now on KerbalX.

Interesting side note.  During a test launch to ensure the Grandparent autostrut was sufficient, I ended up pulling off the most efficient ascent profile with the EV-2L yet.  I ended up making it to a 79.5 km x -830 meter orbit on just the first stage alone.  A quick 10 second burn of the EV-2L's Poodle and I was in a stable orbit with just over 3000 m/s dV remaining. 

[Jestersage]

Question: What do you use for LKO-mun, and LKO-Minmus, as per your cislunar economy? I can only find your old poster which is from 1.3

[Raptor9]

7 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

Question: What do you use for LKO-mun, and LKO-Minmus, as per your cislunar economy? I can only find your old poster which is from 1.3

If you type "cismunar economy" in the KerbalX search bar, any one of the craft files that show up in the results will have the most current Cismunar Space Economy graphic.

Mostly I use LITE's to ship things around the Kerbin SOI, with the EV-2L providing most of the crew transfers.  I still use EV-2C's as well, but those are mostly retained at the stations orbiting Mun and Minmus as contingency craft while the EV-2L's are the active travelers.

[Jestersage]

Thanks. Found it.

A few more questions:

1) Regarding your Soyuz clone, I know you already stated why you only have one return capsule (not replica and the extra "habitat cab" is superflurous). However, I am curious why you go with a ballistic return capsule at the top, instead of using the heatshield's lift capability and place the capsule in the middle (with the top becoming either some payload bay or extra fuel tanks

2) Regarding your LITE/Kerbin return space tug for cismunar: Did you employ any aerobrake?

Edited September 29, 2019 by Jestersage

[Raptor9]

Hey @Jestersage, my apologies for taking so long to answer your question.  This week has been very busy at work, and I had to wipe my personal computer hard drive several days ago and re-build everything after experiencing some serious issues.  Thankfully I had all my KSP work and various projects backed up so I had minimal data loss. 

Regarding your first question.  Really it just came down to personal preference.  Didn't make sense to place the crew compartment so far away from the docking port; and in real-world comparisons, having two separation events prior to reentry increases chances of failure.  Another big reason is I didn't want to make my Soyuz analogue like everyone else's.  I've had several people on KerbalX drive this point home on my Soyuz-inspired craft.  It lead to some heated comments too, for one reason or another, but that happens sometimes on the internet when people are sending text-based messages.

I prefer not to use aerobrake maneuvers unless I absolutely have to...since I'm not that skilled at predicting the outcome.  The tests I performed and annotated on the graphics are all strictly propulsive-based.

[Jestersage]

14 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I prefer not to use aerobrake maneuvers unless I absolutely have to...since I'm not that skilled at predicting the outcome.  The tests I performed and annotated on the graphics are all strictly propulsive-based.

So what mods do you actually use, outside of KVV?

[Raptor9]

4 hours ago, Jestersage said:

So what mods do you actually use, outside of KVV?

Aside from Kronal Vessel Viewer for making my graphics, Stock Visual Enhancements for screenshots, and Hanger Grid: Zero Deviation for ensuring proper landing gear alignment on aircraft/spaceplanes.

[Zenrer]

Hey mate, just wondering if you've had any issues with the Skiff Sail RCS? The only ones that seem to be working for me are the ones that are pointing in the same direction as the engine, all the rest have zero function. I've tried it a couple of times, tried messing with the settings on each module as well, but they just don't seem to work.

[Raptor9]

4 hours ago, Zenrer said:

Hey mate, just wondering if you've had any issues with the Skiff Sail RCS? The only ones that seem to be working for me are the ones that are pointing in the same direction as the engine, all the rest have zero function. I've tried it a couple of times, tried messing with the settings on each module as well, but they just don't seem to work.

(Sigh) I'm afraid it's not just with the 'Skiff Sail', it's with all my rockets with fairings used as interstages (at least the handful I tested anyway).  Apparently, if you stage (jettison) the interstage fairings that cover the LV-T91 engine on the upper stage, when the 1st stage decouples, the RCS thrusters work fine.  However, if you don't stage the fairings, and let the 1st stage sepratrons pull itself away, sliding the interstage fairing away from the upper stage engine, those RCS thrusters won't work for some reason.  Yet the aft-facing thrusters do still work like you said.  Another subtle but significant behavior change that will force me to update almost the entire catalog. 

But, with the 1.8 update in the near future, and with it the Unity engine update...I really have no motivation to correct anything.  Especially after just getting my computer operational again this past week, and about to go on a business trip for a few weeks.  Hopefully the 1.8 update will correct any such behavior like that; but if it doesn't, I guess I'll have to find the time to tweak all my craft files with similar launchers sometime in the future.

[Jester Darrak]

I found what looks like a small mistake what turns into a big clusterbuck. The verniers on the LITE upper stage seem to have their dorsal/ventral and port/starbord arguments reversed. That's what prevented me, and maybe a few more, from succesfully translating during docking maneuvers.

[Jestersage]

13 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

I found what looks like a small mistake what turns into a big clusterbuck. The verniers on the LITE upper stage seem to have their dorsal/ventral and port/starbord arguments reversed. That's what prevented me, and maybe a few more, from succesfully translating during docking maneuvers.

I assume you had double checked your orientation with "lock" camera (and may be verify with docking indicator mods?)?

[Raptor9]

19 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

The verniers on the LITE upper stage seem to have their dorsal/ventral and port/starbord arguments reversed. That's what prevented me, and maybe a few more, from succesfully translating during docking maneuvers.

Just tested it, and the LITE responds correctly.  Like @Jestersage said, you might have had a non-standard control axis engaged.

[Raptor9]

I figured I might as well post a few images I was messing around with for the KSP loading screen contest.  I was mainly experimenting to see what kind of images I could piece together from multiple sources.  The first one was my submission for the contest.  The others were just some other ideas I didn't think would meet the guidelines but were still fun to make.