Jump to content

Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven


Recommended Posts

Wow, another big chunk is done! Didn't the SM-N1 only have 4 docking ports because it's just like the N3 sans offset.

Another thing I'd ask you for is to give only the NITE the Wolfhound engine and leave the LITE it's Poodle. This would set those two a bit apart when they use different engines.

Edited by Jester Darrak
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question- On the 'Runabout' capsules, how did you put the mk16 chutes on it? I tried tearing one apart to figure it out, but my VAB-foo is not strong enough. Or there's a button I don't know about.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Didn't the SM-N1 only have 4 docking ports because it's just like the N3 sans offset.

Actually, all three node modules have 6; the four around the sides and the two on the end caps.

7 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Another thing I'd ask you for is to give only the NITE the Wolfhound engine and leave the LITE it's Poodle. This would set those two a bit apart when they use different engines.

Well, I like the Wolfhound on both because of the better TWR (and the better Isp, but mainly the TWR).  Since the 'Lightning' is intended to be analogous to ULA's Vulcan rocket, which is supposed to be more competitive in the heavy-lift market and more powerful than even their Delta IV Heavy, the better TWR of the Wolfhound compared to the Poodle makes it more attractive on the "surface-to-orbit launch" side of the house.  The 'Lightning' is still slightly less powerful compared to my 'Thunder 4 Heavy', but not by much.

With the NITE, being heavier and intended to push larger payloads on interplanetary trade routes, having the Wolfhound's better TWR also means shorter burns.  With the HLV-5 'Porpoise' landers however, the additional 1.33 tons on the backside of a Wolfhound-equipped stage versus a Poodle is making the CoT vs CoM balancing a little more challenging, but I'm trying to work with it.  I haven't ruled out that the HLV-5's may end up utilizing "down-rated" LITE stages equipped with Poodles, but I haven't made that decision just yet, I'm still experimenting.

1 hour ago, Treveli said:

Question- On the 'Runabout' capsules, how did you put the mk16 chutes on it?

I used three Cubic Octagonal Struts as embedded mounts, since they can be surface-attached.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dragon0072 said:

Are you going to put Wolfhounds on the PD-64 and PD-32 as well?

Yes.  The plan is at the moment that the Wolfhounds will be the engine selection for all LITE and NITE stages, as well as any craft derived from them.  This includes the PD-32, PD-64, the upcoming PD-1080, as well as the EV-2L and HLV-5's.  So far, I'm fairly confident I have the HLV-5A, B, and D models at a point I'm satisfied with, but some more testing is still required under various conditions before I publish the revisions.

2 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

What about the KE-I2 Skiff? Wirth only a ton this would benefit the HLV-5 since their cargo mass is limited to 50% of their own maximum gross weight.

I'll have to get back on that after I do some performance comparisons.  Definitely worth looking into.
_______________________________

My focus today was more HLV-5 testing and generating graphics for the EV-3, LV-4A, and associated component lifters.  The EV-3 and LV-4A really didn't change too much.  The LV-4A does look better though.

Edited by Raptor9
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, redmonddkgamer said:

Please stop redoing old craft using the DLC. Not all of us have it. Perhaps you could post both versions?

He already wrote that he decided to not keep 2 iterations, DLC and non-DLC as it would require way too much work.

Plus the DLC is only a couple of bucks and in my opinion a must have. (abreviates as MH, see what I did there?)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, redmonddkgamer said:

Perhaps you could post both versions?

I'm already cutting out some existing craft that are not worth keeping, either due to redundancy or being replaced altogether.  The reason for this is I'm trying to reduce the amount of time and effort it takes to keep the catalog maintained and up to date.  Granted, the 1.4 update was a big one, and most KSP updates don't have this much of an impact, but the last thing I want to do is double the catalog size.  Not to mention that goes down the slippery slope of people demanding I post craft files tailored to whatever version of KSP they're running, and I'm not touching that practice with a ten-foot pole.

I would still like to have some KSP time to actually play the game.
_______________________________

The EV-3 'Clipper', LV-4A 'Armadillo', and associated component lifters are also updated at this time.

EDIT: The EV-4 'Longship' block variants and all associated component lifters are updated as well.

Edited by Raptor9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: How do you decide which legs to use? Most importantly, what did you do to make sure they are not bouncing around? (I was trying to test some landers, and I have bouncy castle)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

Question: How do you decide which legs to use?

Mainly what fits the layout or aesthetics of the lander.  I never get hung up on the impact tolerance differences since the LT-05 strut is 10 m/s, and the other two are 12 m/s.  I never touch down anywhere close to those speeds.  Since I usually design my landers to have very little ground clearance between the engine bell or the bottom fuselage, landing at higher speeds would probably bottom out the suspension travel, damaging the lander anyway.

17 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

Most importantly, what did you do to make sure they are not bouncing around?

I've never really had that issue.  If the gravity is really low, like Minmus or Gilly, I'll make the suspension really stiff or just use some kind of solid structural piece as a landing leg.  I did have a bit of an issue when making the IV-2A 'Badger' ISRU rig for Gilly.  Even at maximum stiffness, the landing legs still had a slow bounce, so the upcoming revision ditches them entirely and uses rigid structural pieces.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for listing out the ships as you upgrade/refresh them.

Just so i dont think i lost my mind later on, can you also list the ships you are removing (if becuase of replacement/combining list what the replacement is).    so I can keep my fleet up-to-date as well?

 

thanks

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fyrem so far, the craft/subassemblies that have been removed are below:

- SVR-23A/B 'Raven' spaceplanes; because I hated them and I think I can do better down the road when my spaceplane skills improve.
- LV-2D 'Cricket' (the 1.3.1 version, there will be a Duna lander taking the designation/name); monopropellant tank re-balancing nerfed this craft, but the new LV-2C pretty much does the same thing, but better.
- All of the Utility Rovers (MPC, MPC-L, MCR, and SRTG) as separate subassembly downloads.  The MPC and SRTG will remain on the HLV-6A, I just didn't want to maintain separate downloads and graphics for the subassemblies.  The MCR and MPC-L just didn't make sense from a cost/benefit standpoint.

To clarify, I'm considering doing the same thing with the ER-series rovers as well after I finish updating them, but we'll see how it goes.  It's just more work to maintain the additional file downloads and associated graphics.  The MIR rovers will remain as separate subassembly downloads, since those are placed on the HLV-5C cargo racks by cherry-picking them from the subassembly list in the VAB.  On the topic of those, the MIR rovers are planned to be merged into an entirely new LR (Logistics Rovers) series to run parallel to the ER line.

42 minutes ago, Fyrem said:

Thanks for listing out the ships as you upgrade/refresh them.

The most complete list is at the bottom of the OP.  At the top of the OP, right below the main logo, is a time and date of the last KerbalX update.  If it's a later time/date than the last time you checked, scroll to the bottom of the OP and there will be a list of all the new or updated craft files within the last 7 days.
_______________________________

Speaking of updates, I'm almost done with my Duna DRA 3.0 updates.  The EV-5 'Drifter' Block 1 is finished, I just need to put the final touches on the LV-2D 'Cricket' and LV-2E 'Heavy Cricket' tomorrow.

Edited by Raptor9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you take a look at the RV-1 Veniers as possible lander engines yet? Maybe you can use them on your ISRU lander rigs instead of the good but(t) ugly Poodle.

Or what would be a good yet unappropiate use for them?

I think I found a place for them to be, simultaneously solving your EV-2B problem. Maybe you should take a look at them that way, if you geht the pun. ;)

Edited by Jester Darrak
Link to post
Share on other sites

My Duna 3.0 mission architecture is complete and updated on KerbalX.  First off, to reiterate a couple of key notes I previously mentioned: the previously-designated LV-3D/LV-3E 'Bullfrog' landers are now designated LV-2D 'Cricket' and LV-2E 'Heavy Cricket' respectively.  The former LV-2E in 1.3.1, which was an Ike/Dres-optimized lander, has been removed from the forum catalog and KerbalX to avoid confusion with the new LV-2E (not to mention it was nerfed just as bad as the 1.3.1 LV-2D).  I'll address this in more detail at the end of the post.

To round all the updates up in one line: the EV-5 'Drifter' Block 1, the three component lifters associated with it, and the LV-2D and LV-2E landers are now live.  The EV-5 'Drifter' really didn't change in appearance or part layout per se.  But the monopropellant and xenon tanks were all switched out for the volume re-balance.  So you will have to be a little more patient and deliberate with the monopropellant reserves, but the overall delta-V has improved.  Due to the slight increase in delta-V, and the revision of the LV-2D/E landers, the mission architecture has changed as well.  Instead of a three-kerbalnaut crew going to the Duna surface, the Duna DRA 3.0 mission is now capable of a four-kerbalnaut, split-destination mission between Duna and Ike.  With the LV-2D/E landers only capable of two crewmembers, the remaining two kerbalnauts reposition the EV-5 to Ike orbit after dropping off the LV-2D in low Duna orbit.  Mounted to the front of the Hab/Lab Mk1 module can be an LV-2C 'Grasshopper' reusable Mun lander, easily capable of a surface expedition to Ike.  The remaining two kerbalnauts would take the LV-2C to the Ike surface, take some measurements, a surface sample, and an EVA report, and then return to the EV-5 to conduct research in Ike orbit while the Duna crew does the same in the LV-2E on the Duna surface.

This has some inherent advantages to it, assisted by the LV-2D revision.  When the return transfer window to Kerbin approaches, the Duna surface crew climbs into the LV-2D ascent vehicle, and launches to orbit.  The new ascent vehicle is so much more capable that it can travel to low Ike orbit and rendezvous with the EV-5 there.  After which, the EV-5 takes advantage of the delta-V savings of an Ike departure to Kerbin, much like it did departing Munar orbit to Duna.  All in all, a significant science return from a single mission, which helps offset the cost of the Dawn/xenon-powered EV-5 ship.  Now for the graphics...

LV-2D%20Cricket%20Small_zpske4dydgl.png     LV-2E%20Heavy%20Cricket%20Small_zpsap3nelc7.png

Another strategy change I wanted to explain.  I more or less swapped the equipment loadouts between the crew lander and the habitation/research lander, whereas the rovers are now loaded into the research lander, and the bulk of the science experiments are in the crew lander.  The reasoning behind this is mainly contingency brainstorming.  With the rovers loaded on the LV-2E (which is meant to be pre-staged during a previous transfer window), you can confirm the safe touchdown of the habitat and surface transportation on Duna before the crewed ship even departs Kerbin.  That way, even if the LV-2D crashes a good distance away from the LV-2E, the rovers will still be safe and capable of transporting the survivors to the LV-2E until a rescue mission can be assembled.  On the flip side, if the crew needs to leave the surface in a hurry before they are able to re-locate to the LV-2E hab, a good deal of science can still be performed at the LV-2D landing site before departing back to orbit.  Additionally, if a player doesn't want to even use a separate LV-2E, and just do a flags and footprints landing on Duna, all science experiments that can be accomplished, can be from a standalone LV-2D (minus the materials bay).

TL;DR - lots of info and updates, reference the bolded sentences for the highlights.
_______________________________

Regarding the previous LV-2E in KSP 1.3.1; will the former lander return in some form? I don't know.  The focus of the LV-3 landers has always been 3-kerbalnaut crews, and I intend to keep it that way.  But with the monopropellant revisions, any new iteration of a dedicated 3-kerbal Ike/Dres lander will most likely be LF+O powered.
_______________________________

6 hours ago, SiriusRocketry said:

is the EV-5 updated?

@SiriusRocketry, answering this question is somewhat redundant given the novel I just wrote.  However, as stated two posts above yours, the best place to see if anything is updated is in the "Most Recent Updates" section of the OP.

Edited by Raptor9
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SiriusRocketry said:

Does the mass rebalance affect versioning? 

I'm not entirely sure I understand your question.  If you're asking if previous versions of craft will have their mono & xenon masses/volumes/capacities updated, then no.  It's like the depreciated parts.  Unless you physically remove the older, depreciated mono/xenon tanks from an imported craft file, and grab fresh ones from the part list, the volumes (and dry masses) will remain the same.

It's like taking the old Mk1-2 capsule off your craft, and putting on the new Mk1-3. The difference being the mono/xenon tanks have no visual differences between the old and the new.

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

The EV-5 should work in 1.3.1 but with the depreciated xenon and mono values, am I right?

Not quite. First off, if you download the 1.4.3 EV-5, it won't even load in 1.3.1 unless you manually edit the craft file version in Notepad or something. Second, if you do this, the 1.4.3 tank volumes will most likely carry over into 1.3.1, since those are saved in the craft file itself.  However, I don't know if the lower tank dry masses will carry over, so you may handicap yourself with the higher masses, and lower tank capacities.

Bottom line, I don't recommend trying to import any of my 1.4.3 craft files into pre-1.4 game versions. I take no responsibility for craft behavior or performance outside of the intended KSP version, nor will I troubleshoot any issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: I noticed that you are still using Twitch for the Duna craft instead of Cubs.  Aside from the gimbal issue, is there other reasons you choose not to use Cubs? (Just curious)

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

Question: I noticed that you are still using Twitch for the Duna craft instead of Cubs.  Aside from the gimbal issue, is there other reasons you choose not to use Cubs? (Just curious)

Cubs are dlc correct? Raptor is just trying to avoid making the dlc necessary to use this craft repo. You could probably switch it out.

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

Cubs are dlc correct? Raptor is just trying to avoid making the dlc necessary to use this craft repo. You could probably switch it out.

Yes, except the Duna landers are MEM based, as do the structure panels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jestersage said:

Question: I noticed that you are still using Twitch for the Duna craft instead of Cubs.  Aside from the gimbal issue, is there other reasons you choose not to use Cubs? (Just curious)

I would have loved to use the Cubs (I could have made the gimbaling work out).  Not only would they have been a higher TWR, but they are even sized correctly and look like the engines in the Boeing infographs showing their Mars lander.  But the huge housings they come in is what nixed it.  I really wish we could get more engines in "bare" variants, such as the Mk-55 Thud.  The Thud engine is pretty flexible in it's use, but it's just so big with that darned housing.

1 hour ago, Mark Kerbin said:

Raptor is just trying to avoid making the dlc necessary to use this craft repo.

To clarify, I'm not going out of my way to add DLC parts to existing craft, but if it makes the craft function better or reduce part count significantly, then sure.  The best example of this is the Station module subassemblies.  The majority of them are still non-DLC, but a small handful went to DLC because of the part count reductions, such as the node modules using the DLC structural tubes instead of a bunch of radiator panels.

Thankfully most of the 'Titan' rocket line-up remained non-DLC, save the 'Titan 3P' (and 'Titan 4N' when I finish testing).  The 'Titan 3' and 'Titan 3P' are almost exactly the same in both cost and delta-V/lifting capability.  The only difference is the upper stage engine selection of DLC vs non-DLC.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...