Raptor9

Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

Recommended Posts

I'm finding myself confused at the SM-H3's construction (and the other hab-labs that look like it) -- is it a clever mash-up of parts to make it look inflatable, or was there a part rework in MH that I've totally missed? :D Either way, it looks great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Beetlecat said:

I'm finding myself confused at the SM-H3's construction (and the other hab-labs that look like it) -- is it a clever mash-up of parts to make it look inflatable, or was there a part rework in MH that I've totally missed? :D Either way, it looks great!

Thanks @Beetlecat, they are actually the former; utilizing existing fairings, radiator panels, and structural panels.
_____________________________________

The additional BM-series surface modules are now on KerbalX, along with two rovers.  The rovers themselves aren't new, since they were already included with the LV-3B or HLV-6A.  However, as standalone subassemblies, they can now be mounted within the new BM-LS.  As I explained previously, the BM-LS serves as the lift platform for the rovers off the cargo landers to the surface, as well as housing and refueling them.

Along with the BM-LS, the new BM-PCP and BM-R are now published.  The BM-Probe Control Point serves a dual-role as suggested by @Jester Darrak.  It is equipped with an RC-001S probe core and HG-5 antenna, which allows a pilot to remotely guide cargo landers to the landing zone if no comms networks are available to maintain connectivity.  Obviously this only works when the lander comes over the horizon, which means any early deorbit burns beyond the horizon will have to use partial probe control logic, but it wasn't a problem during testing.  The second role of the BM-PCP is to plug into an ISRU site to allow an engineer to add an efficiency boost to the ISRU equipment.  I would like to note that once the BM-PCP's legs are fully extended, the BM-LA is needed to attach to the higher docking clamp height.

The BM-R, modeled after some NASA designs for surface fission power sources, will complement existing solar and fuel cell power sources.  In those far off outer planets however like Dres or Vall, they will need to replace solar power completely.  Otherwise the player will become more reliant on the fuel cell arrays in the BM-U.  If you know you'll be relying on BM-R's or BM-U's, you can save yourself some funds and part count by removing the solar panels from the base modules prior to launch.

Base%20Modules%20Small_zpsqx1tl1w0.png     Base%20Module%20Payload%20Integration%20Small_zpstby6fgvu.png

As the payload integration process has gotten slightly more complex with the introduction of the BM-LS and rovers, I decided to include a 6-step instruction on the process of selecting the proper cargo lander, the base module, and how to mount them prior to launch.  Hopefully this should clear up any aspects that were unclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I must say I'm a little dieappointed by the probe control module. I was thinking of more of a airport tower like structure with a cupola on top, a 1.25m or 1.875m tower and maybe an interated airlock, bases in the BM-A. I thought it would be wise to have the point of observation as elevated as possible. But who am I to judge? ;)

The rest is golden, although I need to replace a few modules that are already in service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Jester Darrak said:

Well, I must say I'm a little dieappointed by the probe control module. I was thinking of more of a airport tower like structure with a cupola on top, a 1.25m or 1.875m tower and maybe an interated airlock, bases in the BM-A. I thought it would be wise to have the point of observation as elevated as possible. But who am I to judge? ;)

Sorry to hear that.  But I guess everyone has different ideas in their mind on how a concept would come together.  I didn't want to use the cupola because it would have the Kerbal laying on his back, along with the rest of the crewstation, which didn't make sense to me.  This is the same logic that drives me to have all my Mobile Processing Labs and Hitchhiker modules standing up.  I did consider standing the cupola up on it's side, but that didn't look good to me either.

If you're into mods, I believe Nertea might have something more in line with what you need in his Space Station Parts Redux. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the cupola will also get an overhaul at some time, so maybe Squad makes two versions with one layind down and one sitting up right. Hope's last to die. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great work! I’m in awe of your dedication to cause on this man. The modularity and inconectivity of the crafts is pure perfection and something I have always wanted within KSP. I view your work with envious eyes. :wub:

Share this post


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

I think the cupola will also get an overhaul at some time, so maybe Squad makes two versions with one layind down and one sitting up right. Hope's last to die.

I remember when the Mobile Processing Lab first came out in v0.23 (>5 years ago) I commented on the forums that while the IVA layout makes sense for certain space stations like Skylab, I figured having a horizontal version for surface bases would be a good gameplay aspect, albeit a rather insignificant one.  I don't see Squad investing a lot of time doing a second IVA layout for that part or the cupola, even if they revamp them.  But who knows, they may have some plans to give us better parts for surface base construction down the road.  We can always hope for more content.

4 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

This is great work! I’m in awe of your dedication to cause on this man. The modularity and inconectivity of the crafts is pure perfection and something I have always wanted within KSP. I view your work with envious eyes.

Thanks @Majorjim!, that's very kind of you to say. :) I was just glad that the project was finally able to coalesce after over a year of on-and-off work. The first versions of the modules were horrible, especially the first prototypes of the LV-3D.  That was particularly an eyesore.  I'm still hoping @SQUAD invests in some dedicated surface base parts/infrastructure...I also want a pony. :P

1 hour ago, ExplorerKlatt said:

your base module link goes to the station module hanger. 

Corrected.  Thanks! :)
________________________________

While I'm here, I also wanted to mention a few things I forgot about yesterday.  First, as you can see in the base module graphic with the BM-LS, the method that the module uses to refuel the rovers is via a bottom-mounted docking port that is attached to the rest of the shelter but offset.  The idea is that when the module is delivered, the fuel lines would be buried below the surface regolith.  This was the simplest way for me to implement such a capability while still remaining compatible with any rover model I wanted to put there.  This also allows me to design future rovers without worrying about where I would put a side- or top-mounted docking clamp on the rover itself.  I just need to ensure the chassis frame and suspension meet the requirements, while allowing me to build up and out as much or as little as I want.

Due to the small variations in surface gravity between Ike, Dres, Mun, Vall or Duna, the actual resting height of the BM-LS refueling point can vary ever so slightly, but for the most part it was low enough that it allowed the chassis of the ER-3 or ER-4 to clear it, but just close enough the docking port's magnetic attraction would complete the connection when returning the rover to the shelter.  However, in testing I discovered that sometimes in a less-than-perfectly-level terrain location, the docking port may be resting just a little too high.  If this is the case, simply right click on the BM-LS landing struts and zero out the spring strength values.  This should bottom the module out to the ground, giving an additional clearance if needed.  Actually, adjusting the landing strut spring values can be used any time the surface modules need a slight adjustment to get them to "click" together, or if you need to level them on a slightly-inclined terrain.

The second thing I wanted to mention is that I'm planning to do an improvement revision on the LV-2D and LV-2E landers after 1.7 drops.  Obviously I may need to swap out the older 24-77 Twitch engines with the new ones, so while I'm doing that I'll be looking to improve on the handling and deployment of the ER-2 'Ferret' rovers, try to shave the part count a little, and add some small docking clamps so that these landers can be integrated with the BM-series.  This way you can turn the single monolithic LV-2E research outpost into a more capable base with better power-generation and other equipment.  Kind of like the image below...

Screen-Shot-2015-12-30-at-1.38.05-AM.png

Hmm...that surface reactor looks familiar. :wink:

Edited by Raptor9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2/27/2019 at 4:43 PM, Raptor9 said:

Hmm...that surface reactor looks familiar. :wink:

I don't know... I do not see a bunch of solar panel on top, so...

A complete sidenote: How do you keep your variants amount low? For example, there are possibly multiple Altair designs in real life -- how do you stick to one particular model?

Also, do you consciously keep DLC parts off, or do you just go "if it ended up having DLC parts, it will have DLC parts"?

Edited by Jestersage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/1/2019 at 7:55 AM, Jestersage said:

For example, there are possibly multiple Altair designs in real life -- how do you stick to one particular model?

I personally hate the look of the later Altair designs, the ones that look like a a giant box with a beer can and golf balls for an ascent section.  So I built the version that looked "cooler" to me, which was the earlier designs with the open descent stage with gold foil tanks and four engines.

On 3/1/2019 at 7:55 AM, Jestersage said:

do you just go "if it ended up having DLC parts, it will have DLC parts"?

Yes. :)
____________________________________

EDIT: The EV-7 'Skipjack' is almost done. Doing final testing as we speak.  Just finished assembling it in LKO along with it's Mobile Mission Kit, and about to send it interplanetary for field tests.  The revisions on the craft have gone well, and it looks MUCH better than the original prototype.  It definitely has a look of a spacecraft that was designed to operate only in vacuum.  It doesn't have the dV of the larger interplanetary ships, but (in it's "vanilla" configuration) it has almost twice the dV of the EV-2C, and about 2/3rds that of the EV-2L.  What it brings in capability though is extreme versatility, and can be reconfigured via the Mobile Mission Kit for different missions, which is why I liken it to a Jeep.  Below is the potential it brings to an interplanetary mission:

Configuration Mobile Mission Kit Module Mission Sets / Capabilities Unique Equipment
"Vanilla" configuration None
  • Orbital scans for biome/terrain/anomalies
  • Short-range communications relay
  • Single-hop probe control point

RC-001S probe core
HG-5 high gain antenna

"Habitation" configuration Habitation Module
  • Long distance crew ferry
  • Medium-range direct communications
PPD-10 'Hitchiker'
DTS-M1 comms dish
2x SP-L 1x6 solar panels
"Orbital Scanning/Survey" configuration Scanning Module
  • Orbital science experiments
  • Initial resource surveys
  • Detailed resource scans

Science experiments/sensors
M700 Survey Scanner
M4435 Narrowband Scanner

"Landing" configuration Landing Module
  • Crew transport to/from surface outposts
    - Mun, Minmus, Gilly, Ike, Dres, Vall, Bop, Pol, Eeloo
  • Surface science experiments
  • Surface resource scanning

2x LV-909 engines
Science experiments/sensors
SC-9001 Science Jr
Surface Scanning Module

"Asteroid Mooring/ISRU" configuration ISRU Module
  • Self-refuel (asteroids only)
  • Asteroid mooring
2x Drill-O-Matic Jr
Convert-O-Tron 125
"The Klaw"

Although it can technically land on Vall, it has very tight propellant margins to do so.  The greatest impact on this margin is how aggressive a player is with the attitude controls.  Like the LITE reusable upper stage, the EV-7 is completely reliant on LF+O for both propulsion and attitude control.  If you spend a lot of time maneuvering the craft around, I would recommend ensuring there is an ISRU site nearby to get some additional propellant on the surface before you "dust-off" back to orbit.  Yes, like almost all my other landers, the EV-7's Landing Module includes surface-based refueling compatibility.  The EV-7 along with the Mobile Mission Kit can be autonomously pre-deployed to the target SOI by a NITE transport stage.

Edited by Raptor9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a bit confused about the Windjammer. Is it designed to have one array of fuel tanks + EV-2L or two each? Just asking because the graphics and the screenshots are somewhat paradox.

Share this post


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

I am a bit confused about the Windjammer. Is it designed to have one array of fuel tanks + EV-2L or two each? Just asking because the graphics and the screenshots are somewhat paradox.

Short answer:  Two of each (or more depending on what you want).  An EV-6 'Windjammer' as a whole is assembled by first launching one of the M3V 'Windjammer Kits', followed by one of the M3V 'Propellant Kits' and the required EV-2L's (which serve as the propulsion, main attitude control elements, and command modules).  An EV-6B configuration is assembled using a 'Basic Windjammer Kit' and 'Basic Propellant Kit', the EV-6E is assembled using an 'Extended Windjammer Kit' and 'Extended Propellant Kit', and the EV-6H is composed of a 'Heavy Windjammer Kit' and 'Extended Propellant Kit'.  Of course the EV-6, as a "mothership", is just the crew transit configuration of a much larger interplanetary expedition architecture, that is expanded into an on-site "space station" by docking additional assets sent in advance of the crewed element.

Long answer:  As you might have seen earlier in this thread, the EV-6 and associated M3V kits are based on the Mars Base Camp concept by Lockheed Martin.  If you look at this document, please note Figure 4 on page 10.  The "Transit Configuration" is essentially what the EV-6B 'Windjammer' (Basic) is modeled after.  The EV-6 itself follows the EV-4 craft file set up, in that you could use the modules in whatever combination you can think of, but there are a few key configurations of how the modules were intended (and mission tested) to be assembled.  However, unlike the real-life concept the EV-4 was modeled after (which emphasized modular growth to achieve other missions in the lunar and near-Earth asteroid realms), the Mars Base Camp concept is built around the sole purpose of getting to Mars orbit and supporting Phobos/Deimos exploration and future surface landings.  As a deliberate evolution of the EV-4 system, I wanted to make the EV-6 set up to be at least as versatile, if not more so.

Since the foundation of the M3V project was to make every spacecraft or module launched from Kerbin as versatile & reusable as possible, I wanted the EV-6 system to potentially be the final "mothership level" spacecraft in the EV category.  That meant that the design needed to apply to not just Duna, but Eve, Dres, and the Joolian system, with the eventual goals of being able to use it for missions to Moho and Eeloo as well.  So I deviated from the Mars Base Camp concept a little.  Additionally, I wanted to incorporate the "Kit" launcher configurations to simplify launches and assembly.

Obviously, the EV-6 will not be the final EV-series spacecraft I make; the EV-7 is nearing completion.  But the EV-7, and any follow-on Exploration Vehicle, will most likely be smaller in size but provide levels of mission specialization that the EV-6 and EV-2C/L spacecraft cannot.  Having said that, I will admit that 3 of the 4 modules from the EV-7's Mobile Mission Kit are backwards compatible with the EV-2L (the Landing Module is not).

Sorry for the novel, but I hope this clarifies my line of thinking when developing these spacecraft and modules. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read through the document and I now have several questions. Why do you not have the Spider Flyer/Walker for sorties to Ike/cheated pre-placed Asteroids to be analogous to Phobos and Deimos? Do you use the M3V-C or M3V-C1. Relation to SEP-PT? The document says that I should send the M3V-C or M3V-C1 to Duna via SEP-PT and then the M3V-PL via SEP-PT, launch a copy of the Research Kit to the Mun, assemble the entire station at the Mun for testing, and then disassemble the station for transfer to Duna. Of course I understand that this is your version of it and not a replica, but I am always concerned about faithfulness to the inspiration. That's why I am asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, AlchemicRaven said:

Why do you not have the Spider Flyer/Walker for sorties to Ike/cheated pre-placed Asteroids to be analogous to Phobos and Deimos?

Because Ike isn't in any way analogous to Phobos/Deimos, aside from the fact it's orbiting Duna.  It has almost the same levels of gravity as the Mun.  How would that craft be able to function in that gravity environment?  The closest thing to Phobos/Deimos in the KSP system is Gilly; in which case I have the SEV 'Mustang' for that, which is quite similar despite not having all the thin legs.

22 minutes ago, AlchemicRaven said:

Do you use the M3V-C or M3V-C1.

It really depends on the level of communications infrastructure you have, or personal preference.  You don't need the comms dishes on the M3V-C1 for EV-6 communications; the M3V-H has a much stronger HG-55 for that.  But while the entire ship is in orbit, it might as well serve as a relay satellite for other assets in orbit or on the surface.

27 minutes ago, AlchemicRaven said:

Relation to SEP-PT? The document says that I should send the M3V-C or M3V-C1 to Duna via SEP-PT and then the M3V-PL via SEP-PT, launch a copy of the Research Kit to the Mun, assemble the entire station at the Mun for testing, and then disassemble the station for transfer to Duna. Of course I understand that this is your version of it and not a replica, but I am always concerned about faithfulness to the inspiration. That's why I am asking.

Well, first of all don't get bogged down in such real-life details when converting a concept to KSP game mechanics.  As you mentioned yourself, the only reason a "copy" of the lab and node/cupola modules are sent to the Moon is for the shakedown cruise prior to sending the entire ship to Mars.  This was to ensure all the systems integrate and work as intended before arriving in Mars orbit, and to avoid the "Oh no, the research module isn't working as we expected" when the crew has to wait for the next transfer window back to Earth.  Fortunately, stock KSP parts never malfunction and I've already performed all the craft file testing and validation for you to ensure they work as intended. :wink: Of course, if you're trying to recreate the real mission sequence, have at it.  Although personally I would just send the same M3V-PL from Munar orbit to Duna and just push the crew departure to the following transfer window to save purchasing another Research Kit and rocket.

Second, I didn't want to handcuff myself to using an ion-powered space tug to pre-position assets. (If you do, make sure you put a detachable docking adapter on the Research Kit since the M3V modules use 2.5m docking clamps, whereas the SEP-PT uses a 1.25m size)

Third, the EV-6 is reliant on a depot-based mission architecture for it's liquid fuel & oxidizer engines.  Ideally, in the same transfer window that you send a Research Kit to Duna, you would also send an 'Ike/Dres Logistics Kit' to start generating propellant.  The NITE stage from the Logistics Kit then re-positions to Duna orbit to refuel (or simply replace) the NITE that propelled the Research Kit to Duna.  The empty (or partially-empty) NITE returns to Ike orbit.  When the EV-6 arrives in Duna orbit, and re-assembles itself with the Research Kit to begin operations, the NITE stage that was docked with the Research Kit refuels the EV-6 for the future return trip to Kerbin.  The second NITE standing by in Ike orbit is a backup, or can cycle back to Duna orbit with the first NITE to provide sequential refuelings of LV-4B or LV-7A reusable landers.

Plus, if you sent an LV-7 to Duna, the NITE stage that pre-positioned that lander will constitute a third NITE in the Duna SOI.  So you have plenty of refueling assets to store, transport, and offload propellant as necessary for the 1.5 to 2 years until the crew can return to Kerbin.  Not to mention if you wanted, you could leave a single NITE in the Duna SOI and send any others back to Kerbin to start cycling future surface modules and cargo landers to Duna.  You have options. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

Because Ike isn't in any way analogous to Phobos/Deimos, aside from the fact it's orbiting Duna.  It has almost the same levels of gravity as the Mun.

How did I forget about that? I know you play stock, but I usually pre-place an E class Asteroid in the same proportional orbit to represent Phobos (Deimos crashes into Ike).

 

48 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

It really depends on the level of communications infrastructure you have, or personal preference.

Sorry, I was referring to your graphics/intended use when compared to Mars Base Camp.

 

49 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

serve as a relay satellite for other assets in orbit or on the surface.

The real one was supposed to do that as well, which would imply that I should use M3C-C1 for realism. Btw, sorry I talk about realism a lot, just a personal preference.

Anyway, thank you so much for answering. As always, best craft I've seen in KSP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo, can you give examples of the Basic, Extended and Heavy variants? I know it's everyone's choice to use it how they want or need, but I like to try them out just as they where intended to be used and modify them afterwards (if needed).

And yes, I'm a lazy mothertrucker. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Sooo, can you give examples of the Basic, Extended and Heavy variants?

If you go to the OP and expand the VAB spoiler, the Exploration Vehicle category graphic has each of the tested EV-6 variants at the bottom. :)

I also want to mention that I'm about to release an update to all my LITE based craft: EV-2L, HLV-5, PD-32/64, and the Lightning rocket.  I was doing testing last night with the EV-7 and found a significant problem that needed to be addressed with the LITE stage's structural strength/autostrutting.  Needless to say, my EV-6 shook to pieces when I docked a NITE to the far end of it.
____________________________________

EDIT: Another blog-like post to vent my thoughts.  Final verification testing of the EV-7 revealed more issues than I expected, like on other spacecraft, but nothing too crazy.  I tweaked some autostrutting on some M3V kits, and reassembled the LITE stage to be more structurally sound.  These have already been implemented on KerbalX. 

Regarding the EV-7 itself, the Landing Module had a pair of Mk55's thrust limited to 50%.  I woke up this morning and realized "Why in the world do I have two of them thrust limited to 50%? Why don't I just have one?"  Then that led me down the road of questioning why I was even using the Mk55 in the first place.  In the end, I switched to a pair of LV-909's, which gives exactly the same thrust as two Mk55's at 50%, but for much better Isp in vacuum.  It does add 0.1 ton in mass, but that was negligible compared to the benefits.  On top of all that, I took another look at the graphics I had finished for the EV-7, and realized they were crap, so I'm gonna redo those as well.

Next on my list of things to do is the 'Pol Logistics Kit'.  A prototype of this has been gathering dust on my hard drive for quite some time, but with the EV-7 nearing completion this one will be increasing in priority since Pol is the first stop for any EV-6's or EV-7's arriving in the Joolian system.  As Gilly serves as my point of entry into the Eve system, Pol will serve a similar role as the main ISRU/propellant distribution site for missions within the Jool SOI.  Bop was ruled out as a candidate due to it's highly inclined orbit, which would waste propellant during any orbital plane changes enroute to/from the other moons.

As a side note, I want to point out how game-changing it can be to learn how to perform gravity brakes using Tylo.  I learned how useful this can be during my Satellite/Probe Revamp project, but while testing the EV-7 Mobile Mission Kit deployment to the Jool SOI, I can definitively say it really is a very important trick to master when sending missions to Jool.  Plotting a midcourse correction a year out from Jool encounter to time the entry to take advantage of this requires very little delta-V, but you save so much on the backside.  As it stands, I sent an EV-7 with it's Mobile Mission Kit (42 tons) to Jool using a NITE and arrived in a circular low Pol orbit with a few units of propellant to spare in the NITE; and the EV-7 still fully-fueled.  And this was launching from a 200km low Kerbin orbit.  If I had staged it from low Munar orbit, the dV remaining would be even more. :)

Edited by Raptor9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, found the picture.

Regarding the gravity assist, do you use Tylo to get into Jool orbit or the other way around? For me it looks like gravity breaking using the main body and then getting into a retrograde orbit around one of the satellites is the easiest way.

For example all my stuff around Ike is on a retrograde orbit after a Duna gravity break.

Share this post


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

do you use Tylo to get into Jool orbit or the other way around? For me it looks like gravity breaking using the main body and then getting into a retrograde orbit around one of the satellites is the easiest way.

It would be better to use Tylo as a gravity brake to initially capture into the Jool system, and then use other moons or Tylo itself to alter your trajectory back to a stable Tylo orbit.  I imagine the amount of gravity assist you get from Jool's gravity would sling you past any moon in it's SOI, even Tylo.

Whether you enter into a prograde or retrograde orbit is dependent on where the moon is in relation to which direction you are entering the parent SOI.  But for most planets/moons in the stock system, retrograde vs prograde orbits don't really hinder your dV very much anyway.  At higher system scales like RSS or something, then that's when prograde orbits become more efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Raptor9!

Love the ships! I have an issue where on KSP 1.6.1 a lot of the files are missing objects, but on 1.6.0 they are incompatible. Just wondering if you have any idea what's wrong.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@nikawiwi, it sounds like you might be having issues with mods that are installed, or erroneous data in craft metadata files.  Can you post a screenshot of what you are experiencing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Raptor9

Took some screenshots. Not playing with any mods, these are both fresh installs, and fresh downloads of your crafts. 

This is on 1.6.1. Some of the craft work, but a lot of them when loaded say they are missing an object (i.e. Panel(0), or Liquid fuel engine T91)

https://imgur.com/a/3C7zvO5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, nikawiwi said:

a lot of them when loaded say they are missing an object (i.e. Panel(0), or Liquid fuel engine T91)

@nikawiwi, it appears that you don't have the DLC installed.  A lot of my craft use parts from it, although not all.  This is why you are seeing "Contains locked or invalid parts".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I feel like the guy will needle about why not make something DLC-less, so may as well get that out of the way. What's your reason to not do no-DLC run?

For me, I feel that by limiting my builds to not use DLC -- especially if we want the indent look (Orion/PPTS/Chinese NextGen), or want something that have a bit better TRW, or this and that... For me, who want to minimize part count while maximize performance, the DLC is a good choice.

Also, it guarantees that it will work in the newest version, especially now that they go with 3-months cycle. That's part of the reason why I want to stay Stock+ instead of branching out to BDB (which will make ome of my crafts easier to make TBH)

Lastly, I prefer the Swedish model, which is lots and lots of DLC. That way you know that there are some official backing, instead of going into dependency hell. In fact, if I have my way, there will be no basic KSP, but only KSP with MH as a package.

Edited by Jestersage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jestersage said:

I feel like the guy will needle about why not make something DLC-less

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion so quick. A while ago someone messaged me on KerbalX with the same problem; certain parts not loading in.  Turns out he simply forgot to install the DLC when he migrated from 1.5 to 1.6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.