Raptor9

Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

Recommended Posts

Just now, Raptor9 said:

Several LV-1R "Spider" small LFO engines.  Two pairs of LV-1R's are pinched together to form a "retaining hole" on either side of the ramp, and a third pair of LV-1R's are mounted on the ramp itself as "pegs" that go into the holes formed by the other LV-1R's.  The ramp itself is mounted to a small docking port embedded in the floor of the lower rover platform, and offset to place the ramp's pegs appropriately within the retaining holes. When the "decouple node" action group is selected with the docking port, gravity takes over and drops the ramp.  Downside is you can't raise it again.  Ensure your lander is where you want it before dropping the ramp.  Same technique is used on the LV-3BL research lander, just with a bigger ramp and a bigger rover.

Sweet! It looks great man, I just love the look of your vehicles. I am a huge fan of the Ares/constellation program. I hope to see it back IRL in some form or other!

 I think I saw @sgt_flyer use a similar ant hinge, I have not tried that configuration before. And yeah a downward ramp wont be re-lifted sadly. Still, its fun as hell to have working mechanisms on lander craft and such. Keep it up man, I look forward to seeing the end result of all this work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any body know where i can find a XV craft or it's brothers (or sister) it looked really cool. If there isnt a craft file for it then is there any other craft that i can download that looks similar to the XV series?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Djslime6764 said:

Any body know where i can find a XV craft or it's brothers (or sister) it looked really cool. If there isnt a craft file for it then is there any other craft that i can download that looks similar to the XV series?

Short answer, there are no XV craft files. :(

Long answer, those craft files are from older versions of KSP and no longer work, unfortunately.  I was trying to recreate them in 1.0.5, but there is an asymmetric intake/thrust flameout bug with the J-33 "Wheesley" engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's not too much to ask, could you please post subassembly versions of all your stages? I'm quite fond of how well you balance functionality and aesthetics, but find that sifting through all your launchers to find the ideal payload and launcher combination for a specific mission is somewhat tiresome...I'm sure that you already use subassemblies in the process of creating your masterpieces, so I don't think my request is unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I´d like to leave a comment on your T4 Skyhawk trainer. What a great little plane! I used it to look at some visual mods and had great fun clipping through the trees on the mountians. It flies lovely. I´ll definitely take that one out of the hangar more often now.

I suck at building planes and jets like that, but I love to fly them around. Thanks for sharing that awesome craft.

z4lvWLx.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2016 at 3:31 PM, 2004351 said:

If it's not too much to ask, could you please post subassembly versions of all your stages? I'm quite fond of how well you balance functionality and aesthetics, but find that sifting through all your launchers to find the ideal payload and launcher combination for a specific mission is somewhat tiresome...I'm sure that you already use subassemblies in the process of creating your masterpieces, so I don't think my request is unreasonable.

@2004351

i  agree with your request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 3:54 AM, Dafni said:

I´d like to leave a comment on your T4 Skyhawk trainer. What a great little plane! I used it to look at some visual mods and had great fun clipping through the trees on the mountians. It flies lovely. I´ll definitely take that one out of the hangar more often now.

I suck at building planes and jets like that, but I love to fly them around. Thanks for sharing that awesome craft.

You're welcome, and I'm glad you like it.  Sometimes I take a break from my designs and take one of my jets out for a spin around the mountains too.

@2004351 & @JWOC It's not something that's a priority at the moment, to be frank.  I'm not saying no, but I haven't touched KSP in about two weeks due to real-life commitments.  Because of this, I don't want to say "yes, I can do that", and then not post anything within a reasonable amount of time. I apologize for the "we'll see" response, but that's the reality at the moment. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT

Craft file publishing is temporarily suspended until after v1.1 is released.  Concepts and development are still ongoing because let's face it, I can't stop. :) However, I don't want to commit time to extensive play-testing of any more designs, or generating the brochure prints that have become my standard for publishing a craft, until after 1.1 is out in the world.  I don't have a clear idea what scope of changes we should expect such as part stat rebalancing, existing part updates, or new parts altogether that may impact existing designs.  I do know every aircraft and spaceplane I have will need to be refitted with the new landing gear, and my handful of rovers will need tweaked for the new wheel physics.  It was also stated @Porkjet was working on a rocket part redesign, which may indicate something as little as a retexture, or as substantial as a new model and/or stats adjustment.

Coincidently, real-life commitments and job-related stuff has kept me away from KSP for the past several weeks.  I'm just thankful that it all happened already, instead of a few weeks down the road. :P

Bottom line: I'm still working on projects, but they'll pretty much stay at the ~90% completion mark until after 1.1 is out.  Don't forget to contribute memes and funny videos to the 1.1 Hype Train Thread, as well as view a consolidated listing of all confirmed 1.1 features on the OP, courtesy of @GregroxMun.  Catch you all on the flip side. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love your designs raptor! Ok, I don't know how to download craft files but they look so cool! :D

Share this post


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

I love your designs raptor! Ok, I don't know how to download craft files but they look so cool! :D

Thanks :)

If you navigate through the drop-down "Reveal Hidden Contents" tabs on the first page, each craft will have a link to a corresponding KerbalX page where you can download the craft.  After that, go to wherever your downloads folder is, grab and place the .craft file into your KSP save game folder in either the SPH, VAB, or subassembly folder as appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As my design development is never-ending, the latest area I've been trying to tackle is inspired by none other than United Launch Alliance.  After watching Das Valdez's twitch broadcast (go to 1 hr 54 mins) on March 9th in which he had ULA CEO Tory Bruno talking about all sorts of cool rocket stuff, I decided to try my hand at making some of my own KSP analogues of the Vulcan rocket, ACES upper stage, and XEUS lunar lander.

ULA hardware on the left, my own on the right. :) For the most part I tried to imitate function instead of making raw replicas.

Vulcan%20amp%20Lightning_zpskmuyyo6p.jpg

ACES%20amp%20Lightning%20Upper%20Stage_z

XEUS%20amp%20HLV-5_zpsl5byd1th.jpg

While I'm still ironing out the above designs, I'm also planning to release a series of pre-built launchers in the same manner as my Kerbodyne 'Titan 4C' and 'Titan 4C+' 3.25m heavy lifters (which I'm also updating).  The launchers will be based around the Jeb's Junkyard 'Javelin' 1.25m rockets and the Rockomax 'Thunder' 2.5m rockets.  Each launcher will have a certain weight class, payload, and target orbit in mind when selecting which variant to use.  For example, one 'Thunder' rocket may be for heavy payloads and have a powerful 'Skipper'-equipped upper stage, but another 'Thunder' variant may have a less powerful upper stage equipped with RCS thrusters and more battery reserves for pushing satellites into precise geosynchronous/geostationary orbits.

As you may have guessed, since my Vulcan analogue is derived from my existing 'Thunder' hardware, I've named it 'Lightning'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

SNIP

Hey man.

 What do you use to make the blue background tech diagrams?

Share this post


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

Yeah I use that, I mean for the adding of the text and lines and such.

Nothing fancy. Microsoft paint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raptor9 said:

Nothing fancy. Microsoft paint.

Oh ok, thanks man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest issue with making a horizontal lander vehicle is the asymmetric mass layout along the longitudinal axis.  As fuel is burned off, the Center-of-Mass travels.  I've slowly tweaked down the descent thruster layout and RCS/Vernor control limiters to keep a relatively stable and responsive handling throughout the entire descent.  Even the ascent module required it's own individual tests to find the best balance.  Having said all that, the lander is coming along nicely.  The delta-V reserves are certainly impressive, but these are all equatorial landing sites I've tested.  If a player has to do large inclination changes pre-landing or post-ascent, delta-V reserves may start getting a little tight.  As it stands, with topped off tanks, I was able to deorbit from 150x150km equatorial orbit to a hover over the Mun, conducted about 5 minutes of hovering around to find a flat level landing site near a crater, and still had 1/3 to 2/5 fuel remaining.

I topped off the crew module's LFO tanks from the main fuel tank in the back, and initiated the ascent sequence back to a 150x150km equatorial orbit.  After having some fuel remaining, I worked my altitude up to 293x285km orbit, after which I could have pushed higher on monopropellant if I needed to.  With that much fuel in the bank, in some situations it would probably be more economical to fly the entire lander back to orbit to refuel instead of leaving the descent stage on the surface for use as a propellant depot.

DTAL%20Ascent%20Test_zpsmapotscd.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awesome! If your having trouble with vtols, maybe @Cupcake... can help. I'm sure as soon as 1.1 hits there is going to be tons of awesome craft using stuff like the new inflatable heat shield. However your planes are all going to get killed because of the gear. ;.;

Share this post


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

Awesome! If your having trouble with vtols, maybe @Cupcake... can help. I'm sure as soon as 1.1 hits there is going to be tons of awesome craft using stuff like the new inflatable heat shield. However your planes are all going to get killed because of the gear. ;.;

It will be super easy to swap out the landing gear, if even needed at all.

 

16 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

The biggest issue with making a horizontal lander vehicle is the asymmetric mass layout along the longitudinal axis

Balancing my new constellation landers was a pain in the ass. Looking at the lander in the pic you seem ok with clipping fuel tanks (as am I) just place two sets of two tanks either side of the COM, done. As the fuel drains the COM will not change. There will be no need for extra control systems. RCS (vernor) SAS tourque. Oh just make sure the motors are on the tanks and the COT will line up with the non-moving COM.

Edited by Majorjim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, max_creative said:

Awesome! If your having trouble with vtols, maybe @Cupcake... can help.

As great as Cupcake is at VTOL's, I don't require outsourcing at this time.  The lander I was talking about is working fine; I was simply trying to provide an explanation as to why so much testing and thruster tweaking is taking place.  The design isn't held up at all, I'm just a perfectionist and want to make sure I put it through it's paces through several scenarios/contingencies.

6 hours ago, max_creative said:

However your planes are all going to get killed because of the gear. ;.;

That's a bit drastic @max_creative.  They aren't going to be killed; as @Majorjim pointed out, they'll just require a quick refit and KerbalX update.  I'm well aware of the changes to the landing gear and already have some ideas on which gear will need to go onto which craft.  If anything, the planes will be better since I will have several more options to choose from to ensure they're sitting properly on the ground.  Take the X-11 (Su-27-analogue) for example.  I might be able to have the fuselage sit upright instead of so nose low.

4 hours ago, Majorjim said:

Looking at the lander in the pic you seem ok with clipping fuel tanks (as am I)

Well, I wouldn't go that far.  I only clip fuel tanks ever so slightly.  Those small grey LFO tanks are barely clipped into the lower sides of the Mk2 crew cabin.  I consider heavy fuel tank clipping cheating (in my KSP play-style), and wouldn't clip tanks inside other pieces just to solve a CoM/CoT issue.

4 hours ago, Majorjim said:

(snip) just place two sets of two tanks either side of the COM, done. As the fuel drains the COM will not change. There will be no need for extra control systems. RCS (vernor) SAS tourque. Oh just make sure the motors are on the tanks and the COT will line up with the non-moving COM.

At the risk of repeating my reply to Max_Creative, this lander's CoM/CoT states aren't an issue.  I was able to solve the problem via careful engineering and repetitive testing.  There are no unnecessary control systems installed for the purpose of VTOL stability, only what is needed for normal attitude control.  In fact, the mono-RCS blocks on the ascent stage are only used to control the ascent module as it returns to orbit, and are only switched on prior to initiating the ascent sequence; and I refuse to use SAS torque to compensate for control issues.  If you download any of my craft on KerbalX, you will discover that every SAS torque capable command pod has it's reaction wheels disabled.

Share this post


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

@max_creative
@Majorjim

Well, I wouldn't go that far.  I only clip fuel tanks ever so slightly.

Clipped is clipped. As you do, I avoid fuel in fuel. Everything else is as you said is, careful 'engineering'. That is exactly what my solution is. If you want to use RCS/vernos that's cool, just my idea does not require them as it would be truly balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Majorjim said:

Clipped is clipped. As you do, I avoid fuel in fuel. Everything else is as you said is, careful 'engineering'. That is exactly what my solution is. If you want to use RCS/vernos that's cool, just my idea does not require them as it would be truly balanced.

I'm not going to argue with you.  And by the way, careful 'engineering' is how I described my 24-77 engine placement/thrust limiting, and component placement according to mass.  My CoM definitely does travel, a lot compared to other landers I've made.  But I've been able to mitigate this issue by routing a few fuel lines here and there, and by finding a happy medium in my CoT.  As it stands, during the initial descent, my CoM is aft of my CoT.  By the time I've landed, it's traveled forward of the CoM.  But the control authority is within acceptable margins.

And I completely understand how to balance landers/VTOLs in the manner you described.  That's the main advantage of designing a vertical lander such as my LV-3-series (all symmetrical around the CoT axis), but the problem is getting Kerbals and rovers down from the usually high- or top-mounted pods/platforms.  Horizontal landers like the ULA XEUS don't have this logistical issue, but building a KSP-analogue along a similar design layout means overcoming limitations that the "lego"-part system of KSP has.  I'm not saying your solution isn't a solution to address such limitations, but the function imitation of this lander isn't suited to it.

Edited by Raptor9

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.