Threadsinger

This is one of the most awesome-looking VTOL SSTO's I've seen on KSP. I've been using it for a mission or two now, after some practice, and it is fun and functional. I built it from pictures, not the craft file, so it took me a bit to figure how the engines were built onto clipped fuselages. (I thought there was some part I was missing...). That and the fuel lines. (The other ones in this thread are awesome too, gives some neat ideas and aesthetics!) I called mine the "RuneBoat". Also have a heavier lift variant and I'm working on a KSPI fusion engine'd one (RuneBeast) for that extreme delta-v/fast transit time/Eve SSTO goodness.

Everything in this post is awesome and educational. I find the costs are well balanced for the delta-v you get, that's a fair payment for high efficiency engines (to be re-used, of course).

Awesome. Glad to see it released. Big fan of fusion engines too, and i've been waiting awhile for a simple to use fusion drive/generator since early KSPI. (Current KSPI-E is a work of love by its creators, but i've been wanting something a bit simpler in practice). If KSP were to ever have an expansion pack, id wish for a near to far future newgame+ with this kind of mod included!

Err, I meant to say, if I build an antimatter reactor/engine SSTO, I would hope it would come with a smidgeon of antiprotons (or whatever necessary resources) so I don't need to add other engines and tanks (which I don't need during normal operation) to it just to get it to space to fuel it and use it properly. That's all. It would be like having to fuel the NERVA starside before use - feasible, but a gameplay annoyance. Agreed on the radiators - even if it was the extendable ones, the heat mechanic has always been fair. Also a VISTA SSTO is hilariously insane. "What happened to all my KSC buildings?" "Jeb had a meeting and took the VISTA shuttle for expediency. There were no survivors." I believe I shall build one.

Fair enough. I'd recommend then a very minor amount integrated into the appropriate reactors so as to permit them to get off the ground without needing another set of engines (and to enable very-late game SSTO's from Kerbin). Also, the VISTA is well-balanced, thank you. It retains the advantages of awesome delta-v (for when you need to drive it like you stole it), but the heat dissipation mechanic is a fair challenge to off-set it.

That would be appreciated. There was a wiki once maintained by undercoveryankee - I wonder if that could be updated? Heck, I can try and help once I install the 1.0 version of KSPIE and play around with it. It would probably answer quite a few questions, especially in a FAQ.

Hey FreeThinker, Is your heart set on this? Would you consider letting someone fill the tanks, but having AM cost a big amount? From a gameplay perspective, it'd be nice to launch AM-powered craft from the Launchpad without having to get them orbital first with another set of engines. I'd assume all that is needed is a trickle of antimatter to get there, at a luxuriant cost, but it would grant some flexibility. It could also be a means to make funds in-game (at the later stage), where the space infrastructure isn't so much needed as the funds are for building late-game craft. (And if you recover a craft full of AM, it would provide a sizeable refund which you could use to fuel another ship, etc, etc without having to wait forever to regain the AM you already harvested...)

I've had landers disintegrate on load... I can sometimes stop the spontaneous exponential wobble-of-doom by opening or closing the bay doors. Sometimes I need to hit reload a few times before a "stable" version of the craft loads up. I now take extra care to keep things as centered as possible within the bay. Still an awesome little part, though, especially in light of the new aero physics. And for those of us who try to run a 100% re-useable space program. Wouldn't mind a taller part, however, unless that's the niche of the shuttle payload bays.

I loves me my mechjeb. I can fly, but it's fun to let the computer do some of the heavy lifting sometimes, or to see how it responds to crazy conditions. And the info it provides is invaluable!!! Thank you!

Amen, brother. Not that I don't sympathize with yafeshan's desire to keep the game interesting, but I'm a huge advocate of having access to better-than-chemical rockets for this game (after a hefty science and funding curve, of course, to climb the various eras to space!) that enable the potential travel times and power that we'd need in real-life to do anything of consequence in a human timeframe. My personal gameplay preference (and role play preference) is to use those high delta-v engines to get places faster, not to explore the entire system in one go (in 50 years). I like the idea of a riding fire for a Duna rendezvous in 2 weeks followed by 180 spin, hard braking, and a docking/refuel mission. The VISTA's were great for that! As long as you remember to put other engines on too for minor maneuvers in close quarters (oops...). I will compromise and say I don't mind some kind of simplistic "depth" mechanism to put some long-term limitations on certain parts, as long as they aren't so restrictive/realistic that they ruin the fun of the part. The best parts of KSP to me are the initial missions, the first lander, the first NERVA drive, the first nuclear turbojet, the first NTJ SSTO, and then the first fusion SSTO that can make it to Minimus (or Duna). Once I get past the NERVA/ion, I'm ready for more. Like replaying a long-played RPG with an imported level 20 character - let's see what real power can do! - - - Updated - - - Also, this has been a strange issue of mine (irreproduceable, alas, as I'm running vanilla 1.0 to try it out anew), but I've always had a hard time with keeping fusion reactors powered. They seemed to be able to generate enough power for ignition, *sometimes*, but once in flight they would slowly run out of thermalpower, then megajoules, and stall in sub-orbital. Or during warping. Or sometimes would not ignite at all. Would you ever consider a different mechanism for powering reactors and generators? Like if a generator (and a rocket or turbojet nozzle) is attached to a fusion reactor, there's a check involved and instead of having the thermal power resource compete between the turbojet and the generator, it simply reduces the thermal output of the reactor by 25% (or some value) but keeps it running without having to run into wierd thermal power demand juggling issues? (Did that mess make any sense?) I just found the more recent versions hard to consistently use without some kind of weird "flame-out" happening, or without some strange operating rules. I could also be using them wrong, but I don't recall Fractal's version of them having this problem. Just plug a generator on, and they never bleed themselves dry of thermalpower while under thrust. (Not a criticism, I just don't know how you made all the new stuff work behind the scenes..)

I typically used the nose cone for starting tests, before I send Kerbals up. I know there's a mod for that kind of gameplay too, but this suited me well for my own role play. I also use it when I needed a core to test parts for test contracts on the launchpad (or in the ocean), or to eject (and test) parts out of Kerbin or Kerbol orbit. It can be a bit powerful in hardcore modes where you don't want to risk Kerbals at the start, and you can attach a girder to it at the top and make it mostly symmetrical, but it does fill a nice pre-sputnik niche. I also find the sputnik-looking core to have terrible aerodynamics for use as an expendable guidance package in the beginning. Maybe a balance consideration would be to dramatically increase it's electrical requirements? We don't get solar panels until later (I think), so if it has a high consumption, that would limit it to short-missions unless you add a ton of batteries.

I was wondering how to make solar sails useful. That's a very good idea!

Erm, yes, that would make sense, wouldn't it. Hah. Welp, at least, in theory, KSP-I is a bit ahead of the curve vis a vis heat management. I have no doubt that KSP-I will, at some point, have a mechanism to vent that heat out with, say, that produced from the fusion reactors. It just makes sense - I can see the lol's at having a perfectly cooled rocket nuclear thermal rocket craft explode because the secondary NERVA's melted down... In the mean time, I guess I'll have to ignore NERVA's, or settle for ridiculous part counts. Still, it's a welcome mechanism (overall) for KSP 1.0, and just needs a little lovin'.

Sarbian needs some logs and other pertinent info to fix this stuff, Kerbs.

Also, from what I gather, it looks like the NERVA's now overheat very easily without spamming a ton of wing parts as heat radiator fins... Those KSP-I radiators are going to be even handier now, although I kind of loathe that NERVA's now have THIS new mechanic on top of their weight and poor thrust to "balance" them...

Thanks, FreeThinker. I know it's a lot of work, math, and unicorn tears.

Awesome. I forgot about this mod, going to subscribe to thread and add to download list.

Hi yafeshan (and FreeThinker), I've heard this complaint before regarding KSP-I. With respect, fusion/antimatter/warp drive engines are supposed to be overpowered, ridiculously, compared to chemical engines. If we had them today, we'd have little use for chemical rockets, much in the same way if that we had fusion reactors we'd have little use for coal as a power source. I've always been an advocate of this point when I see comments on the relative "ease" of using endgame parts by players. Yes, managing delta-v becomes easier. Because it should. If players find the fusion-era technologies too "easy", perhaps NF-E is better tailored to their desired experience. Or K+, with its caveat that its core exotic resource is a pain to get and thus "balanced" for KSP gameplay. Frankly, in my opinion, KSP-I isn't a "sidegrade" for KSP, it's an endgame upgrade which lets you experiment with the possibilities of very powerful, very efficient engines as they would be in real life. Especially with the particular focus this mod has on realism, adding some resource management into the mix. It is more of a NewGame+ experience, which is what makes it a lot of fun in career mode after you've crawled up the tech tree 50 missions to earn your first nuclear turbojet SSTO. Once you earn your VISTA engine, or "high-Q" fusion upgrade, or whathaveyou, players should be rewarded with awesome new capabilities (in context of this mod), not hamstrung. Because they will start to wonder why they bothered unlocking it in the first place. We already need to collect a bunch of science and exotic resources (and funds) to get these parts into play. My concern here trying to balance KSP-I too much against the vanilla KSP experience - it can't while still retaining the same characteristics and technical flavor that make KSP-I so much fun. Much in the same way you can't balance a Ferrari in a game featuring go-karts, but it's a lot of fun to earn that Ferrari and see how it handles compared to go-karts. Also, as a general design consideration, please keep in mind that most drawbacks that you put onto KSP-I (or any mod) can be generally be overcome with more engines, fuel tanks, tons of radiators, or ejectable waste tanks, at a cost of frustration. And if the drawbacks are too extreme, then players might lose interest. Or you enter the eternal battle of part tweaks, nerfs, and adjustments.

Shiny!! Looking forward to the update, although I understand it's r4mon's hobby, not a paid career, and 1.0 just came out. I *hope* he updates it soon!

Neat idea! Would you consider making a similar one for aerodynamic stressors? Is that a reasonable thing to implement? (I honestly have no idea about such things...) While FAR has a nice written warning, I've always wished for a thermal/aerostress klaxon (at a reasonable volume level) like in all those sci-fi movies... /why yes, my SSTOs do come in hot

Excellent release! You've captured what makes KSP so much fun, for me anyways: a challenge based on a real-world concept, but surreal enough that it doesn't punish players too harshly or requires EVE Online levels of bureaucracy... Love it!

While everything was a new experience, the three challenges I remember requiring a lot more effort were: 1. Getting a rocket into space without having to strain my fingers while in atmo - I didn't know about RCS, or SAS, or even the effects of wing stubs, and boy would my hands get stressed trying to control the drift on those early, KSP-naive rocket designs of mine 2. Designing and landing a craft onto Mun (even one way - often did not have enough fuel to make a safe landing, and I didn't use a dV calculator back then, and I had a hard time estimating braking times versus distance remaining... clipped many a mountain on the way down) 3. Docking. 'Nuff said. There's certainly some things I haven't done yet, like landing and taking off from Eve (using stock parts), building a grand tour ship, or rescuing Bob from a polar, solar orbit, but I'll get there.

Honestly, KSPI fusion or AP reactors.

Good to see. This thread once had epic levels of discussion (and, hopefully, downloads) and with the mod now spread between a few different threads, including the add-on development one, I fear it isn't getting the attention it deserves since Fractal left and you guys took over as caretakers. I hope a brand new thread with a single download requirement will bring interest in KSP-I back up again and help new players find the answers they need without having to leap-frog through several threads. Looking forward to it! (And 1.0 too...)

One "capstone" engine could be an antiproton-catalyzed drive of some kind for ludicrous isp/thrust at the expense of very expensive antiprotons. Not that I want to duplicate KSPI accidentally (which is an equally awesome mod for futuristic, but well thought out engine concepts), but that would be a logical step up. One niche engine I'd like to see would be a radial, fusion VTOL drive. Snub nosed, dramatically less isp-efficient but very high thrust than a regular fusion engine, but designed to help VTOL craft land on planets. (But still keeping it better than using conventional rocket engines - it's a fusion drive, after all). Maybe add an overheat mechanism, where you've got only 20-30 seconds at full thrust before it overheats, to compensate for it's relatively high TWR/isp ratio. I've been looking for something like this (that wasn't worse than a regular chemical engine) for near-future VTOL'ing. Is there a market for that? Also, I hope you don't plan on putting too many crazy gameplay restrictions for using engines - Kerbals don't even have food, gravity, or lifesupport needs! I'd say let cost, science, weight, and exotic/expensive fuels be the limiting factor, and let players build their ships with their choice of ridiculously-awesome tritium-powered mayhem drives.