Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by CardBoardBoxProcessor
-
-
It\'s so beautiful. Now, four questions. How easy is it to fly this beast? Can this beast be landed? Easily? On the moon?
in the pictures it is just a fuel tank. it is no where near done. merely put in game to see how it looked size wise.
No idea how it will fly or land yet.
it will not carry enough fuel to reach the moon. it is merely for kerbin orbit injections. Boosters will be usable for TMI. (AKA munshots)
-
I am content with the size. it has room to piggy back cargo to space/ :-*
-
As big as you\'re making it, its going to look sort of silly ingame.
Heh, your test launcher looks like you\'re boosting a grain elevator to space. Maybe just send a whole elevator of wheat along to Mars so they can have all the pancakes they want.
it is not that big really. it is the width that makes it look huge. look at the venture star as compared to the shuttle. It is a SSTo for goodness sakes. the size is staying
note the venture star looks huge but only because it is wide as hell.
-
decided to lok at my favorite plane windows such as tu-4, b-36, and c-130. Endded up going with this after much trial and error.
-
Actually, there were two spacecrafts. The first was the X-33, which would\'ve been just a techdemo, without cargo bay. If the X-33 had been a succes, then they would have been built the Venture Star, which would have had a cargo bay. Both was planned to be unmanned, but the Venture Star could have carried people as well, with the cargo bay modified.
no. In the end they decided piggy backing the cargo was better than the internal cargo bay actual. However they never got around to redesign. They determined it could carry more fuel, inject cargo upon abort and land safely and various other advantages.
In the end, they had problems with the fuel tank.
Tbh I preferred the shuttle anyway.
The irony is after it was cancelled and composites tech improved they managed to get a working fuel tank lol. There is just no funding for the thing. It could be built now days.
-
not like you coudl see over the nose in landing anyway.Windowless. Cause Jeb doesn\'t need to see where hes going.
-
I see some of my parts in your screenies. Thanks for using my mod
-
closer to something I like... however I still like windowless look more ahha.
-
no the x-33 would have been cargo bay less. The venture stare also was deemed to need a redign to not have the cargo bay and instead hold more fuel inside. int he end they determined piggy backing cargo would be best design. But they never got that far. Believe me i watched shows about this thing when i was a kidThe original X-33 would\'ve had a shuttle-sized cargo bay on it. Why not do that for your spaceplane? Saves trying to figure out how to attach a cargo pod. 8)
need an opinion windows. tempted to have no windows for they are all ugly.
-
This...this is going to be huge, isn\'t it.
Yes. Keep in mind it is not really a Shuttle. it is a big Flying fuel tank that can re-enter and be reused with the engines and get to orbit in one go. it has to be sort of big. nor will it have a cargo bay
-
I wanted to see if 7 of these engines actually flew. the answer was yes. and that God will be sending me to hell for this beautiful creation.
-
Circles look awful to lol Did some RCS work.
-
After I saw this i researched it ... but the one i found cost money
Can you please post a link just in case i found the wrong one please.
Student Copies
-
Good god man. You are a definite legend.
Only in the Kerbal World.
I am trying to figure out window configurations. any Thoughts? The x-33 had none and the venture star\'s where ugly.
-
being super critical and OCD about the wings today. Should be cutting this thing into parts rather soon.
-
Needs thicker wings and make it a tad less cyclindical
Notice in the pictures te top is more Rounded Rectangle than perfect cylinder. This will also allow your wings to attach an blend easier Those are the traits that are lacking in looking at the pictures if you are interested
Looks nice though -
-
Sarkun i think that shuttle would look better with one Engine.
And have you considered modeling it with some traits from the X-34? or perhaps use the russian shuttles engine look? I feel this might make it look more... hmm unique? give it some flare you know? plus X-34 gives you room for a bay
-
thanks sakrun. Practice makes perfect
-
ah that would be nice. perhaps failcan will sound like a falcon9 soon
-
As for the orbiter comment. Thanks for the compliment. I dislike orbiter. I like kerbal\'s lackadaisical cartoonie feel. Orbital is too complex. and x-33 will be in kerbal
Also, how can i get custom sounds to work?
-
Polies don\'t seem to effect unity at all. i have tested loading large polygon spheres. There is a limit though. and I think if it is too much for the engine to handle it does not load it.
Plus it is a SSTO. there will only be 7 of them. and few other parts as part of the package. Joints cause more lag than polies.
surprisingly the only have 2.25 times as many polys as my Kerlin Engines. I made sure to remove extra and wasted/sloppy polys. I realize not everyone has a computer like me though. it people complain I could see making a simple version.
-
Ah yes but the engine can be used by itself. I am not dumb. It is obvious (i am not stupid) I could have closed it up. But that would be boring
-
And i am finally done modelling the engines.
cBBp SPC Pack v0.4: Fixed Failcan RCS and added some adapter pieces. Enjoy.
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
how ever shall I do the flaps on this sucker...