Sage

January 23, 2015

It's probably just an attach node misplaced

January 18, 2015

Are you serious?
If you put a light weight payload on top of a small rocket in FAR it is going to want to FLIP. Do the same thing in stock KSP and it won't.

Your original argument was about real life rocket don't have fins, but usually they have payloads that weight more than the bottom, so they don't flip. A rocket flipping with a high CoL is correct. I don't see why ksp isn't balanced for that, as you can build very small rockets anyway, and you can put fins on them. Stop moving your goalpost or state again clearly what's your matter with rocket flipping and using winglets.

January 18, 2015

because I love the engines from Ven's mod... and I don't use them only because I don't like how they install.

What do you mean? Do you mean that they don't override stock part anymore?

I'm kinda sad about that, because retexturing part is probably one of the most heavy and time consuming part for you and it's kind of a waste when there is a mod that already fixes the stock part style and texture quality.

Anyway it's your work so in the end it's up to you

Also your grammar is pretty good already...

January 18, 2015

You are disqualified for using non-stock parts. Also, I need to know your mod setup, it looks awesome Is that Astronomer's?

I'm pretty sure that all parts he has used are stock-just with the redone models by Ven. Check the plugin development forums. Except if you're talkin about fasa clamps.

No idea about the cloud pack, but if I remember correctly the new Astronomer's pack has a very low cloud density, so I'm not sure that's it.

January 17, 2015

BTW, Texture Replacer has a nice reflection shader. With some 1337 haxor skills I've managed to get them to work in some estra places, with nice results:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

January 17, 2015

No, I paid attention... I start a 'gravity turn' at about 600m, by nudging it east, and everything appears to go well until about 6000m-10000m when it decides it wants to go home. Noses over and.. you know the rest.
That's good advice, I think my TWR is around 3 (2.75)...
I'll give it time.. I imagine that once I 'get it' I will be glad I stuck with it, so I will.

Yeah, that TWR is exaggerated, but there is no need to redesign your rocket if iyt's liquid fueled, just throttle down. Also remember that if you aren't staging your TWR goes up as you burn fuel so remember to throttle down the more you go up. Your CoM might also be shifting backwards if your payload isn't heavy enough, so make sure that your CoL remains behind it. Usually having fins is enough. A good exercise is try to make a ballistic, sub-orbital, single stage missile with a probe and try to do a gravity turn without touching the WASD controls. just tip a bit at the beginning and manage the throttle so it keeps tipping at the right rate.

Also post your design if you want further help.

January 17, 2015

Ven, there seem to be two different versions of the turbojet floating around somewhere. The latest pic of them on the plane (in the original post album) and then the pic of the LV909 shows a very different version (which I honestly like better). The download includes the former, so where should I be looking to find the latter?

that's the old version, the aerospike was different too. I actually prefer the new one for the turbojet, but I would love to use it for AJE scramjet. I've it maybe laying around somewhere, but before i start digging I would like to request a official-unofficial deprecated download with old models from ven, as some people might find it useful. Maybe separated from the main one to avoid confusing people.

January 16, 2015

For those not following it religiously.
http://i.imgur.com/Zlcmx7y.gif

Next time it will work, they just need to give the fins some extra lubricant.

There is also a cool video here: https://vine.co/v/OjqeYWWpVWK

January 14, 2015

And what do you have against the V-173?

The V-173 went sideways, not straight up.

I hope that SQUAD understand why people were so disturbed by "backwards compatibility". For me the scary part wasn't the backward compatibility itself, but the fact that it implied compatibility with broken design from a broken model

January 14, 2015

Sorry for the lack of thread bumping in the last few weeks, I have been swamped in exams...

Anyway, glad to see that there is something new in the works Less glad that I cannot snoop on it on github

Also, regarding to the previous discussion, while I like this pack a lot, if CBBP wants to take a break from this and try and learn something different I'll support it, as his enjoyment should come first. Plus I wouldn't mind a stock-a-like pack from you.

January 4, 2015

Sorry to repeat my post but I think it may have been buried by the argument above and missed. I really enjoy the new textures and models but they are unusable for me at the moment due to the fairings . I would appreciate any help

The only real solution is to use tweakable everything, specifically the fairing module. Deleting the module fairing inside the PART won't work because the model will show up regardless. Another fix could be done by Ven itself, by shipping fairings as a separate .mu and weld it to the engine with the MODEL node system, kinda like KW rocketry does it. So anyone who wouldn't want it could just cancel the associated MODEL node and the fairing module to get rid of them. Considering that engine and fairing should already be separate models inside the current .mu file, and they don't even share the texture file, that could be even not too hard to do.

January 4, 2015

All criticisms, no matter how they are worded, are valid. However, it is up to the one being criticized to determine a way in which to use that criticism constructively, and it may or may not be in the way that the criticizer originally intended.
Anyways Preview Time:
http://imgur.com/a/k3Znu

Heavy duty RCS blocks! nice work

I'm not too happy about the integrated heatshield in the mk1-2 pod, because it may limit some design were the heatshield is jettisoned or not needed. I think it would have been better to have a flat ended pod that could fit flawlessy on 2m parts, while keeping the curved shield as separate part and give the fairing to that. But probably it's already too late to ask for this since it's probably too time wasting to split the model after UV unwrap and texturing.

January 3, 2015

Those new parts looks really good! I especially like how the RCS tank loos stock-y on the exterior but has sensible tanks inside

January 3, 2015

Yes, I agree with this. I added that at the last minute so it'd make sense with the model.
The Poodle is a weird case. The current name is extremely apt for its current form, but it is confusing to the uninniated. Perhaps I should rename the new engine to the Gerbil...
The rt-10 isn't set in stone, and is subject to change. I hate doing SRBs.
Due to the way the textures and models were made, I can't add any details like that without it also being pasted over the other tanks. If I add more tanks in the future, then it'd be fairly easy to have stripes on this tank, but as is I have to keep moving. The Iva instruments aren't going to finish themselves.
I scrapped the mk1 and 1-2pods. So now they'll look leagues better then the current models. I also added those fairings that some were asking for. Along with something that'll .... off several people, but it solves the heatshield problem before it even begins.

Didn't once the mainsail had gimbal, with module FX and all of that?
I don't have sny particular comment here, I personally don't care a lot about names, but I can sympatize with people that get confused about the poodle thing
I actually like the SRB, and I would recommend that you come back to it only after you finished other parts
In the worst case, you can add a line in the description using MM after the stripes one that says: "in fact, it went so fast in our test that the stripes wore off". It keeps the humoros tone and it's consistent. Either way, I stopped reading the descriptions long ago, so it's fine
That's nice to hear but I seriusly hope that it's not an integrated heat shield...I like the idea of a HS made by you, but I would like it more if it is a separate part that I can use on other things too. Plus an integrated heatshield would mess up even more compatibility with SDHI excellent service module system.

Either way, keep up your excellent work

January 2, 2015

For URM1 does anyone use the different LOX and re-pressure lines? Or do you generally just use what comes with the tank?

Generally speaking I use the big lines with big engines, while I switch to the thin ones with upper stages.

December 25, 2014

Good news. the Ambient Occlusion burn has begun. The RD-170 family will soon be in it's final skin They are real lookers!
I definitely over did it on the Detail but I have been waiting and plotting to make these engines since their last iteration and I can finally make them as I want and more. And thanks to MOARdV for the plugins and NoMrBond for the awesome math(which i am terrible at) and cfg work they will be the best yet!

Ouch, I hope you have a good cooling system for your computer

December 24, 2014

I keep forgetting that's an option, but still...
Another issue.
Your engine bells get much too bright. I know people are used to it because that's what Squad did but that's completely unrealistic. Metal that bright melts iirc.

That's totally not true. Radiative cooling is performed by a lot of engine designs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine#Cooling

Squad actually did two things wrong: The emissive should be more white, and the maximum effect should be on the chocke point and the beginning of the nozzle extension, not at the extreme end of the extension.

December 21, 2014

Thanks a lot, removing that bit did the trick. As for reworking the design; it seems the air intake part of the modified Mk1 cockpit makes it not work for small aircrafts, so I'd suggest the author look into that for the next update.

Aehm, I'm a bit dumb and there is actually a much easier fix: just right-click the cockpit and select "close intakes": that will have the same effect and shall leave the intakes there for bigger aircrafts.

And that's not a problem from the mod: it's just bad sticking big intakes (respect to the aircraft size) on the front, becausethey produce some drag that will have a tendency to destabilize your craft. However, I was actually able to fly something like yours, but you have to push the wings very far back, and the situation tends to go down the more fuel you use

EDIT: actually the intakes on the front are enough to feed a single engine. While testing, I had a little adventure with Jeb: I tried to land on the island runaway, but when I got there my little craft was very unstable, so after a couple of uncontrolled spins from which I recovered, I was able to realign myself with the mainland, but now that my craft had only pitch attitude I alligned myself for an emergency landing:

On this exact moment libera me from hell from Gurren Lagann from my playlist kicked in, leading to an awesome finale the craft disassembled but the bits survived.

Results of the tests: the emissive on the jet engine are very nice!

December 21, 2014

Well I'm not using FAR so that's not related.

Dont' quote me on this, but if I remember correctly even in stock aero intakes produce some drag, right? If that's the case, that pod has now small intakes, which on a such small design might be causing the issue. Try opening /GameData/VenStockrevamp/Partrevamp-MM.cfg and check the mark1cockpit entry (it's right there at the beginning) and delete this:


	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleResourceIntake
		resourceName = IntakeAir
		checkForOxygen = true
		area = 0.006
		intakeSpeed = 10
		intakeTransformName = Intake  
	}

	RESOURCE
	{
		name = IntakeAir
		amount = 0.5
		maxAmount = 1.0
	}

Or you can rework your design

EDIT: woot extra RCS ports Do you plan on making an heavy duty 4-way set (to complement that big single you have there)? Also, do you plan to make a 5-way set (the usual 4 with an extra nozzle, normal respect to the base)?

Also, a little suggestion for extra parts: stock-alike airbrakes. Dunno if they are possible without a custom plug-in.

December 19, 2014

Dat A5
http://kosmos-x.net.ru/_nw/34/25155539.jpg
in other news.. URM-3 tanks would be different. For example the secound stage tank has no space between upper and lower tanks. just one common divider dome.
http://www.ilslaunch.com/sites/default/files/Phase%20IV%20Configuration.jpg
Where as Angara is more liek there is sapce between the upper and lower tanks. should we allow for each on each size of dcontiune this vast difference between URm-2 and URM-3?
http://www.spaceflight101.com/uploads/6/4/0/6/6406961/4530324_orig.png
Basicaly multiple cofigureatiojn options for URM-2 and URM-3 or do you like them havign a difinit difference between the 2?

I'd say to make the three sizes slighty differents. Like having a common color scheme/style, but with unique twist to each of them: for the URM2 the common bulkhead is nice (it works for Saturns, too). For the URM-3 you could base it on the first stage of the PROTON, with a central OX tank and several lateral LF tanks, but that might be a bit too extreme and weird

December 19, 2014

One quick question: where do I put the bat file - in Gamedata or the main KSP install folder?

Main KSP folder. It seems to work by renaming the extensions of Squad's textures and models to ".ext"+"bak". This however should break mods that reference them, and it should't work if you have converted the textures to dds. So use it with care.

December 19, 2014

Oh golly, Christmas certainly has come early this year! Do you have a donate button?

I second this motion!

December 17, 2014

There's only so many ways to make NTRs.
Nertea,
I don't have any good pictures (only pictures that exist are what, 60's era?) but I know in some pics it looks orange translucent.
This is normal H2 combustion:
http://preciousmetalswest.com/images/IMG_7986.JPG
I imagine this but without the blue and with a bit more red in it.

In a nuclear engine there isn't Hydrogen combustion (well, except in bimodal engines). Plus, that image is Hydrogen combustion in an atmosphere that changes it's color. If you look at the videos of Saturn V staging, the plume in space is much less visible, and flames only appear when the interstage ring intercept the plume itself. However, I think a middle ground between realistic and aestetically pleasing should be the right option.

EDIT: aaand ninja'd by someone that could explain it way better than me

Also have a color video of the NERVA test:

You can see the plume in it, and on earth it appears actually reddish, but considered that those engines would be used more in space the blue would be more suitable and unique. Just my two cents anyway

December 17, 2014

Nice to see you back Ven. Those panels are really good looking. (I also spy the new aerospike between the engines ) Too bad I'm swamped with uni now, but hopefully in a few days I'll have some more times, maybe just in time to see your relase That would be a cool christmas present.

December 17, 2014

Nuclear engine exhaust should be totally transparent in real life, since excited H2 emits mostly in the UV spectrum and up. Considering that's a bit boring, you should go for a deep bluish, yet very faint plume. Possibly have the emissive of the engine be withe inside the nozzle itself. (That's actually how normal LH2/LOX engine look, since water is pretty up in the energy spectrum). Eagerly waiting for your heat mechanics (and those engine are going to fit so well with Ven's revamp, too.)

Profiles

Forums

Developer Articles

KSP2 Release Notes

Bug Reports

Posts posted by Sage