Omnivore

The tank was designed for compatibility with Nova\'s KSP - Silisko Edition v0.7, that\'s why the capacity is low. For compatibility with stock you\'re probably better off looking to Wobbly Rockets (SundayPunch\'s mod) as well as the newer Down Under, KW Challenger, and other mod packages. The problem with longer than double length is I have absolutely no clue how to scale up some of the config parameters, especially given the \'rubbery\' state of many of the older mod package parts with the current version. I\'m also concerned that with longer than double length it could change the feel of the game too much - indestructible wobble-free extremely tall tanks. Also, the trouble I\'m having with using the 3D modeling tools and fighting the Collada dae format makes me leery of trying to do too much.

Looks much better than mine I\'ve been playing around with assorted 3D modeling tools but in all honesty, doing much more than modifying a pre-existing part (and hoping that doesn\'t screw up the UV map) is beyond me. Which is kinda weird to me because I learned drafting back in the \'70s and did some early work with AutoCAD in the \'80s, had no problems really - but these modern tools are crazy complex, especially when it comes to UV mapping.

To import KSP\'s Collada .DAE files (at least some of them), the following worked for me: Opened up the dae file with scite (or any decent text or xml editor), found the following section: <library_images> <image id='Map__0-image' name='Map__0'> <init_from>file://C:/Games/KSP/Mods/Omnikorp/Parts/2mhalffueltank/textures/2m_fuelTank_Texture.png</init_from> </image> </library_images> Change the file path to point to your local copy of the texture file, it\'ll be pointing to the original creator\'s path which probably doesn\'t exist on your file system. Remember to use forward slashes in the path. Use the free Autodesk Softimage Mod Tool 7.5 along with Autodesk\'s Crosswalk v2012.5 (also free). Open up Softimage, select a scene (doesn\'t matter use default and delete model(s) or create a new one), go to File->Crosswalk->Import.. menu selection, import the modified dae file. Then go to File->Crosswalk->Export.. menu selection, set file type to COLLADA 1.4.1, set your target file name and path, and hit the export button. The dae file regurgitated by Softimage/Crosswalk should now load up in blender. This works with at least some of the dae files, for any that it doesn\'t work for, check the console window for Blender which should list the error(s) it encountered. It seems that Blender is a bit picky on the Collada format and if something doesn\'t resolve to its satisfaction it refuses to load it. Crosswalk is a little less picky on import and seems to have an export format that satisfies Blender. PS: I\'m not a 3D modeller, I\'m a retired programmer with way too much time and curiosity Now that I\'ve gotten a model to successfully load in Blender I have no idea on how to mod it LOL! UPDATE: Always try to open up with Blender first, some dae files will load ok, some will load ok after setting the filepath, some will load after getting rid of the diffuse section (as posted by GeorgeTirebiter earlier) and oddly enough at least some of the ones that load fine in Blender will cause Softimage/Crosswalk to crash to desktop.

Yes, fewer connections, fewer objects for the same size/performance large rocket. Thanks, that is exactly what I was aiming for (temporary solution) and I\'ll be quite happy to withdraw this part once you have your version in the mod

UPDATE: Omni Korp Aerospace Division Director Tsu Suun Boom cites mounting cost overruns as the reason for today\'s early release of the Keagle project component parts. (Textures are lousy but uv maps are included for those who would like to redo them). OLDER NEWS: Director Tsu Suun Boom released a photo of the test vehicle used for testing project Keagle components as they are developed. A passing tourist snapped this quick photo while driving by the Omni Korp Aerospace Division testing grounds today. Neddicus Kerman said, 'And I heard the loudest bang a few moments later!'. O.K.A.D. Director Tsu Suun Boom was unavailable for comment. Still working on parts but took some time to play around with the Keagle command module. Still needs some remodeling and definately needs improved texturing.

Eh, had plenty of RCS installed but wrestling with stutter and ASAS during the takeoff run ate up all my RCS fuel. My comp is just too weak to handle the required rocket with the current game engine. Heh, and just realized that, unless you counted my empty SRBs at full mass, the lander I was using would mass less than the one you used, lol. I might try this again once 1.3 comes out.

Just had a weird experience, touched down at less than 2 m/s with less than 3 m/s horizontal velocity and....

That is odd, perhaps it has to do with the height vs width of the rocket itself? My largest stock rocket to date used 6 gimballed and 18 non-gimballed LFE\'s in the boost stage and given the way my comp was crawling at 16 seconds real time per second of game time, that was with ASAS all the way. As you can see in the picture, with only 6 winglets on a rocket that size, the gimballed engines were doing most of the stabilization work early on.

Kinda odd because I\'ve found the exact opposite with the lower stages, I use gimballed engines in a 1:3 ratio to non-gimballed up to about 25k altitude and find that while the ship speed is low the gimballed engines stabilize large craft quite well. After speed picks up the winglets are far more effective and the thrust/weight ratio of the gimballed engines makes them less desireable. Of course once exiting atmosphere RCS takes over, so I\'m really only using gimballed engines on large craft during the few minutes of ascent. PS: The above is with all stock ships - don\'t really know about with mods.

Cool challenge, only problem is... well with the 0.12xX builds, the underlying engine kinda limits you. I put a payload massing 98 tons (not counting spent fuel) into a barely stable Kerbin orbit with only stock but it brought my computer to its knees (one core on a 2.7Ghz E5400 Pentium running 100%). I was getting 1 second game time for every 14 seconds real time at one point. I think that implies that you\'ll be *very* hard pressed to put more than 30 tons or so on the Munar surface. I\'m going to have to try a 25 tonner just to see

Decided to try out C7 despite being a lousy pilot, did ok with my first bird though, made a short flight and made a landing I can fly away from. She\'s not quite as stable as I\'d like, thinking about bigger wings or maybe canards.

This first one is, well common sense to most, but just to be thorough: [li]Reducing payload mass is the single biggest improvement you can make in a rocket design.[/li] [li]The capsule usually doesn\'t need a decoupler under it as the parachute can slow down additional mass enough that the lower parts act as a crumple zone for your pod.[/li] [li]Your top stage is usually pretty easy to fly by itself so move RCS fuel tanks, any (A)SAS modules, and any winglets further down the stack if possible. [/li]

Heavy yes, the HDL Mk IV masses 24.89 fully fueled. The Mk III is a bit lighter at 23.45. I\'ve also been testing a pure vanilla variant, HDL-V Mk I which adds a center mounted LFT and LFE to the HDL Mk IV and replaces the 3 LFT-G + LFE\'s with SRBs. Assuming the SRBs have been fired previously in the voyage, the vanilla model masses only 16.97. Only problem the vanilla version is a few meters taller and somewhat top heavy in comparison. Note: compare those weights to the \'standard\' vanilla easy lander with 1x LFT, 1x LFE, 1x ASAS, 1x RCST, 6x RCS, 3x RDC, and 3x R8 wings massing 13.49.

I\'ve been testing out a heavy duty two stage lander concept for pilots like myself using \'Tapioca\' parts (Vanilla + Wiser Guy\'s G Variant LFT and RDC). It isn\'t a very efficient design mass-wise but... the high impact tests were quite amazing! The Mk IV model is even more robust (see last picture) - the ascent stage *still* works and manages to lift off.

@frenchie16: Initially I had planned to use a two stage lander, but I found that it was more efficient to use my cruise stage to do most of the initial braking and jettison it at low altitude. This let me conserve enough fuel for the actual lander that getting home even with a single LFT lander was a breeze. @SmiteZero: Wow, exciting ride UPDATE: Awesome video, great music too, and congrats on the landing!

Congrats on the landing!

Well good news and bad news. First the good news, the Klomar Exploder III reached stable orbit of Kerbin (83km-87km) with 20 full tanks worth of liquid fuel and 6 SRBs remaining. Bad news is the all stock 0.12x3 ship is so huge (159,707 bytes of craft file) that it takes 14 seconds real time for each second of game time. Not sure if it\'ll speed up as earlier jettisoned stages hit Kerbin or not. Mass of ship in orbit at present estimated at 98 Kerbal tons. Planned mission (if the game speeds up enough to be playable), is to insert a solar probe (old SAS module) into an orbit around Kerbol with a periapsis of less than 1000km and an apoapsis as low as possible given fuel constraints. Klomar Exploder III will then return to Kerbin (hopefully). UPDATE: Meh 11 seconds real time per second of game time seems to be the best I can get, it has one core of my old 2.7Ghz E5400 Pentium running all out. Posting the craft file in case someone with a faster computer wants to give it a try.

Not so sure of that, I mean what do we really know about the Kerbals. From observation we can conclude they are far advanced beyond us in the biosciences, they have perfected cloning together with accelerated growth and full memory/personality transfer. Since no mention is made of life support means and requirements, we could conclude that perpetually sustainable microecologies are trivial for them. Then there is the lack of information about their reproduction, perhaps they bud?

I\'m getting a very weird control reversal in solar coordinate system. My y axis inverts and other bizarre behavior like the ASAS pushing away from the point it is engaged sometimes. Also had the x axis invert at least once. It seems that going in and out of zoom fixes the worst problems but still usually leaves y axis inverted.

Congrats on the landing! I\'ve never thought about it but the idea of putting as much mass on the Mun as you can makes for an interesting challenge by itself. I\'ve been sticking with vanilla but the lack of a LFT that I can attach to a radial decoupler is going to soon send me to looking through mods.

Congrats! Very nicely done and great pics. Impressed by the small size of your rocket design compared to my monstrosities.

Hmm should\'ve left off tight, wonder what the closest circular orbit to Kerbol is possible with vanilla?

Might I propose a modified challenge since negative orbits are possible? How about dropping a solar probe (ok actually a ASAS module) into a tight circular orbit around Kerbol and return to Kerbin. Goal something like the closest non-negative orbit with less than 1% eccentricity? I\'d put it up but you do a much better job of running challenges than I do.

Landed in a bowl of Mun dust? I was never able to land successfully with any appreciable horizontal velocity so most I\'ve seen has been more of a shudder at touchdown. Of course, I\'m so busy at that point I might be sliding a bit and just not noticing for trying to get everything shutdown before inadvertent catastrophy strikes. Congrats to everyone on all the successes and near successes, thanks for posting the details and pictures, it has been a blast reading them.

The best, as far as I\'m aware, \'landing gear\' available for vanilla is a triplet of radial decouplers and AV-R8 winglets. They mass 33% more than empty SRBs welded on but have the *big* advantage of giving a nice bit of ground clearance to the new thrust vectoring LFEs. A few people besides myself have used them successfully in Munar landings. One thing I\'m not sure of though is how much drag and mass you lose when you activate a radial decoupler? All of it? Same questions with struts.