Jump to content

Kartoffelkuchen

Members
  • Posts

    1,651
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kartoffelkuchen

  1. Yeah, noch ein Deutscher! Herzlich willkomen!
  2. Hey, I am trying to create a SpaceX like gridfin, but I am running into serious issues with its setup in Unity. I went through some old posts, but the information there didn't help me. So, does anyone out there know how to set up an airbrake for 1.0.5? And if we are at it, how to set up a control surface? I know there are two partmodules, for one ModuleAeroSurface for airbrakes and ModuleControlSurface for control surfaces, but where's the difference there? I would be glad if anyone could help me!
  3. Thanks! @fairy Haven't started on the ldgs yet. @ReventonHawx yes, they are indeed a bit curved, matching the round fueltank. I haven't found a good method to easily do this for now, but I'll keep trying to make it look even closer to the real thing.
  4. Gridfins! Not that easy to model as I thought. @MajorLeaugeRocketScience You've got a PM.
  5. Hey, I've just found a tiny tiny spelling mistake: Go to the "Staff" tab and scroll down until you see TriggerAu. It says "Assistant QA Manager & Community Conributer " there, but it should say "Assistant QA Manager & Community Contributer" instead. Just wanted to point it out!
  6. Not really. It's just more like a launchclamp, optimised for this rocket, if you want to say so. I don't even know if that mod is still actively developed.
  7. Aw thanks man! But you're doing really awesome stuff too! Right now, not at all. As I said, SpaceX has highest priority. The test versions were sent out yesterday, and right now I am working on the Gridfins...and also started on something *strong* to pull *back* too...
  8. Yes, they'll be working again. They needed updated colliders, cause 1.0.5 forced us to use convex colliders only, the Orion Fairing colliders were concave.
  9. @eman596 Please would you check the post *above you*? It says that the way decouplers work in 1.0.5 changed, and so the decouplers here will not work correctly.
  10. @ReventonHawx Landing legs & Gridfins will be added, and if everything will work out, they'll also be released right away. I will start with those parts while the others are already testing, to speed up the process. Thanks for your positive feedback guys!
  11. Yes, I've already seen it, but yeah, it's really strange why they now find an issue with the payload, but ok.
  12. RTF launch moved to 19th December, the cause seems to be a payload issue. It also seems very likely that the first stage will do RTLS, the AirForce approved it, and FAA..somehow to. Source: https://mobile.twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/673270563742289920
  13. Got everything in game. Some last touches now and then I'll send out the test versions. Falcon 9 1.1 Full Thrust: The Octaweb is also available with a black coating, which could be seen on Asiasat 6, CRS-4 and ABS/Eutelsat-1 launches: Looking good for a RTF release!
  14. High-altitude wind violation. Don't know what's the record there.
  15. Launch scrubbed for today, new launch attempt tomorrow (6th December 2015) at 4:44pm EST. Weather 40% GO.
  16. Countdown on hold again, there seems to be an issue or something
  17. Modelling - finished Texturing - finished Next? Unity! So yeah, finished Falcon 9 1.1 and 1.1 FT! Here's a render comparing the two: Plus, also a Sketchfab model of Falcon 9 1.1 (Ignore the black artefacts on the bottom of the Interstage please): https://sketchfab.com/models/bf8663fd916245fa8d0fbc1750ef708a I'll start pushing the parts through Unity now, and configs should be pretty much straightforward, since I've already figured them out a while ago, and if no issues occur, the testers will have something to test very soon. While they test I'll work on Falcon Reusable parts (Gridfins & Landing legs, RCS is already done).
  18. First of all, thanks. That's really kind what you said! :] I can agree with you that I might overdo it at some point with the details sometimes, it simply happens. Though I have to say here that polygon count is not that a big problem in the most cases as people say. The real limiting factors are textures and colliders. This is why I'vI've started now (ok, a bit longer already but anyway) to simplify colliders, cause complex mesh collider really drag down the performance. As for the textures, I try to keep them as low memory as possible, while they still look good enough. Poly count is only the 3rd biggest limiting factor I would say, though that's arguable (does that word even exist?) . And I am doing all this stuff on my Lenovo Thinkpad E531 (I've inreased RAM to 12), but you can'treally say that it's a super machine. We can make a compromise at this point, that I simplify the models (especially of the engines) so that only nozzle, combustion chamber and thrust structure remain. As for the other parts, I'll see what I can do about theirpoly size. But I'll also upload a lower resolution version then, when the demand is big enough. Deal?
  19. @Jimbodiah No. It would also make things like switching from all to 3 engines for boostback more complicated, and generally you are much more unlimited with having the engines as fully seperate parts.
  20. They're both 1.1, though I already have MvacD+ for FT done. Will post images comparing 1.1 and FT once they are ready. And yep, that was what I heard to that they won't do crossfeed anymore. To dangerous and complex.
  21. @MajorLeagueRocketScience: Yep! That crossfeed would be an option, bit it's unlikely. The way SpaceX wants to run their FH is I believe that they throttle down the center engines or something, while the boosters burn at full power, then shutdown and do boostback while the core throttles up again. The last time I've heard crossfeed was when 1.0 was still launched, and when 1.1 continued there was no word about crossfeed anymoreI think. (Also, I ddon't think that would even be possible in KSP)
×
×
  • Create New...