endl

that doesnt strut the payload it struts the fairings together thats it, also i never had a problem with my payload shifting that ss was from the moment the rocket was flipping over.

this was suggested already . i had a thought about the interior mount point that could be moveable to adjust for rover height and thought of a simpler alternative that wouldn't require that at all. instead of going that far to fix the issue it can be done in the model work where the back wall on the interior has some flat space for mounting the in game attachment point. this would let the player tweak the height of the rover in the bay without any additional work beyond modeling. seeing as how theres a pretty good asset already in home recon im considering learning unity/blender and trying to fix it up myself. i have like 0 experience doing model work but its really silly that one one has done a inline rover bay for general use up to this point.

ok seems like doing the turn even though gradual too early was the cause, i guess theres a middle ground for these turns depending on the length of the rocket.

my rockets keep flipping i have it working with smaller payloads using mechjeb (100% g turn starting at 1km ending at 70, acceleration caped) ive tried smaller lifters spaming SAS but nothing changes.

i think ive mentioned my issues with a skycrane approach not being viable for my needs like four times in this thread now, its getting rather tiresome. i also dont need to be repeatedly told how i can duct tape my lander to the side of a rocket and have it "work out" this isnt a gameplay thread its an addon request thread. so unless theres some addon i have yet to try or someone wishes to step up and update/create a better version of home recon please refrain from throwing design suggestions at me such as make a smaller rover, skycrane, mount to ____ surface,or installing flying pink elephant mod #2501. since at no point during these "insightful" suggestions was the mission parameters/target parameters/install configuration or play style preference even remotely considered and rather then being helpful it comes off as condescending since this isnt a thread about how i should build a rover. so if it wasnt clear by now i am not changing my rover design (this design is compact for its intended purpose) i am not going to use a skycrane (i do not wish to increase my part count among other issues with this approach) i am not looking for other ways of mounting my rover to a rocket (it needs to be enclosed and inline to achieve its mission goal with my install configuration)

this is my vtol cargo ssto with nukes for planet xfer. works with far

did you notice in the video how the curiosity had housing protecting it not just from heat but aero forces, there's no such convenient way to create that in kerbal you would need a dome part that fits the rover and has extra nodes for interior attachment also skycranes are a pain to operate and i dont want to go through that, a lander system with a ramp is much easier to use. if skycranes were an option which they are not i would not continue to keep testing these alternative mod suggestions. if i do play with a skycrane it will be for a different rover where i can cut the weight down drastically. for this rover because its heavier then usual ill continue to look for/ask for a stackable ramp system.

a skycrane kills landing velocity not drop velocity, dropping a heavy rover even with a skycrane is dependent on the wheels ability to take the impact a skycrane design offers no shielding from aero forces or deadly reenty, its not the default answer as an alternative to a none ramp system. i did not reject all of them. even the ones that were useable are broken. most of the ones offered have not been updated for .25 or have proper tweakscale integration. as i mentioned several times the home recon part would work if it wasnt buggy, its not ideal but its very close. 1. the WT-51 is horizontal i need a vertical ramp configuration if its not clear at this point. also the cheyenne is not listed on the devs website and i couldnt find any mention of a sulaco. considering how the 2nd one is another part specific to a ship it wont properly fit a rocket and it will probably be oriented the wrong way. 2. not suitable its a nosecone i need a stackable ramp system like recon 3. horizontal orientation again how is this a different option from the first 4. i tried this before making the thread, its impossible to make the ramp parts line up properly with infernals hinge orientation thats only one section you would need several and it would take up alot of space not to mention the gaps between each section 5. if i had the knowledge to do so i would, what i am asking for is very simple. a vertically stackable enclosed rover bay with a none track type ramp

how does this mod work with other peoples set ups, for example if i dont have some mod someone else has how does interacting with their designs work?

is there some law that says that every rover has to weigh less then a stapler and be smaller then a phone book. if i wanted to drive my car from the roof of a parking garage i could just drop it off the roof it would be faster and easier because i wouldnt need a ramp but the car would be broken wouldnt it? @zekes i dont need a lighter rover i need a proper hangar solar panels will not support the weight of my rover for its intended design.

its a fuel hauler its meant to be paired with my karbonite miner which acts as a fuel hub for my other designs like UAV/lander/colony base it has 2 flt400 tanks which is only 360 fuel per trip anything smaller isnt practical

honestly the US integration wouldn't work since the parts are angled to meet at the center, also your over complicating what the bay needs. the problem with the recon model is that it sections off the center into a rectangle leaving no space on the side for radial parts to be mounted this is just a waste of of space the size should be 2.5 by default with tweak scale support for larger sizes for different payloads the inner horizontal mount point should have tweakable alignment height so that you dont have to drop the rover otherwise there should be a vertical inner node so that the rover can be lowered gently via KAS (this is only as a workaround if the moder doesnt have the required coding skills/if KSP doesn't support node manipulation like this) the door should be wider then 40* thats less then 1/8 the surface its pretty narrow should be 85 or 90 degrees, it should also swing up so that the sides are free for landing gear/ radial thrusters (which is only an issue if the mod doesnt come with its own custom legs/thruster i think i get what you mean about the stock ladder, what your trying to say is "telescoping" ramp this is fine from a design point so long as its one single surface and not the two track gap which will create issues depending on how wide/narrow the wheel contact is, so to avoid it just have 1 surface rather then 2

heres the other data, i cant seem to figure out what i need to change i thought i had it then i did some touch ups and it god worse, making the wing longer seems to help the most but ever time i fix the wing flaps the numbers get worse

my numbers dont seem to be so bad at mach 5 except for one area, tweaking the wings to be wider doesnt seem to help maybe they should be longer?

well then if thats the case (and it doesnt seem to be happening very often) its not anything baha can do something about, so if hes not against it originally he should reconsider adding TS support back in. because to be honest the niche his retractable engines fill is invaluable to lander/vtol design (b9 vtol's being better suited as main engines/radially attached rather then surface)

what that person did would not work for a planet with an atmosphere that kind of set up only works for landing in a vacuum. but yes you could do it without a ramp/enclosure in that scenario. edit: i just tried the rat lander which also was a huge failure i had to add tweakscale it didnt fit until it was 5m in size the nodes have the rover hovering in the middle when released the rover clips into the floor from the impact. i fixed this by attaching a custom mount point this made me think that the rover mount point might need to be moveable for different rover heights otherwise you have to always build the rover height to the rover bay mount point which might not always be possible the biggest problem though is the aeodynamics is broken the pod causes massive rocket instability

so im guessing you use tac fuel balancer to achieve this? this sounds kind of like a hassle. ill play with the wings and see how much my balance gets thrown out of whack ill probably have to redo the landing gear and rebalance the fuel load to get a better placed COL. from what i can gather the configuration seems good but then again im no where as good at understanding the charts as you guys are

you mean something like this? as i mentioned before my rover fits perfectly fine inside the HL b9 cargobay. the difference here is that b9 parts arent for making landers, they are for making SSTO. an SSTO mission is alot more work then a lander mission. i want to simplify my design/delivery process for rover type missions thats why this part is so important to me and that it gets done properly.

its not a question of size, my rover should fit in a 3.75 drum it fits in the b9 HL cargo bay. all of the rover bay parts ive tried seem to all think a rover is always flat and wide and never square or long and thin. if you want to rework the HOME recon model that might be easier. the main problem with that part is that it was designed for the rover that was themed for the pack and not for general use. thats why theres a huge gap in the ramp, and the door height doesnt match the part height. the airlock on the side is also useless and the narrow walls on the inside prevent that space from being used as a service module for stuff like extra batteries/RCS tanks. you might want to consider modifying the recon part that would save you some modeling and texture work. heres an example of long and thin

must have been an issue with tweakscale then because that is not happening on my version

it was actually really easy to fly, the plane loses altitude (around 17km) when the run first starts but regains it on its own while never dropping below the horizon marker on the ball. at that point i can just hold S button to space. i added the conards for vtol stability mainly but it did make flying it easier. i do have some wiggle room to move/resize the wings a bit more but im not sure why you think i have to do it. is it because of the wing tip engines? i added those because my TWR fell below 1 take off has to be the most difficult part for me i have to maintain a precise angle or the plane starts to stall before clearing the ground, its not that hard but it isnt as smooth as my lighter craft

its only one file that needs to be added to the distribution (BahaSp root folder) the code is really simple too, i don't know if baha has reasons not to do it but if you want the file i made here it is, i originally only wrote in the two large retractable engines but since you requested it i added in the rest of the retractable types. i was going to subit a github request but there wasnt a specific entry for this mod package just a bunch of listing for some of the parts

because that wont solve the other issues, also my rover isnt so large that a properly designed rover bay shouldnt be able to accomodate it, the room on the inside is higher then the door how is this a good idea?

that particular part doesnt seem to be available anymore, its not in any of the packs in the new thread. it also seems to only mount horizontally from the videos thats going to be no bueno when using far, and even more no bueno when using deadly reentry

i find that the b9 vtols dont scale well for my designs either i need to spam alot of them which is messy and hard to work with or they get so big they just arent practical. i coded in tweak scale support for some bdynamics parts and was able to make a few minor changes to get the power up to spec, here is the final version of my plane with vtol functionality at 100k orbit the conards really improve the pitch control dramatically i was able to hit 30k going at 1900m/s when the orbital burn was done i had 40% fuel left in my reserves which translates to about 1400 LF. this is while carrying my heavy fuel rover which weighs 10-15t cant remember how much exactly