RedParadize
-
Posts
866 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by RedParadize
-
Indeed. But if the plan is to fill the gap between 1.25 and 2.50 with a 1.875 capsule, and end up having to strap a 2.5m and 17 tons FSB/TKS behind that capsule. It kinda miss the point. Thanks allot for your link, I never saw anything like this. That Docking module looks like what I had in mind, exept that it seem to have extra fuel and engine. It feel a bit suboptimal to separate de-orbit engine of the docking/service module, both need to be de-orbit after all. Still, that sould fit the 1.875 "taxi" role.
-
Meh, the VA-TKS is indeed a intresting design, specialy the BSO, but its incomplete. As far as I know, all VA capsule were lunched with a TKS module and unmanned, never on its own. I never saw how a solo VA would dock to a station. I can only asume that it would require extra module with a docking attached under its sheild. I don't think they ever planned to use the VA as a taxi.
-
Ejection seat would be hilarious. I wonder if anyone ever tried do a mod about that.
-
We want airbags, ejection seats and electric window !
-
Thats nice! Is the parachute cap a part or a ModuleJettison thingy ?
-
I installed 2.22. Probably broke something I guess.
-
Can't wait. Publish now! Just kidding. Does I was the only one to have that bug ? or is fixed as well?
-
What ? 64k work with 1.05 I tweaked SSTU config quite allot to match 64k, but not quite satify by it so far. I would be curious to see your 64k config if you switch to 64k
-
Yeah, I play 6.4x I kinda like the kerbin system. And the full convertion to RSS/RO is a bit painfull and its hard to balance mods to it.
-
Balancing should be relatively easy, comparing resource definition and some math. When I get back from work I will take a look.
-
I have been thinking about that 1.875 pod. In its current status, what make your mods realy spectial is its custom fuel tanks and engines clusters pluggin. If I would have to chose, I would rather have even more tank setup, upper stage, engines, fairing, clusters and textures. All the fancy stuff that can be done using your pluggin. Revisiting your lander tanks could be great too. Don't get me wrong, I realy like the Orion cm/sm and I would still like to have the Soyuz or, to a lower extent, the VA as well. But not as much as the as the rest. Some reference: http://historicspacecraft.com/Rockets_Upper_Stage.html You do not need the fuel switch, just edit the following, should be self explanatory: SSTU\Data\FuelTanks\FuelTypes.cfg SSTU\Data\FuelTanks\ResourceVolumes.cfg
-
I like these upper stage. its quite nice to be eable to do a delivery system with so few part. Another bug to report: When you connect struts to fuel tanks, the second connection also select the part. same with fuel connection. Annoying, but not game breaking.
-
So sorry! I realy appreciate it, but please don't answer my request if it doesn't fit your planning. I don't want to slow you down. Tantares have a Soyuz, but its in 1.2m5 and part are extremely light. HGR have one too, better balanced and in 1.875, but not maintained anymore. Fasa have a good Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, but they come in allot of parts. My point is at this point every relevant capsule have been done already. That should not be a guideline. Whatever Shadowmage will come up with will be radicaly different in nature. It won't be just part, but part that are driven by his plugin and philosophy. In that spirit, I would like all relevant capsule to be remade by Shadowmage. (exept aset's Alcor, but thats another story) But I don't see that happening, because Fallout 4. So I won't be picky. My two cents about Gemini: I am not a big fan of American design in general, It feel that the all in one capsule is sub optimal engineering wise, trough it might make sense in the case of the Apollo, Soyuz 7k-lok plus the LK lander setup seem a bit too complex to be reliable. Anyway, I did like the SSTU's Orion, so If you end up doing Gemini I am sure I would like it too. My two cents about Soyuz: If you end up picking the soyuz, I would suggest to have both the 2 and 3 crew variant. The Control panel is the same in both version, just one more seat. Having 3 Kerbals cramped in such a small space would be quite funny, and a accurate depiction of how it feel to be in a Soyuz. The real chalange is the orbital module, lunching a Soyuz without its orbital module is quite OP, specialy for a 3 crew variant. I don't see how you could inforce its use, but I don't its the way to go. I think the return capsule should be minimalist, 40 battery and thats it. On the other side, orbital module should stack allot of fonctionality, making it almost essential, like large battery, experiment, KIS, life support and whatever else you come up with. Given what your mod have to offer, the final product could be quite exeptional. And now I will go see what I can do with SSUT-0.2.22-beta
-
Thank you so much for this!
-
I would like the Soyuz, and as you said it make sense for the 1.875. (Thats why I am using the HGR version.) One thing, soyuz is a 3 crew design (most of the version). Its important because it reflect the orbital/reentry capsule philosophy. Soyuz have more usable internal space than the Apollo, while being much lighter. Going for 2 crew would make it equivalent to gemini capsule, that would be unfair. Thinking about it, if you really want to go for two crew, Genini would be a good idea I think.
-
If you are looking up for someone to test your stuff. I could probably do that for you. I do understand that testing is only a very small part of the full package/cleanup process, I am just offering.
-
Thanks! If you manage to fix them before your next release, could you tell me how to fix them?
-
Hello I have a bug to report: The weight of new tanks reset at lunch/load. Outside of that, its qulte nice! I will have few question for you guys, but I will wait until forum get a bit more stable. Thanks
-
[quote name='Jimbodiah']Just a noob question... How come the tank dome is round but the mount and rim are polygonal? Is that just the render?[/QUOTE] Thats just perspective, they have the same number of face and normal angle.
-
That sounds great! and looks good as well. And just because you are encouraging me to comment: Will we be eable to mount these under regular fuel tank? Alternatively, will we be eable to stretch the [COLOR=#333333]Common-Bulkhead like regular fuel tanks? [/COLOR]That would be quite nice I think. I keep asking for more... Edit: I forgot to mention this, the line @cost *= 2 and @cost *= 3 are missing in the config of SC-ENG-F1B
-
Looking at them again. The bottom ring of the [COLOR=#333333]Skeletal mount looks good, but [/COLOR]the heavy mount bottom plate looks a bit too thick heavy. Having said that, it depend on how you will texture it. If the bottom plate texture suggest something hollow it might look fine. Also, tubular above the plate/ring could be slightly thicker, I think. Does the purpose of the bottom plate is to hide engines connection? If yes, you might want to have a something on top of that plate that suggest some kind of pipes and stuff, that way engines pipes looks connected to something. One last thing, size of the smallest detail and amount of details are hints of the scale of a object. Thats why the star destroyer of star-wars looks soo big. I fell that a bit more details of the scale of the RCS would be welcome. It doesn't need to be fency, it only need to have a saturating effect, but with engines under it might do the trick. In fact, I would be curious to see it with engine. I realy feel like a back seat driver now, sorry.
-
I love it. Edit: RCS might be a bit small
-
I think your mod will be a great hit once released. I would not be supprise to see other modder using your plugin or adding textures and models to it. [quote name='Autochton']Means 'mouse' in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. :P[/QUOTE] Thats not bad for a upper stage.
-
Thanks for the answer. I guess I will not do the offset thing. I will just redo a stand alone mount instand. Its for fancy stuff anyway, I will still be eable to use the 'no-mount' option and do what I wanted. One thing, it would be nice to have the possiblity to disable fairing. About parts polishing, its all good.
-
[quote name='Shadowmage']Let me know if there is some particular mount/engine/whatever combination that I 'missed' from the existing stuff. Don't worry about higher # engine clusters yet, I'm still working on those, hopefully will have a few more with the next update; but if I missed a mount/layout/size combination in any of the existing parts, please chime in... it is easy enough to fix that stuff now with the new layout.[/QUOTE] Is it possible to offset the high of engines in config? Per engine type? I would like to use the the long cone with engines clipping on the side instand of on the lower plate. Its a extra, I could still use the flat plate instand. but the cone mount is just too cool. Alternatly, you might want to polish that flat plate instand, it would be nice with some details.
