Revenant503
-
Posts
131 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Revenant503
-
I would have gone 5 - 2 in the little G and 3 on the back extension simply based on volume (assuming that the extension takes you to 2.5m diameter) but seriously any good looking part with more than 3 crew is a bonus (In not crazy about the near future or space y capsules just for looks) Any chance of a heatsheild/docking ring part so we can get big G docking in the right direction?
-
[1.1] AB Launchers 1.2 - 5m Energia parts [22 Apr]
Revenant503 replied to hoojiwana's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Congratulations on release - just what the doctor ordered -
Love the look and textures of your Salyut 7 Neiman
-
Thank you Beale, your new work always surprises with a new tangent and new possibilities (I hadn't thought of using gemini for anything but your big G gives me ideas)
-
That at least keeps you close to stocklike rather than doing high fidelity recreations that can only be used one way so theres that going for the idea. But theres been a bunch of people throwing ideas and pictures at you..honestly, do the stuff that makes you smile. I'm pretty sure anything you create will get used because thats the beauty of your parts, they can be lego if you want them to be.
-
PPTS was the original Name, PTK-NP was its Official name (after 2010), the Lunar version was called PTK-L According to one reference I saw PTK-NP was a space station transport 6 people for 2 days but I've seen at least one art rendering where it had a Soyuz style orbital module attached (actually that could have been the planned hub for the ISS follow-on and 3rd generation space station concept) That later got split into several variants PTK-L was the Lunar Station/Moonbase variant - 4 people for 10 days PTK-M Mars Re-entry lander PTK-Z Earth orbital system Personally I'd just call it PTK-NP I could never find a reference for PPTK, I've got a feeling it was something they used transitionally when the project got renamed RUS and Rus_M were a different project for Launch Vehicles with a variable number of common cores so the same hardware could be used for a number of different payload levels from 6 tons to 100 tons - sadly cancelled - And could I put my hand up and ask for that if your feeling like a new TantaresLV member (it was pretty)
- 22,678 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- totm march 2020
- mod
- (and 2 more)
-
Sad to hear..I was the other way...I thought the PPTS was a welcome return to sanity after the Kliper madness. Oh well..how about the original Kliper concept of a beefed up orbital module that would support 4 people for a week? (Ok I admit it...it eventually became the PPTS after a few rounds of the ministry)
-
Definitely following that on Kerbalstuff so I can use it next career start
-
Yeah but with two cosmonauts, only an orbital module and a descent module, and a very limited amount of lead pipe...its likely to be a very very quick game
-
Cool Suggestion...drop the dual mode on the R7 engines if its giving you problems. The two modes aren't that different (keep the core one) and the high thrust mode (booster) I usually wind back thrust levels to keep the starting TWR below 2 (i.e. keep the core one) Have I said keep the core one yet?
-
No way! Those puppies were from the Paraffin/peroxide age. If any of those systems had an ISP greater than 270 its because someone had their finger on the scales. also if you've tried to match tank volumes or sizes, they've got effectively 9 times the scale volume of the real ones (the real ones using an ISP of about 260 on a good day had to find 10km/s to orbit, a rocket fired from the KSC needs about 3.5Km/s) you can either play with the size, play with the tankage, or play with the ISP, or just put it out and personally I'll do what I do with your other rockets and use them as my launch vehicle Lego because really like your models, but violently disagree with some of your Launcher figures
-
Out of curiosity do you have Venns revamp and FAR installed? I noticed VSR and real chute don't seem to get along and FAR was having a weird effect on top of those two (which admittedly was probably me seeing something that wasn't the so I'd try pulling out VSR first)
-
I'm beginning to wonder if we need a bigger 6 way node with those bigger docking ports
-
As for the save breaking...I don't play anything besides career and while I've been caught out a couple of times (castor Engine B and redoing remote tech ranges for example) most of Beales changes are easily fixable...some other mods are absolute horrors to use consistently over a month or two and I've had to drop them entirely, keeping the old sizes in the docking ports is a major help in that though I look forward to using the new ones when visually appropriate
-
Just a couple of minor niggles with the new stuff so far Could the next update have the new orbital module added to Extra_Tac and Extra_KIS? Also did the progress have a KIS entry? I thought it did but might be misremembering Beautiful parts Beale
-
My only concern would be would if it didn't work what would be the effect of fulfilling a contract asking for a docking port? Ie would I have to fly a non-tantares style craft specifically whenever a docking contract came up (and supply ports) In the space station case it could lead to a similar situation to the ISS where there are three different styles of docking ports which is either a hassle or cool depending on your point of view
- 22,678 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- totm march 2020
- mod
- (and 2 more)
-
Normally pressure suits are worn during any major manoeuvre where there is a pressure loss risk...liftoff..re-entry, staging, landing, and if they've got any brains...cracking the hatch after docking
-
I'd love a larger R-7 Small confession...I already use the wireframe decouple on my R-7 - I love that wireframe truss
-
That docking system has one port with the flaps forward (like the model) and the other port with the flaps flat..the ports were androgynous because you could swap between male and female at the flick of a switch, but they still need one port to be male and the other to be female. Any chance of animating so we could change the mode?
-
Could be...I agree that the N-1 seems overpowered and under fuelled - although I noticed that when you reduce thrust the fuel flow reduces too which sometimes can fix the problem on its own As for payload...I was thinking you'd want a significantly different throw than the proton (otherwise why bother) and most of the references I've see put it in Saturn 5 territory (wikipedia for what its' worth lists its payload at 90 tons)
-
I think the bottom two stages are massively overpowered (SLT 1.9 for a 45 ton payload!!) I was thinking a 50-60 ton payload as a target (2 Protons and change) drop the a and b engine thrust to give those stages a bit more run time and stop it fighting the atmosphere so much as a starting point then see what the performance is like after a test fire
-
Tantares 27,1 renames the part Castor_LM_Engine as Urist said..Tantares 27 still has it at Castor_Engine_B CKAN not up to date....theres something new Personally I'd leave it as Castor_engine_B because its not like the parentage is that visible in game. - - - Updated - - - Thanks Crisk for the configs...I tried to post some proton engine rebalances a few pages ago but no-one seemed interested I'll have a look through yours
-
Hi Sorry Don't know how to change the header Simple 1.0 fix that needs doing...I think the Capella parts (except for the engine) are pointing to unlock at a tech node that doesn't exist anymore
-
Oddball idea but... tweakscale the gemini down to a 1.25 footprint and use two PLV tanks and a PLV engine Or scale up the PLV tanks and engine Or if that looks a bit long..use the lower core tank from the R7 instead of the two PLV tanks
-
Have you installed RP-0?...that sounds like that (which just means it hasn't been added to RP-0 yet) also check your realism overhaul folder for a Tantares config file, theres a folder for supported or recommended mods that should contain all the config files for RO for each mod.
