V7 Aerospace
-
Posts
218 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by V7 Aerospace
-
-
5 minutes ago, Angel-125 said:
While DSEV already has its own revamps I would be curious to see what Squad does to redo the MPL and Hitchhiker..
The hitchhiker is showing it's age, but I think the MPL is fine honestly. It's still a relatively new part.
-
4 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:
Finally it's my turn to lament the loss of an old part---the old Terrier's gold foil cone will always be iconic for me. Would love to see a variant inspired by the old style.
Makes me wonder if the variant system is able to support different colours and different engine layout variants at the same time.
-
Strange choices with the nose cones. Will we still have the plain un-greebled versions? Detail is nice and all, but it can sometimes attract attention to the wrong places. I'd like if these new textures were added as variants on top of the existing ones. Imo it mainly concerns the advanced nose cones and the C7 NCS tip. (Though without seeing them attached to rockets etc. it's hard to tell how good they'll look)
SpoilerAlso a Buran-style variant texture for the Mk3 spaceplane cockpit would be awesome
-
21 minutes ago, Dafni said:
I appreciate new additions like the next guy, but solving some of the underlying bugs and issues would go a long way too now.
After seeing a certain Youtube video which I'm sure most of us are familiar with, I can agree.
I'd be fine waiting a while without any new shiny stuff if they focused on fixing the game and the years of issues that have been slowly building.
-
56 minutes ago, Dr. Boo said:
They look good, but are these new textures requiring more memory? My memory usage and frame rate are bad enough as it is. Anything being done to actually make game more efficient in this regard?
From my (admittedly, fairly limited) understanding not much is being actively done about the games underlying memory issues (although I hope I'm wrong and something is being done).
Worst case scenario, you should be able to go through the files and delete any deprecated parts or any variant textures you don't want.
-
5 minutes ago, sh1pman said:
One of the very few “KSP loadings” NOT about part revamps, and we somehow got a multi-page argument about part revamps...
What’s even more unusual, this time it’s not @passinglurker is roasting the devs for how bad the revamps are.
I guess that's just taste for you.
When it comes to aesthetics everyone loves to talk about what style they prefer, down to tiny details, it's just human nature. Discussion isn't bad as long as we keep it civil, that way we can get stuff looking in such a way that it pleases the most people.
-
Here's my try at the challenge.
The Kerbal Space Program noted Space Express Airline's contract and decided to put forward it's current orbiter vehicle, the Learstar A1. As part of the Learstar Applications Programme, the A1 orbiters are being modified to undertake flights for third-party contractors. Space Express Airline's contract has been accepted as part of this programme, and so we proudly present the newly completed Learstar A1 S.E.A!
SpoilerThe spacecraft: Learstar A1 SEA "Constellation"
(USES MH FOR THE INFLATABLE AIRLOCK, NOT REQUIRED FOR VEHICLE FUNCTIONALITY)
Craft Information:
Cost:
129,615
Crew capacity: 12 (10 passengers and 2 pilots)
Monoprop: 435 units, LF: 16384 units, Oxidiser: 19910 units, Solid fuel: 10056 units, Total: 46,785 units
Total EC: 1150
Part clipping: Mild clipping for the inflatable airlock
CRAFT FILE: https://kerbalx.com/V7Aerospace/Learstar-A1-SEA
Action groups:
1. Retract elevons
2. Half elevon deploy
3. Full elevon deploy
4. AV-R8 winglet deploy
5. Toggle solar panels
6. Allow use of orbiter monoprop RCS (default is off)
10. Deploy all orbiter emergency chutes
ABORT - Detach orbiter from booster, fire all orbiter engines (excluding LF+OX launch engines, unless reserve fuel tank is unlocked) and deploy gear.
Detailed explanation of abort and landing modes:
Engine failure on pad: Engine fire up and launch clamp separation are in different stages, meaning launch can be aborted before launch clamps are released.
Failure in early flight: ABORT sequence is activated to separate orbiter from booster, at the best moment, action group 10 is activated to deploy all parachutes.
Failure in mid flight: ABORT is fired, and the orbiter can fly down to safety. If the orbiter is damaged and cannot fly, action group 10 is activated to deploy all parachutes.
Failure on sub-orbital trajectory: Abort to orbit can be attempted, but this is heavily dependant on remaining Delta V. Otherwise, ABORT (or standard) separation to detach from booster, and fly a ballistic re-entry to a landing point, or deploy parachutes for a damaged vehicle (or is otherwise unable to land safely).
Standard landing procedure: Re-enter and fly back to KSC runway.
Test Flight
SpoilerAfter launching, the orbiter coasts up to it's apoapsis, where it uses it's main engines to circularise. Booster is dropped to re-enter, burn is finished with monoprop OMS. A fair amount Delta V is still left on the booster, higher orbits could be acheived if needed.
Various correction burns are done to reach a circular orbit above 150km
In orbit, showing fuel levels
Cargo bay open, showing crew compartments, inflatable airlock for docking and EVAs, and at the bottom are the two reserve fuel tanks in case of emergency.
Re-entry trajectory
Re-entry, monoprop is spent, but is not required as the orbiter is stable
Final approach, jet engine is used to maintain flight speed
Touchdown! Safe landing after nearly a day in flight, and a photo of the full 12 Kerbal crew
Total units of fuel spent in flight: 46,512
Abort testing:
SpoilerEarly flight failure:
Mid flight failure:
And that's it! The Learstar A1 S.E.A is ready for full commercial flights.
-
Working on an entry right now
-
38 minutes ago, Flying dutchman said:
I also don't encourage you to build a shuttle style launcher because it wasn't what i had in mind for this challenge But maybe i should put in a separate categorie for them.
I think so, Shuttles make up a fairly large portion of the reusable spacecraft market
-
22 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:
Yes. Let's make a game where the difficulty curve is in reverse. Squad already did this with patched conics. Let's not make things worse.
Delta V calculation is completely new to me and many other players, lots of people have played the game for ages without it. Patched conics and flight path calculation are really quite vital to spaceflight, but Delta V calculation is much more of a comfort in my eyes.
As for a reverse difficulty curve, that's kinda how KSP career unlocks work. You start of with barely useful parts and resources, and get better parts and resources as you take on bigger challenges. I get what you mean, but those are just my 2 cents.
-
How will this feature be implemented in career?
Perhaps Delta V calculation is only available once the level 2 or 3 VAB (Or more suitable building) is unlocked?
I'd see it similarly to how upgrading mission control allows the use of flight planning.
-
32 minutes ago, PewPewTrash said:
@SQUADWill the kerbals be able to breath on places such as Eve? Where their is probably suitable air but might have harmful gases in it? What about Laythe?
I don't think so. Eve's atmosphere is over 100 degrees C at sea level, and most likely contains corrosive and toxic gases and vapours.
Laythe might, but it's likely that in addition to oxygen, there are toxic gases as well.
-
Looks like a new model for the LV909 shown there, with a quite nice looking emmisive texture to boot.
Plus a much better looking engine fairing.
-
Just now, Fyrem said:
in before post was finished? lol
It's quite.. minimalistic, yes.
-
7 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:
I can't see any of the old tanks on that rocket...those are just the new textures.
You're right.
Confirmed blind, I don't know how I missed that
-
37 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:
No, I think that's just a stock rocket and they haven't swapped out the old versions of the parts yet.
That's what I thought too, but according to Lupi, the old 1.25m fuel tanks are no longer in the files.
-
1 hour ago, Lupi said:
Not entirely true. The 1.25m rocket tanks were upgraded in place in 1.5. Other parts have received the same treatment, though it's not clear what the criteria are for "upgrade in palce" or "deprecate the old ones but leave them in the game"
True, maybe they've added the ability to switch between the old part designs and new ones.
It will remain a mystery it seems..
-
4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:
Interesting. maybe they put it back in as a variant. That Okto2 also looks more like the old texture than the new (though the image is grainy)
Curiouser and curiouser.
All the old parts are still in game. Looks like this is a stock rocket design, so they're all present (in the same way the Kerbal X still has the old 3 man pod)
As for the nose cone, either they manually replaced them on the rocket, or the old nose cone has been deleted entirely.
-
53 minutes ago, Tyko said:
Agreed that the Skipper was one of the best. I don't mind all the pipes being hidden and it kind of ties in with the fact the Kerbal engines are heavier and much more reliable than human engines.
Frankly, I'd be happy with many of the different aesthetics / art styles present in the various parts. The problem it's such a hodgepodge of mixed texture quality, art styles, different whites, etc! If they'd just pick one, call it the standard and update the parts to that standard I would have been fine. All I really want is to be able to slap a bunch of parts together and have the resulting craft look somewhat consistent.
Many of the people with more art/3D expertise than me hold Porkjet parts as the gold standard for stock-alike. I'm happy to bow to their greater wisdom. The Porkjet proposals for updated engines have more pipes / pumps than the old stock, but they don't overdo it either. A happy medium as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe a model revamp of the Skipper? A higher quality model and upgraded textures, but still keeping the same design. If this was done, we could have treatable sizes, I'd be imagining the standard 2.5m and a 1.85m variant without the base plate.
-
19 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:
I'm torn on the Skipper though... It's a pretty decent model, and I wouldn't mind it if it remained. But if it changed, then... *shrugs*
Honestly, to me the skipper is the best looking engine in-game.
Looks realistic enough while still keeping the Kerbal aesthetic. I like the MH engines, but it feels strange putting Human engines on Kerbal rockets. The KSP parts have their own identity that the MH parts can never compare to.
-
On the topic of new models for engines, we saw that the Spark's new model's nozzle will glow as it runs for a period of time. Will this be applied to the Poodle as well? As well as the engines from MH, which currently are missing nozzle glow (I realise that for certain engines, glowing nozzles are non realistic or unhistorical, but surely some of those from MH should glow?).
-
@Xurkitree not to be rude, but..
Doesn't the image of a poor Kerbal dabbing count as a crime against Kerbin?
..
-
36 minutes ago, Mr. Gonk said:
boii will you be making more of these? priceless for 3d modelling
I sure could, they take a while getting the white outlines but I'd be able to do more. I also recommend the Kronal Vessel Viewer mod if you haven't seen it already, which is what I've used to get detailed pics up close of parts.
Anything specific in mind?
-
Back after a long while. Starting to get back into KSP
Created some blueprints for Rockomax Skipper. Honestly I love the In-game model and kinda hope they don't change it.
Used KVV to get good photos around the engine in-game.
KSP Loading... A closer look into Update 1.6
in KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
Posted · Edited by V7 Aerospace
It's my understanding that different groups within SQUAD work on different things, which means that one group working on part redesigns doesn't really affect the group working on bug fixes.
From what I've gathered, the opinion on these new designs is fairly positive from the community. Of course there are issues, and many people including myself have voiced these in order to improve the end result, but I wouldn't just straight up say that SQUAD should completely give up on updating the game's look.
Deep down, nearly all of us are fond of the old part designs, I sorely miss the Mk1-2 Command Pod being the go-to 3 Kerbal pod, and even the old, silly-looking Poodle has some fans. In the end, these old designs have character and individuality that more realistic designs have a much harder time replicating, and you'll always have those who don't want to see the old parts go. Updating the look of the game has been something that's always happened, it's why we no longer fly rockets with green and grey fuel tanks, why the VAB is no longer white and red and why these revamps are being done right now.
At the end of the day it's all down to opinion, but I feel that the new LV909 design is nice, realistic and still has the spirit of the old engine with the bright yellow highlights. I agree that some of the parts feel too detailed or over-greebled, but I wouldn't make it out to be such a large issue as it appears in your reply (taking into account what you said about being angry though, which is fair enough).