Araym

+1 Vote and immediately what I thougth about so "orthodox realism criticism" about a fun game about little green men going space from their tiny planet!!! But could I add a note on that advice??? "If you do not like KSP as it is not realistic, go there too"

I like the change on the Vector: 1.1.3 one is pretty heavy (considering Squad balance the thrust directly making the engine heavier). For Shuttle replicas (a single, long, Mk3 cargo, as Inigma's one), I always found them making the back too heavy at 4 tons (x3= 12 tons), ending my shuttle always dragged "tail first" by the sheer weight of them. Casually, I always "edited" an engine (duplicating the part as new one) as "Light Vector" at 3/4 of its stats, casually at 750kn of thrust (like the above), 3 tons engine, as it was pretty good as "shuttle engine" with the appropriate stack of SRBs to cope with the diminished thrust at launch. I'm not worried by making it (in the "standard" and "boattail" version) a 2.5m engine, as there will be always the "surface mounted" one like now (and, differently like now, it is no more considered a 1.25m engine, as weight and performance are NOT of that class) For the TwinBoar, up to now (aside from aestetic point of view) I always found him pretty overshadowed by other engines, counting it has a tank already joined toit, diminishing the use as a "pure engine": a "buff" of its characteristics stay well with this downside (used as a booster or in very specific designs, when any other engine could used in many different combinations). I like the Mammoth to be more like a 4xVector (more or less) engine block, making it a good comparison with the future STS rocket that will use Shuttle engines in real life Overall, even if some engine will loose some of their actual performances, if the plans are to give us for all of them a "surface mounted" version, I think we could gain a lot more of engineering possibilities: like said, it will be possible to stack in "smaller places" more engine than now (just considering how difficoult was, for example, to stack side by side actual Mainsail eben in a 3.75m stack, having that big base as mounting point). Obviously, we need more infos about their weights: will a "boat-tail" version (less draggy) weight as a "standard" one, or it will weight slightly more (as it has more structural part to shield it)? Will a "surface attaccable" one weight less compared to the other two version, even if probably more draggy to compensate? Will have weight based on "structural construction of an engine", rather (like now) simply tonnage numbers based on the pure thrust value of them? As pointed above, I "edited" a copy of the Vector just to have a visual shuttle-alike engine, rather, as like the Inigma's Shuttle that teached me how to balance it, a 3x Skipper, visually "bigger" and "bulkier", but way less heavy and powerfull enough to do a "shuttle engine job", as Thrust/mass proportion were more convenient and gives better balance (during gliding reentry) on any "standard" shuttle I build.

The one I used for the Saturn I-C? It was an old IVA for the first release of Tantares ATV (the "Capella"), but now not more availabe in latest release (when the "Capella" model was reworked as unmanned, when previously had even space for kerbals and windows for them). Actually I forget in which one the swap occurred, as I have a folder for "my edits" that I move from a KSP release to another (it includes old Beale's Salyut, Vostok, TKS, Gemini IVAs: even if they are outdated and not well detailed, they still fit in the latest one - if adapted -, as now, if IVA overlay is activated and it is present the Squad's "Placeholder" IVA, this one creates a big series of black squares all around the parts)

I tried, but sadly FASA's internal for LEM has so many function related to the part from FASA itself that I could think only of problems... ... BUT if you like an internal for BDB LEM, just look at SXT Lack Stock Extension : it has an internal for its own MEM. The model itself from SXT is pretty broken (I advice to NOT use it, as I tried to adapt before Cobalt release and I found a dangerosu issue when going EVA in 1.1.3, that shot/kill/explode your kerbal), but the IVA fit nicely and it's already set as working inside BDB's LEM cfg by Cobalt, JSO, and Venomous as "default" for the moment as INTERNAL (and it works without any "offset" adjustment, differently as the mentioned CM internal I had to "tweak"). Just drop it in any folder inside Gamedata one, in your game, if you are not willing to use the whole SXT pack (inside the BDB "Spaces" folder should do the trick, for example)

Look at the above post of mine (or the Imgur link down here, that showing my Saturn I-C) and you can see THAT IVA already used by me Adapted with the indication I posted some month ago, it fits enough decently. Are You Happy now, Cobby???? Saturn M-02 + "Block IV" (sort off)!!! Saturn I-C and M-02 show!!! Yes... I'm bored to death, untill 1.2 will be as stable released and all plugin I'm using will be updated...

Oh... well... I'm not very well informed to "ETS" rocket's capability (rather than real life one: I'm still informing myself on that topic): I just added a random "orbital module" to it, just to show.... Also, I had to tweak and fight a lot with flight profile, as the S-IV-B in my tweaks is REALLY underperforming: on staging/activation, rougly at 18-19km altitude, it had only a TWR at 0.7 with the above payload, and I had TWR >1 only so late in the flight that I had a near "abort to lack of thrust", going back from 60-62 Ap to 52km altitude, before gaining again altitude and barelly reach an unstable 63x120km orbit, just making the extraction of the orbital module during the upward leg before the 120km apoapsis (circulization was then done by the CSM). I was ispired by this: http://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/attachments/transposition-jpg.202926/ as a Block III+, but then I ended realizing more something like a Block IV So... YES: I should have launch the above stack using the Saturn Multibody M02 (I have it too, from "Real Scale Boosters")...

Oh God... ... it's so difficoult to share it, as it involves so many mods, editing, personal MM patches and single parts that the only solution to share it will be pack my whole "Gamedata" folder and, then, maybe, the craft itself. (Sometime I do a MM patch, but sometime I directly rewrite cfg on stock and modded parts, if easier to me to achieve the needed function, to "balance" - to my liking- them in the whole: I'm not really playing KSP, but a "different game" that only uses KSP as game engine. You could call it "ASP": Araym's Space Program ... or - as I did in my frozen "comic", "Araym's Kerbal Administration of Space Adventures") By memory, just for that craft, it is involved (aside probably personal MM cfg and/or single edited parts): Tweakscale Tantares a "stock version" (made by me) of some parts from RSS mod "RealScaleBoosters" BDB (some hardcoded, edited parts too here) random bits taken for the whole 7GB (GigaBytes!!!!) of my Gamedata folder Also, I dunno if I could "release" any of them in public form, as in "private" I could mess with them freely, but "licences" and "legal stuffs" could bring (with ALL the reasons of this world) Moderators to lock them... EDIT: ... and by the way, ALL my efforts are now basically locked by the near end of KSP 1.1.3, where all the parts are related, waiting a stable 1.2 release to "rewrite" all my Gamedata folder to be compatible to the next 1.2 KSP release (hopefully when plugins will be updated)

... aside from some images in game, you can look at the "Bluedog Design Bureau Manual" linked on the first post, to have an idea of all the craft possible to be built (aside the Saturn/Sarnus and Apollo/Kane, still in development). There are so many parts, actually, that is almost impossible to show ALL the possibilities, variations or crossbreeding from real life to totally finctional rockets (basically, by the time, Cobalt, JSO and Venomous have developed more parts than Squad itself ): Vanguard Redstone and variations Jupiter/Juno early USA probes and related equipments Atlas (from early variations to the Atlas V) Thor, Thor-Able, Deltas up to Delta II Titan (from Titan I to Titan IV with solid boosters) with Transtage Diamant Agena upper stages Centaur upper stages Mercury Gemini and Gemini-M.O.L. now Apollo, LM, Saturn I/Saturn I-B and (still in development) Saturn V ... basically, you can mention any USA/NASA rocket (and the baguette... ehm... french one as the Diamant) up to the Saturn period, and you find here what you could search

... as soon in 1.1.3 was possible to visualize the IVA from outside any craft, I scavenged any possible mod I saved from the past, to have some sort of cabin in any crewed parts. For the Kane-Apollo CM, from an old mod left opensource by the autor. Istruction to how implement it here in an old post of mine: ... for the Tantares "Polaris/Fuji orbital module", it's an old IVA made by Beale too (Tantares author) for a manned ATV that he removed in latest releases (I have it saved in my pc, basically as ANY mod I liked and downloaded from KSP 0.14/0.15, but I don't know if there is an on-line version still available).

Meeeee toooooooo about a Saturn I-C Teasing us is bad... so (waiting for a stable KSP 1.2) I did just a cross-breeding in 1.1.3 of some BD Apollo parts, my "placeholders" from "RealScaleBoosters" (edited by me to work in a stock enviroment), a bit of Tantares and some cfg editing, ispired too by "Eyes Turned Skyward":

... except russian (not particulary interested), I basically still have anything I used from t.3 to t.8 from Japan, USA and Germany (uhm... actually in the german I saved only the latest tier 7 and 8) so pay attention you too: I have a pretty big fleet to hunt not only a DD, but also a BB......... EDIT: ... yeah yeah... it's not a WoW forum here, so let the "threats" go there

OOhhhhh... another "WoW sailor"???? ... if you are casually passing by on EU server, search "CapitanoAraym"... Maybe I can shot you... erhm... say "hi" to you, waiting a stable release (and the tons of updated mods I'm using...)

Question: once the stable-official 1.2 release would be out, will we have a new patcher file from 1.2-prerelease to the final 1.2 version, or will we need to patch it from a previous 1.1.3/1.0.5 version???

My kerbalized K-14 "TomKat": 89 parts (drop tanks included)... ... with already working moving wings (Infernal Robotic required MANDATORY, or craft will not work) For some more images (and istructions to how operate the wings): http://imgur.com/a/XqZNf Craft: K-14 B "TomKat" Development History: ... probably my "oldest" plane still converted and adapted to the latest KSP version since 0.90, and proudly capable to go up to the pole and back from KSC (NOT all the time in afterburner mode, or you fall short on the return leg: advice to use the "wet mode" only for half of the flight time) Action groups: 1- Switch between engines "wet" and "dry" mode (gimbal is disabled by default at SPH) 2- Toggle engine 3- Toggle landing/take off flaps 4- Toggle Airbrakes 0- Toggle ladder Usage: Take Off speed (full wing extended, flap down): ~80 m/s or above (very responsive plane: it should not crash any engine on take off, but be careful) Safe Landing speed (full wing extended, flap down): from 110 to 75 m/s (but it can sustain even faster landing) Stall speed: untested, but it is capable to go "a lot slower" than the nominal take off speed, with full extended flaps and wings. Speed: at hi altitude, probably 2+ mach in afterburner. (I forgot the best speed it could go, but it's pretty fast) Drop tanks should empty by themselves before main tanks fuel is needed. Stage them once used. Drop tanks hardpoints could be used (if disabling the decoupler on the SPH) as mounting points for BDArmory weapons (ventral one could be erased, to add F-14's "AIM-54 Phoenix" missiles).

Well said, my young Padawan: patience... ... probably not worth to download a pre-release, just to settle with some of the first updated mods, and then threw them directly to the recycler bin, as in a couple of weeks will come release 1.2... then bug-fix 1.2.1 to fix some stock antenna ranges... then... uhm... a jump to 1.2.5, with improved something... All the above passages with total, different, uncompatible mod releases... LOL Araym ... fellow "Master Jedi kerbonaut" from... uhm... "Sunday Punch" pack... was it for 0.14??? 0.15??? What is it the older version of KSP??? I missed just the "first" one (that should be 0.13...) I'm basically so old that I already lost my memory (... it's probably first symptoms of Alzheimer, as "old" I am... )

Nooooooooo!!!! I have my game full to the brim with mods... I just built/redone TODAY my 1.1.3 shuttle (from various mods, mostly OPT and Mk.3 Expansion, some models of shuttle SRB taken from a Real Solar System Mod tweaked by me to stock, plus a bit of tweakscale here and there) putting a whole, new, effort to add a "lifting body feature" under the Mk.3 cargobay... ... I tested it multiple time, to achieve the best result to balance its flight characteristics, achieving the "42 fuel pod tons payload" in 300x300 km orbit... ... I was planning then a lot of new things and then.... YOU! I hope my modded game could handle this, because it's another addition I MUST HAVE... ç_ç

For better figures, more thecnical, a couple of posts before yours, there is Rune's ones, discussing the same matter for another design based only on LV-N, with far more detailed numbers. Mix in both considerations. There is not an "ideal configuration", aside from those specific for "a specific mission": where are you going? how many Dv i need? how much time I have to do the most critical burn? (Example: if you go to Moho, you should add, aside the raw Dv number, the need of a fast capture burn - the most critical one - because the small SOI of the planet and generally an higher differential of speed to compensate... if you go to Duna, Jool or Eve, you are more worried about total Dv to reach them and return, rather than a fast capture one, as you can use aerobraking...) how much dead weight i need to bring with me? (Monolithic ship, or tankage that could be left -jettisoned- once spent? How much fuel needed? Additional equipment needed - thermal panel for LV-N, or the same weight in simple LF+Ox for chemical rocket -? Any Life Support mod or simply stock behaviour?) Specific related scenario (take off from Eve? Aerospike shines... landing-taking off from Tylo? High TWR for powered descent and take off...) Until you have not some problem related to "game physics" (... a far too big ship for your pc to handle, or structural problems to keep ot together during launch from Kerbin) as soon you fulfill the Dv needed, any engine that bring your kerbals where you like to go is good. Sometime, after all the thecnical numbers, we make also some choices based on pure, simple, designs: a Skoda is a "car"... a Ferrari is a "car"... both have the same, basic, priciples on their functions: an engine, 4 wheels, brakes, gears, etc etc... you can drive both with the same license... obviously, design-wise, and in prestations-costs, they are "a lot" different, and gives to any driver very, distinctive, different "sensations"

Rougly, after the nuclear engine (the best ISP for vacuum), for "capital ships" not meant to return on Kerbin, if not after "a long stay" in space, the "second best" engine ISP wise is just the LV-909 (in proportion of fuel load/dV). Mainly difference is "the style" about your ship: if you plan to need less than 5-6000 m/s Dv, a group of LV909s have a better TWR (it means very shorter burn by an evident margin) in comparison to the LV-N, even with a slight loss of Dv (without the heavy mass that a nuclear LV-N comes, in balance, so for lower Dv it a detrimental factor: 2-2.5 tons more of dead weight) ... For any above 5-6000 m/s Dv, it comes the great use of LV-N or an "Hybrid", with main nuclear propulsion, but some LV909 to use sometime, to shorten "critical burns" (example: you could wait 10-20-30 minutes burn, outbound from a planet SOI in an interplanetary travel to another planet, on LV-N only; but maybe you cannot wait that time in a capture burn, arriving, so you add some raw power from the LV-909) A nuclear ship need also different fuel: only "liquid fuel", so you can just add a specific quantity of "oxidizer" for critical moments, shaving off it for the most time when you do not needed it (on a ship programmed to have to store a lot of Dv, where the mass of an LV-N vanish in the more fuel mass carrier, you can have more "actively used mass x second" - rougly doubled than a tipical LF+Ox ship-) With LV-N you should also add more dead weight: thermal panels, to lower nuclear engine's temperature when used, so they are generally viable only to really big ships. Yours is not "very small" considering the effort to take off from Kerbin like a rocket, but once in space, judging it a ~100 tons, it falls still under the "medium-small" of interplanetary vessel. I saw things that were build in space, by docking, that had modules on the 100 tons range but DRY, that needed then, after assembly, multiple (x10 or more times) of the same mass as "fuel", sent to them by "tanker" rockets. LV-909 should be still in its good spot, for your creation.

... the 6x science lab IVA (just for the seat: you could left other stats unchanged) is a nice addition to the stock IVA for a lot of crewed modules. I had a MM patch added to my game, to activate it, from ages: @INTERNAL[Mobile_Processing_Lab_Int] { MODULE { name = InternalSeat seatTransformName = Seat_UpLeft portraitCameraName = Camera_UpLeft allowCrewHelmet = false } MODULE { name = InternalSeat seatTransformName = Seat_UpRight portraitCameraName = Camera_UpRight allowCrewHelmet = false } MODULE { name = InternalSeat seatTransformName = Seat_BackLeft portraitCameraName = Camera_BackLeft allowCrewHelmet = false } MODULE { name = InternalSeat seatTransformName = Seat_BackRight portraitCameraName = Camera_BackRight allowCrewHelmet = false } } It's not so intrusive, as the stock Lab will still act as a 2x crew part, but allow to use the IVA up to 6x

My pleasure...

Me toooo me toooo... slurp! I wanna joint your space program too!! <Araym jumping and waving his hand!>

KSP 1.1.3 "issue" with wheels, pending (probably) the solution with the upcoming KSP 1.2: to avoid wheels/craft parts explosion when moving, in previous versions (after KSP turned to Unity 5), if a wheel collider intersect another part's collider, it blocked itself. (Not a bug, but a "lock" implemented by Squad, in meanwhile the solution will come out with 1.2) Workaround? Offset-move the wheels until it cannot cross any part and sometime "other parts" have invisible, bigger colliders than the real models shown visible, so you could find still weird behaviours/locks, even if during building the craft nothing touches any wheel. You need a lot of testing sometime even with simpler crafts untill you find the sweet spot...

Between 1.0.5 and now, I had trouble to still play in a 32 bit KSP version... Now, with september or october, I'll be looking to translate from an old 2008 17' laptop with brocken keybord (patched by an USB one for desktop computers), brocken speakers (patched by an USB pair), brocken touchpad (patched by an USB mouse) to a brand new desktop (already planned with drawing board and properly amount of hardware dedicated to drawing and editing, as need it for working...) I cannot keep going with this "block of junk" I still using LOL But also, there were too many KSP version in between, mostly notable the 64bit one: I started to enjoy, again, multi-mods in a stable version, finally!!!! ... probably as "Soon™" I'll have the new pc... ... hopefully with the "bug fixed" KSP v. 1.2 (for the "wheels", mostly): not worth to do it still in 1.1.3, to then switch again another version and waiting for plugins update, as the actual is going to have already its time counted...

Simply BRILLIANT! The Seal is probably the one I like the best!!! (... could eventually "adopt him", ppuuuuuurr-etty pleeeeeease - purring like a kitty-cat, eventually for some personal variations???? *_*)... ... but, as remembering a bit of latin from hi-school (... a LOT of time ago...), should the "motto" be "EX Kerbin ad astra per calamitatis"?

Back in 1983-'84, I was 6-7 years old (YES! 1976's class here... ) ... and I had already my game for playing "space" (in a bit of Christmas and Birtday presents slowly piled up during years, because probably I was 4-5 years old when I started with the first one...): - Mobile Tracking Station - One Man Ship - Rocket Launch Pad - Space Cruiser and Moon Base (This was pure joy: a BIG ship, with the back that could split as cargo doors, lowering a ramp able to accomodate the small rover shown in the picture) - Beta I Command Base (... after years, was needed a better settlement on the Moon for my Lego astronauts: the last "loan" that my parents and relatives had to open to PAY all of this... LOL ) ... and then, after only have seen "white" and "red" Lego Astronauts... - SPACE DART I (YES! Probably the first iteration of "Benny", the blue Lego Astronaut from "Lego The Movie") ... so, obviously, what "flag" could I choose now, more or less 33 years after, still playing with THEM (I have still the whole collection, at 40 years old) but also, playing Kerbal Space Program??? I have to look no further than this: The first flag I used in KSP, since it was introduced the feature: (from the first Lego set I had, dated 1979) The second one: (from the 80's version of the Lego Space set flag, that added different features to the "moon" logo, like craters, and a bit more "shuttle-alike" shape for the red ship, as the first spaceshuttle started to fly, a bit photoshopped with my "nick" addition and "flag-like" wrinckles and shadows...) The latest iteration, more "a roundel flag" than a full one, more heavilly photoshopped, ispired by the NASA "Meatball" logo, with stars on the blue (I alternate the #2 and this #3, actually playing now, based on mood )