andrew123

Still a prototype model of the M1A2 SEP V2. The CROWS needs a method of power regeneration (I'm still working on it) and the commander and loader need roof hatches. Same operating instructions as the K-9 Thunder applies to the M-1's vertical drive. -Notice: ensure that nothing is clipping into each other when staging. This shouldn't be an issue, but you should activate SAS before staging. Also, this thing is currently 500 parts and likely to get near 600 for the next revision, mostly due to all of the vertical drives. Also, activate the fuel cells on the rear of the Abrams to generate power. Also, although the Abrams turret is very stable, center it while rotating for the best results. I'll post an open picture of the XM1's turret later, but it's really stuffed. To operate the CROWS machine gun vertical drive, you must use yaw instead of pitch due to the core placement. The horizontal aspect on the CROWS is fully stabilized, and should stay put even as the turret moves if you have SAS on for the turret drive. Download: https://www.dropbox.com/s/35wtrww09n8rkw6/A%20M-1.craft?dl=0 A much older revision showing the old rear.

- Disclaimer: Right now, there are severe problems with its road worthiness and braking, but they'll be easy to work out. This is my first revision of the K-9 Thunder SPH with a stock vertical and horizontal turret drive system (The turret has smooth rotation, but the gun makes it slightly unbalanced and prone to occasional freezes). This vertical drive system is the first one I've tried on an armored vehicle. To use it, you must pull up at launch (after braking) to clear the gun barrel from the front gun holder and then stage the first stage (You'll know what I mean if you actually try out the craft). After that, you should stage the second stage. Do not too rapidly rotate the turret while the gun is elevated, or brake too quickly. To use the gun drive, switch to the gun and trim to full upward pitch. For an alternative use, you could just manually control it with the SAS system activated for stability, although watch out for the energy consumption. Download link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/foibhccn3rmwbax/A%20K-9%20Thunder%20A-3.craft?dl=0 A view of the elevation system. Prototype Alpha.

I like to think of the Zumwalt as the Seawolf of American destroyers: She's the limited production testbed for thew future staple technologies of our destroyers. Once we learn some lessons and things we can improve from operating the Zumwalt, we'll integrate them in a Zumwalt-lite, aka the Virginia of our surface fleet. Also, the Navy's attempting (kinda) to make these hulls last longer. The evidence is in the "modular" nature of the ship's computing architecture (it's using GE PPC7A, PPC7D, and IBM blade server computers stored in hardened containers) and the integrated power system. It should make it easier for them to "drop in" upgrades to the computers, install new EW suites, upgrade sensors, and upgrade the weapons to something more advanced. The new Gerald Ford class carriers are going the same route for hull lifespan expansion. Also, I found a fun issue that needs to be addressed: http://www.ceasefire.com/fire-suppression/fire-suppression-solutions-for-industrial-applications/ Apparently, the navy realized that halogen fire suppression systems for the Zumwalt's server and electricity rooms won't work in the event of a hull breach. At least it's a minor oversight in peacetime service.

It's a departure from my T-72, with the side fuel tanks and storage bins, smaller side plastic skirts, taller turret, laser ragefinder, machine gun tall mount, and the idling gear. It mounts a 14.5 mm machine gun on the commander's hatch. If the turret get stuck, just pull up a bit (the turret is slightly front heavy) or wiggle it. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob4lN3neyPI Download: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1wrshu6pa3cfqjy/A%20Chonma%20Ho%203_1.craft?dl=0

Her wave-cutting hull looks like a knife. Also, the DDG-1002 has been confirmed as the first USN destroyer slated to receive railguns in place of the AGS. http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=207006http://www.navy.mil/view_image.asp?id=207005 Video: http://www.tampabay.com/news/military/uss-zumwalt-largest-destroyer-built-for-navy-heads-out-for-sea-trials/2256806

Editing quotes? I see Big Brother's media department is working overtime. XD I kid, I kid. But I have a hunch the majority of players are male (though I also know a surprising number of female players). Perhaps it's due to the fact that most female players don't seem to use the forum.

:l I'll just express my opinion: The color scheme for this forum is rather ill though out (I'm sure the moderators are working to fix it), and xenforo, in my own experience, is a far superior platform. It has almost all of the features of our old forum, greater flexibility, better layout, and generally easier maintenance. (Again, this is only my personal experience. I'd like to hear of other experiences too.) However, these bugs are not uncommon for new forums, and if this platform turns out to be unworkable for whatever reason, they can just move to the new platform in the future. Can we all just relax and appreciate the fact that the forums haven't died like the countless other ones that refused to use supported platforms?

Behold! The bane of the capitalistic leeches, the T-72, has arrived! This tanks is pimped out with rubber side skirts, view ports, spaced armor, armored primary gunner's sight, convoy light, regular lights, infrared lights, and much more. It's armed with "smoke launchers" (just aesthetic). If the turret gets stuck, just wiggle around a little. XD Don't say it's a design flaw until you've tried to design something like this yourself. I've got a reworked turret and some upgraded track equipped variants in development. https://www.dropbox.com/s/hm34raxyaqeknom/A%20Pokpung-ho%20Prototype%204_1.craft?dl=0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8TCyszwyWE

[quote name='War Eagle 1']HOW? I can't get my subs to submerge[/QUOTE] Two words: more weight.

[quote name='zekes']I know for a fact my turrets require wobbling around (hitting all directions) to get them to un-stick sometimes, they go all the way around but just hitting rotate won't turn them, you have to kind of manhandle them around but they'll go 360 for sure. Just not smoothly.[/QUOTE] Only my heavy tanks require such improvised measures, same with your tanks. Smooth rotation is possible, but we sometimes don't have enough time to smooth it out before release. We have a lot of stuff in real life.

[quote name='Majorjim']That is all I want to do. Is show how to improve them massively. I have a video here showing the issue with the turrets. The last tank, the Panther has a turret bearing made by Jon144 and is clearly shown working. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGm8b68aG1E[/url] I will say, they all drive fine with care and with the turrets attached but all of them except Jon144s wobble around and can pop out when driving around detached. Zekes, by removing the broken turret mechanism you can massively reduce the part counts, along with the no offset limit mod. That or just replace all the broken turrets with Jon144s working turret bearing. I love the look of these tanks Zekes. Oh I tested the two launchers you have and they both worked as advertised. The 1000t launcher has 5 center engines that cut out after a few seconds. Given the sheer size and power of the launcher it probably makes little to no difference. MJ[/QUOTE] That's partly due to the extremely small profile and weight of the Panther turret compared to those on other tanks. You can't just rip off a bearing designed for a light turret and attach a heavy turret on it. :l Unless you want to completely redesign elements of the bearing and the whole turret, it's not as effective as a new bearing. I'm speaking from experience. The larger the turret's contact area with the tank's deck becomes (and as it becomes heavier), there is no way to prevent occasional "cook offs" (turrets popping of the tank), or even the occasional pause. I can mitigate it using more SAS and smoothing out the contacts, but not much else. Also, we all have space restrictions and dimensional requirements for quasi replicas. I'm still experimenting with other turret bearings to mitigate these issues. It's not easy to design them in KSP, as I'm sure you're well aware.

[quote name='Majorjim']The [B][I][SIZE=4]turrets[/SIZE][/I][/B] are broken man, the only one that worked had a turret made by someone else, Jon144. like I said I will make a video to show you, and seeing as the mechanisms for these broken turrets use a lot of parts, removing the turrets would make then actually enjoyable to drive around in. or just replace Zeke's non working turrets with Jon144's working one. It's a sensible solution. I will test his other craft too.[/QUOTE] The turrets on my tanks don't destroy their functionality. :l If it's a simple clipping issue, it should be a quick fix.

[quote name='Thingymajigy'][url]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/US_M18a1_claymore_mine.jpg[/url][/QUOTE] I prefer myself a bamboo pit covered with dead leaves. :P

[quote name='War Eagle 1']where is your 1.0.5 version of Mig-31 I want to test it against my latest project Callsign Skyfall[/QUOTE] Where's the Spectre then? :)

[quote name='selfish_meme']Updated for 1.05, see OP for changes.[/QUOTE] Mcarthur see Doge craft. Mcarthur say Doge die with Russian TEL S-300 VM. [img]http://i.imgur.com/eLyCZPm.png[/img] [img]http://i.imgur.com/4KuVSXp.png[/img] But in all seriousness, that is a nice trainer.

:l I think we can all do without the hostility. Also, TBH, I've never actually downloaded one of your tanks. :P I think it's time I take a real look. :) If I find that they're good (I most likely will) I'll report back with some positive comments.

[quote name='Red Iron Crown']What do you mean? That movie was based on an officer's real life experience with the procurement process in the US military (though it was a bit dramatized).[/QUOTE] I should rephrase it: it has certain "exaggerations." The actual testing wasn't [I]that[/I] twisted.

This video pretty much sums it up. It is not historically accurate. [video=youtube;pyakI9GeYRs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyakI9GeYRs[/video]

I build an armored deck stock supercarrier... [img]http://i.imgur.com/nmYtadF.png[/img] Barely 200 meter long back in 0.20. :( I guess it's time for me to make a hybrid carrier!

[quote name='9t3ndo']Working on a bit diffrent Shuttle [url]http://i64.tinypic.com/2n994d4.jpg[/url] [url]http://i66.tinypic.com/24czbjr.jpg[/url] [url]http://i66.tinypic.com/a08i9x.jpg[/url][/QUOTE] :D That looks a million times better than my old, terrible attempt at the Sabre. XD

3 light bars. :D Life is good... with calculus homework...

[quote name='Azimech']Very nice! Although the fins halfway ... can't remember seeing them in the schematic.[/QUOTE] It was to help with handling. I'm going to take them off to see how it performs. XD TBH, it's kinda hard to make workable submarines in KSP without deviating from the original a bit. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try it.

- WILL REPAIR WHEN I GET HOME - Mission Statement: To remain on the bleeding edge of stock technological advances, I will continue to nurture the forum's best innovators and engineers. I am a design and engineering company with a focus on high performance crafts for the public sector, private enterprise, and national defense programs. OLD OP - UNDER RENOVATION Craft Showcase: I-400 The Pompeii Class submarine. 484 parts 968.3 mT. I will add vehicles as produced Turtle Tank - A really old vehicle, ugly in retrospect Su-33 Mk KDX-III [imgur]z54Gl[/imgur] Dreadnaught EB-7 HellCarrier E-5 Demon E-5V Phoenix E-6 E-8 E-8A Introducing, the USAF F-15E Strike Eagle!

We're just migrating some stuff.

Some of us, myself included, are partially responsible for the destruction of rocket builders... (And yes, I'm sorry for that) However, removing it and merging it with spacecraft exchange won't change anything. For all of the old threads, I'm pretty sure we'll save all of the stuff worth saving.