Raptor9

Three more done. The EV-2C with the 'Thunder 4-1' launcher to LKO; with the 'Titan 1P' launcher to Munar orbit; and with the 'Titan 3P' launcher for Mun, Minmus or near-Kerbin asteroid rendezvous missions. Next up will be the EV-2C/Titan 3P launchers with the revised LV-2 series landers.

The reason I posted that bug report on the bugtracker is because the MEM pod breaks the consistency from the existing lander pods, in that the "sideways-looking" IVA view was always oriented down towards the Nadir side of the spacecraft. For players that have been playing long enough to instinctively recognize this when flying a lander from outside the cockpit, it can be somewhat unorthodox. Yes, if flying strictly off the navball, the proper axis response is apparent, but when you're trying to visually approach an LZ with a lander, a lot of players aren't staring at that, they're staring at the lander and the ground, and referencing the VSI and speed indicators. Now as a workaround, when I place a docking port on top of the MEM, I ensured it was rotated 180 degrees from the MEM's alignment, and I just click "Control From Here", which swaps my Navball alignment to where I have always expected it to be after playing KSP for over 5 years. To clarify, I didn't post that bug report for those players that strictly fly off the IVA (I'm not one of those players), but the inconsistent pitch response was best apparent when viewed from the IVA. Even flying from the "conventional" outside view, the fact that it breaks consistency from the rest of the pods is what can lead to confusion.

No camera trickery, it's essentially one giant craft. I just abused the offset tool to attach and then move all the different craft away from each other.

Jebediah never dies, he simply moves between KSP saves around the world. Kinda like how Santa Claus visits everyone in one night....Creepy? I know.

You'll never know. ____________________________________ EDIT: I also finished the graphics for my Voyager-inspired probe. I was just too tired last night to finish, but now it's out on KerbalX. I would like to note that this is NOT an orbital mission, it is strictly a fly-by and gravity-assist introductory probe. There will be several more brand new probes coming down the line that have increased delta-V reserves to capture into orbits of distant planets, so this probe (being a Voyager analogue) is a good way of learning interplanetary intercepts, gravity slingshots, and gravity brakes. Every time Matt Lowne goes to Jool in his youtube videos, he utilizes Tylo as a gravity-brake to enter the system, so that is a good source to reference the maneuver. Using Dmagic's Basic DeltaV modlet, I determined this craft had 534 m/s of dV; enough for course corrections or fine-tuning distant intercepts, but a far cry from substantial trajectory adjustments once inside the Joolian SOI.

A handful of more craft updates this evening/early morning. The A.K.O.S., 'NavComm', and 'KeoSat' Kerbin satellites all got a makeover, as well as the 'Prospector' and 'Surveyor'. In particular, the new 'Surveyor' (modeled after Lunar Orbiter 1), is a quadruple-capability satellite. It carries four science experiments, is capable of scanning terrain elevation/biomes, can scan for adequate ore concentrations, and also serves as a communications relay. The 'Watchtower' asteroid detection probe is also updated with the new 'Thunder' launcher. The newcomers are the 'Lantern' (inspired by the Soviet Luna 3 probe), and the Mun/Minmus Observing and Relay Satellite, or M.M.O.R.S. (modeled after the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter). These two have similar capabilities, with three science experiments each; however the MMORS can also serve as a comms relay. ...pending any grammatical or spelling corrections from @Jester Darrak. PS: Let me know your thoughts on the new 'Prospector' and how it looks...I've kinda gone back and forth with it's layout and appearance.

Three new craft files published today, along with two small updates. First, I updated the EV-2A 'Runabout'/LV-1A and EV-2A 'Runabout'/LV-1B craft files so that the LV-1 landers draw monopropellant from the EV-2A service modules first, therefore the landers' RCS will have full reserves when undocking for the descent to the Munar surface. A small but important detail. Second, the rest of the LV-1 'Frog' family is now released, completing the expanded lander series. The LV-1S Munar shelter, the LV-1C Munar taxi, and the LV-1U & LV-1H outpost landers round out a lot of the lunar surface concepts I wanted to emulate from the Apollo Applications Program. There are some obvious small differences, in that the real-life "LEM Taxi" wasn't a single-stage lander, nor was there any ISRU propellant generation in the proposals, along with some others. But the over-arching concept remains the same to establish a long-term moon outpost using Apollo-era technology and hardware. There are some more Apollo Applications concepts I want to work on in the future, including releasing my updated "Skylab" analogue, but those are going to the back burner until I get more existing craft updated. Among those are a dedicated 'Olympus' cargo rocket family based on real-world historical proposals to build more powerful Saturn rocket derivatives. The LV-1S and LV-1C download links are located in the VAB>Exploration Vehicles section below the existing LV-1A/B links. The LV-1U & LV-1H download link is in the VAB>Lander Vehicles section.

@ShadowGoat, I'm fairly disheartened at your treatment of the thread's poster. @Orbiter Space Program joined the forums merely 2 weeks ago, and you've filled his thread with nothing but discouragement. Being "bored" is not a valid reason to jump onto someone's posting methods or habits, or troll their thread. If the thread needs policing, I'm confident the moderators will do their job and police it. Can we please get back to the broader KSP Forum practice of encouraging people? The OP has already stated he intends to provide images at a later date when he isn't focused on real-life school work. Let's move on please.

Ok seriously? This is still a thing? Does anyone understand that all this "information that they collect" has been given freely by "you", the consumer, and is required to conduct basic on-line commerce?? You want to buy KSP from the KSP store, or on Steam? You have to pay for it, right? How would you accomplish this? This involves providing your name, address, sometimes your phone number, and your payment method, whether it be a credit/debit card, or PayPal information. This information is used to not only verify your billing address with your bank/financial institution, but also to prevent fraud and abuse, which is also why your IP address is recorded. Sometimes, depending on your bank's fraud prevention practices or your individual account policy, you may get a call from your card company's fraud prevention services if you fly across the country and use your card. It was used at one location in New York, and 8 hours later it was used at an ATM (which has it's own IP address) in Los Angeles. *Ring Ring*, credit card company is calling to check in. Some online games are rated Mature for example, so you will need to provide your age to purchase. Some surveys ask for your gender; your online profile has a block to fill in your date of birth or gaming computer specs; and to receive a weekly newsletter you need to provide your email address. You don't want online websites/services to have all this information? Don't give it. Steam, Origin, UPlay, whatever you use; nobody is forcing you to subscribe to newsletters, fill out online profiles to connect with your friends, complete surveys, etc. You are choosing to perform these actions of your own free will. And when you do this, the companies that own these services will contract market research businesses to collect, aggregate, and analyze all this information that all these consumers are putting online, for the sole purpose of improving their business model, produce more attractive products/services, and generate future business. How do you think Google and other various services are able to tailor suggested YouTube videos, search results, and product ads targeted toward your preferences and habits? They're watching/recording/using what you search for, stream, and buy on the internet from your various devices. Welcome to the digital age! I apologize for the strongly-worded and long-winded rant (it's not aimed at any one user specifically), but I just can't wrap my head around how everyone views Squad/Take-Two as this evil menace that is hijacking their personal identities for nefarious purposes, when 1) This is the same EULA that everyone blindly signs for other games; 2) so many people freely give all this personal information already without a second thought, like on social media; and 3) a lot of this is already a matter of public record simply by having a mailing address, phone number, internet service provider, or even a birth certificate.

Pretty much. I just use ore tanks since the mass can be fine-tuned. If the payload can just barely make it to 200x200km Kerbin orbit, than that payload mass is the posted payload rating. If it has plenty of fuel left, I add more ore and test again. If it doesn't make it, I reduce the ore load and test again.

Very little. The Vernor thrusters on the first stage have been removed since their limited use didn't justify their cost IMO. And the LITE upper stage's Poodle engine will be replaced with the new RE-J10 Wolfhound. The payload rating has been increased from 25 to 30 tons for LKO insertions, and the payload rating has doubled from 5 to 10 tons for delivery to low Munar orbit and then returning the LITE to an 80km LKO. Afraid not. This may change down the road when I start operations in/around Laythe, but at this time no. LF+O-based systems are the focus of my ISRU/Depot architectures, so nukes aren't part of it. Not to say that I've eliminated their use entirely, I still keep a few reusable EV-4's around, in fact I'm thinking of retrofitting one of them into an Ike space station. My recommendation is to use the HLV-5B, with only a little oxidizer loaded (maybe 25%?), and transport a full liquid fuel load to orbit that way. Possibly? I haven't really given it much thought. At this point in time, I don't have many plans for the 5m parts outside of Saturn rocket-inspired designs. But that's because I'm focused on upgrading my existing craft files before I dive into those. There are a lot of things I want to finish designing and publish first, like the EV-7, the rest of the EV-6 kits I had sitting on the shelf, my probe/sat revamp project I need to do graphics for, etc. I will say there is a 3.75m NITE-based depot, the PD-1080 'Dromedary', on that list of craft files to publish; similar to how the PD-32 and PD-64 'Camel Hump' depots were based on the LITE.

Kronal Vessel Viewer generates craft renders from the VAB/SPH, and places them in your Screenshots folder in KSP. I just copy the renders onto a template I made from scratch on Microsoft Paint, and edit everything as necessary. When I started the graphics a few years ago, I intended them to be like blueprints; but I thought the full color renders looked better than the skeleton outlines I originally played around with, so I kept the dark blue background and turned the graphics into brochure-style prints instead. _____________________________________ EDIT: 'Thunder 3' and 'Thunder 4' series rockets updated on KerbalX

Because the scale was too far off for me to use it in the manner I had in mind. The MEM is quite small compared to the Mk1-3 capsule, which in itself is perfectly fine, but when I started building the descent module, that's when the small size really hampered the "look" of the lander. The descent module had to be big enough to accommodate multiple variants and equipment loadouts in the side equipment bays, which would have made the descent module ridiculously big compared to the MEM ascent module. One of the main pieces of equipment needed to "ride along" with the descent stage was the rover. Now imagine how much bigger the rover would have been had I elected to use the Apollo LRV-inspired wheels from the DLC. The rover would have been larger in width than the MEM itself, not to mention the even larger size of the descent module needed to accommodate such a large rover. In the image below, you can see how big the real Apollo lander's ascent module was in relation to the rest of the spacecraft, including it's descent module. And keep in mind the lunar rover would have been folded up inside one of the four equipment bays in the side of the descent module. Personally, I would have preferred the MEM to be much larger for proper relative scale, and the LRV wheels much smaller, but these are the parts we have. My designs have always prioritized function over appearance, and in this case, I decided to "dress up" the Mk2 lander can like the Apollo LEM for use instead.

Believe me, this wasn't a decision I came to quickly or easily. This was something I gave considerable thought. In the end, it came down to how much time and effort I was willing or able to dedicate to KSP (including actually playing the game). Real-life commitments are always a consideration.

By "stock" I assume you're referring to craft files that do not include DLC parts? I'm afraid not. I had 205 craft/subassembly files on my KerbalX account, and the last thing I want do is maintain duplicates. In the future that could lead to confusion when trying to download the appropriate craft files that are intended to work together, then you add the fact that most of them include depreciated parts. It just increases the amount of maintenance and sorting I would have to do, and I don't want to deal with it.

That's some serious attention to detail right there. I'll correct it, it should be OKTO.

Ok, here we go. The first 1.4 craft files are published on KerbalX. The initial list, current at the time of this post, is below: - EV-1A 'Skiff'-Arrow 1 (1.4.3 update/revision, Mercury/Redstone)- EV-1A 'Skiff'-Arrow 3 (1.4.3 update/revision, Mercury/Atlas)- EV-1B 'Skiff'-Javelin 3 (NEW, Gemini program)- 'Skiff Sail'-Thunder 1 (NEW, Gemini/Centaur proposal for circumlunar flights)- 'Kerbin Orbiting Laboratory'-Thunder 1B (1.4.3 update/revision, Gemini/Manned Orbiting Laboratory)- EV-2A 'Runabout'-Olympus 1 (1.4.3 update/revision, Apollo/Saturn 1B)- EV-2A 'Runabout'-Olympus 2 (1.4.3 update/revision, Apollo 8 Moon orbital mission with some personal rocket redesigning inspired by Eyes Turned Skyward)- EV-2A 'Runabout'-Olympus 5 with LV-1A/B landers (1.4.3 update/revision, Apollo Moon landing missions) Some key sample graphics of the more prominent craft revisons, to include the new Gemini-inspired craft, are below. As you can see, due to the obvious scale differences of the Making History DLC Munar Excursion Module, I elected to keep the legacy Mk2 lander can on the LV-1 'Frog', modified to have more of the Apollo lineage. The MEM would have been just too small and out of proportion compared to the descent module for what I had planned. I would also like to note that the 'Kerbin Orbiting Laboratory' (previously known as the EV-1C) has been moved to the Space Stations section in the OP. The next on my list are the rest of the Apollo Applications-inspired LV-1 'Frog' family of landers, and getting the existing Rocket Market launchers updated. I still need to do updated payload testing to see where their current payload ratings are after their revisions. After that, it will be the rest of the EV-2 series, including the EV-2B, EV-2C, EV-2L, and accompanying LV-2 landers.

Well I'm sure most rocket launch pads aren't dead-on the cardinal directions either, but then again Kerbin doesn't have axial tilt like the Earth does either. Regardless, if your rocket has roll authority, just execute a roll program after launch to get aligned in the desired attitude like a lot of real-life rockets do too.

Ha ha, I'm not going to get into a pizza debate; I'm sure that would devolve into a New York-sized sauce-slinging contest in itself, worthy of it's own thread that would require heavy moderation. However I will say that pizza ingredients go into a clearly defined order, and the sauce does NOT go on top.

There are some jokes being played here between a few of the forum users. KSP has no dependencies on any mods. Just some half-witted banter.

Sweet, pizza for dinner AND @SQUAD updated KSP. Also, anybody notice these new forum emoticons?!

I apologize, after re-reading the ascent profile, you are correct; it's not worded very well when to switch to closed-cycle. It should say something like this: "After the engines automatically switch to Closed-Cycle Mode, lock SAS mode to Prograde to minimize drag profile". You shouldn't need to do anything on the ascent in regards to engine switching, assuming the rest of the profile is adhered to. The rest of the ascent profile should still work since I've performed that same profile in 1.3.1. I'll add this to my list of many things to revise on the graphics as I update everything.

In the OP of this thread, there is a Categorized Bulk Downloads Section that includes links to KerbalX hangers that allow you to download groups of craft files. If you want EVERYTHING, download the VAB, SPH, and Subassemby hangers that are bolded and italicized at the bottom of the table list. The reason I kept these separate is because it's easier to keep the respective folders separated for easier installation into your KSP directory. ___________________________________ Having said that, now that Kronal Vessel Viewer is updated (big thanks to @linuxgurugamer's & @Kerbas_ad_astra's relentless efforts), I'm currently generating graphics for my 1.4.x craft file updates and revisions. The priority at the moment is to update existing craft files, but some brand new craft designs will be coming out very soon. Unfortunately, I will also be removing a few craft files from my catalog. The primary reasons for any craft removals include redundancy, less-than-satisfactory performance (in my opinion), or me simply learning to hate them and no longer wanting to deal with them. Already identified for removal within the coming weeks: - SVR-23A & SVR-23B 'Raven' vertically-launched spaceplanes - MPC-L and MCR utility rovers The MCR is extremely impractical, and the MPC-L is fairly redundant after further testing. For example, the amount of resources it would take to place the Mobile Comms Rover onto a planetary body is much greater and logistically silly compared to simply placing a similarly-capable comms relay satellite in orbit. Likewise, designing a rover or base module with more thought to power supply negates the need to land an MPC-L rover to provide a small, however mobile, boost to solar power generation. In fact, I've taken a much more in-depth look at how I was managing both my communications as well as my satellites and probes. During my probe/satellite revamp project, I not only ensured the devices could physically perform their mission at their destination, but that they could (if a player desires) relay ALL of their science data back through the comm network. For example, the Gravioli detector requires a significant increase in power reserves to relay a measurement compared to the thermometer. Another example that I wasn't aware of until a player reported the issue was not having enough power to complete an orbital resource survey of larger planets such as Kerbin or Eve. Therefore, communications and power have become their own separate testing categories prior to publishing a craft file. A good number of craft files, while not being removed outright, will drastically change in appearance, functionality, and overall design. The best example of this is the currently designated LV-3D and LV-3E Duna landers. Not only have these landers been completely rebuilt from the ground up to be more accurate in both appearance and function compared to their real-life inspirations (as pictured below), but they have been re-designated as well to reflect their change in mission scope. More on this later. Boeing's Mars Crew Lander/Ascent Vehicle (left) and pre-staged habitation lander (right)

Took it for another test drive. Looks like KVV is now fully operational. All buttons, sliders, and settings appear to be in working order. Thanks again @linuxgurugamer and @Kerbas_ad_astra.

I'm afraid there is no change for me. To be sure, I redownloaded ClickThrough and Toolbar controller along with the latest version of KVV. Logfile attached below. The logfile is from my 1.4.1 install, but just to be sure, I tried it again in 1.4.2. Same results. Respectfully.