Raptor9

Nice. One thing I've been thinking about doing is a series of roll on/roll-off expeditionary modules for cargo planes built with the Mk3 cargo bays/ramp. These pieces of equipment would be designed strictly for utility purposes, allowing you to set up "bush airfields" around Kerbin. The idea is sort of applying a depot-based space infrastructure to the Kerbin surface. This would allow you to set up a network of refueling sites around Kerbin, enabling refueling of aircraft to support survey contracts, biome data-mining, manual search & rescue of Kerbalnauts, or simply for the purpose of it in itself. From a personal gameplay perspective, the convenience of operating around Kerbin would be offset by the challenge of locating suitable landing sites that are both long and flat enough, and located on an adequate concentration of ore for ISRU refining of liquid fuel. A few example modules I can think of that would be interesting to set up (besides the ISRU/refueling equipment) would be a deployable air traffic control tower, a small shelter/lounge building, and a deployable aircraft shelter that would hopefully be big enough to park a C7 120 or 140 sized aircraft underneath. I'm always looking for ways to incentivize my gameplay around Kerbin, and this sounds like something I'd be motivated to work on. However, I'm not gonna tackle it until I get the M3V project done.

I've tried it myself, but I didn't care for the looks, or the way the exhaust appeared to come out. But I think it's a decent stock way of simulating a prop-inspired plane in KSP, short of mods or making stock propellers using colliders/reaction wheels.

Side distraction today. I was doing the revised LV-3D/E tests in 1.3.1 when I ended up reading about the F-82 "Twin Mustang". As an aerospace junkie, I can't believe I had never heard of it. At first glance, it looked like simply a prototype aircraft, but after reading about it, the F-82 was a fully operational long-range, day/night fighter. It was deployed in various locations in the United States for the post-World War 2 air defense mission, with other notable deployments to Panama, Alaska, and Japan. In fact, according to Wikipedia, the first three North Korean aircraft shot down by US forces during the outset of the Korean war were shot down by F-82's operating out of Japan. Further, the F-82 played a key role in the Alaska region during the late 40's and early 50's due to the fact that contemporary jet fighters at the time lacked the range necessary to perform the missions of that theater. As a result, I built an F-82-inspired derivative from my C7 120 'Swift'. The C7 124 'Skua', with external fuel tanks, has the second longest range of any other aircraft in my catalog, surpassed only by the X-9/SR-9 'Banshee'. Practical uses include long-range science survey missions on other continents from the KSC, or as a support aircraft for search-and-rescue operations if your gameplay includes such missions. Available for download in the SPH>C7 Aerospace-Series section of the OP.

Ha ha, yeah, that's why I use two Rockomax X200-16 fuel tanks instead of a single X200-32 in some craft. The -16's are more white-ish to match a lot of the crewed parts and Kerbodyne tanks, whereas the -32's are much more gray.

I'll throw that into my short list of candidates for consideration. Yeah, 1.3.0 drove me nuts with that bug.

@Nertea, those are really impressive. I'm no modder, so I won't be using these obviously; but besides helping other modders speed things along, this really demonstrates how much design and artwork is required to build an IVA. My hat's off to ya.

YES!

You don't need the drag if you have a longer shallow-er entry, giving the craft more time to bleed off speed. The lander doesn't use a fairing anywhere on the craft, nor is it entering from interplanetary speeds. It's staged from an established Duna orbit, to preclude the requirement of a heatshield, or other more aggressive decel equipment, like spamming drogue/parachutes. I would disagree, solely based on our different build styles. Like I said in my previous comment, I've tried the technique of making fuselage bodies using radiator panels, and it's too much of a problem in my opinion to warrant their use. Not to mention the part count issue again, which is a huge consideration for me considering the mission architecture it's designed to fit within. Fortunately, I also have a new LV-4 model coming out that is an SSTO as well, but is simpler in use for those not wanting to deal with the additional challenge of the lander above. It uses the standard teardrop capsule shape like the Mars Excursion Module for deceleration, and a drogue-assisted retro-propulsive. But as soon as it enters the atmo, it's ballistic trajectory is commited, whereas the cross-range capabilities of the other one we're talking about (I really should name it already) allows greater flexibility to hit the target LZ.

@Majorjim!, the portion you quoted was regarding the layout of the airframe and the center-of-lift calculations in the stock aero model. Since I'm not using FAR (nor do I intend to), concessions had to be made, since there would be virtually no body lift generated by the forward fuselage components. I remember, but you're comparing apples and oranges. The constellation-style landers jettisoned those fairings prior to touchdown, and the whole lander didn't have to return to orbit. The Lockheed-inspired lander is an SSTO, and while the additional drag would help with slowing down during the EDL sequence, it would also hinder the return to orbit significantly. As an experiment, I once tried modifying my LV-3D ascent stage with radiator panels as body panels instead of the one-piece fuel tanks on the booster portion. The additional drag caused by the panels and smaller fuel tanks they enclosed resulted in the ascent vehicle coming nowhere close to achieving orbit; even with a thin atmosphere like Duna's. Yes, there could be other ways of compensating for this, but then the other problem you would run into is part count. This craft has to operate in vicinity of an orbital station or interplanetary ship, and/or land near a surface base. By piece-mealing a fuselage together to shroud a series of smaller fuel tanks inside would drive up the part count significantly, and I don't like my KSP playing like a slow-motion replay. It's very easy to let part count creep up on you when you are designing a series of individual craft that will end up working together within render/physics range.

Love it @Nertea, thanks for the preview!

@Kartaugh, welcome to the forums. If you open the craft file in Notepad and edit the version number from 1.3.1 to 1.3.0, they should work just fine. However, there is one significant caveat: any craft that was affected by 1.3.0 bugs will still be bugged. The most significant of which is any struts or fuel lines enclosed by fairings will result in explosions or disassemblies on the launch pad.

For anyone that saw the Lockheed Martin presentation at the 68th International Aeronautical Conference a couple weeks ago, not only did they go into further details about their Mars Base Camp concept, but they also provided specifics about their reusable SSTO lander, beyond concept images. The idea would be to use this craft to make several trips to the surface, refueling the lander at the orbiting laboratory between sorties. (They start talking about the lander at 35:00) I've been trying to create such a vehicle myself since I saw the initial images, but the nature of the entry into the thin atmosphere of Duna makes aerodynamic braking difficult with such an airframe layout in KSP, plus trying to recreate the general layout of the craft with what is available in the stock part selection. In the graphic below, and during the presentation, they referenced that a lot of the ships systems would be derived from Orion, and the airframe materials and design would also be influenced by their experience with the SR-71. So instead of trying to make a lander look like their concept and then try to get it to work, I decided to flip the process around and do the opposite. I took my EV-2L 'Runabout', gutted some of the existing components I wouldn't need, added certain components like different engines, landing gear, a dedicated service bay to shroud utilities; and then added aerodynamic surfaces and such. The result not only looks better, but also actually works. I already completed a test deorbit, landing, and relaunch back to Duna orbit, with fuel to spare. During entry into the upper atmosphere, I kept the nose around 70-80 deg angle-of-attack, using as much surface area as I could to aerobrake. As I got into the lower atmosphere and the RCS thrusters couldn't keep the nose up, I lowered the AoA to around 15-25 degs. This caused the trajectory to flatten out so I could sort of glide/coast the rest of the way to the targeted landing site, further bleeding off airspeed to about 250m/s and around 3000m AGL before flipping the nose around to propulsively retrofire to the final vertical touchdown. Don't have the exact numbers for the airspeed and altitude that I began to initiate the flip, there was a rapid series of action groups and control/throttle inputs to re-orient the lander without losing control. But if aerodynamic drag is used to bleed off a lot of the velocity to a slow enough speed that you can flip around, then there is plenty of delta-V remaining to ascend back to a higher orbit than my existing Duna ascent vehicles. Plus, like the Lockheed concept, you could also use this lander's delta-V reserves for other places like the Mun, Ike, or Dres. Despite being more limited in versatility than the EV-2L or the SLV-M, this lander should compliment the slowly-expanding M3V architecture quite nicely. ______________________________ EDIT: This is pretty much what the trajectory looks like if referenced from the "Atmo" indicator gauge in the KSP UI. What's nice about the intermediate phase using aerodynamic braking/gliding, you can tweak the trajectory toward the landing zone just like a shuttle by adjusting the pitch attitude and Angle-of-Attack to play with lift and drag. FULL DISCLOSURE: There is a single "Wing Connector Type A" part clipped into the center of the craft to compensate for the lack of proper lifting body attributes. The Lockheed lander's lifting body shape is so unique that there really isn't anyway to recreate it unless you make the lander really big, and I didn't want to have a high part count analogue pieced together like a wing component mosaic. While it goes against my building style, I think it's an acceptable compromise to imitate the functionality and entry sequence of the real-life concept.

@Beetlecat, glad you got it sorted . ______________________________ I guess I'll take this opportunity to give an update on designs. The most recent thing to bring up would be all craft files and subassemblies in the catalog, save two, are updated to 1.3.1.There have been some craft that haven't changed at all like the SPH craft, some that have changed minimally like the EV-4 or Rocket Market, and others that have been heavily revised like the LV-4A or ATSV. One of the final two craft that were updated to 1.3.1 along with some revisions yesterday were the SM-H1 and SM-PL+H station module subassemblies. Unlike the other station modules that share the same graphic as the SM-H1 and SM-PL+H, these two were not capable of performing their own rendezvous and docking maneuvers. I decided to change that. The SM-H1, modeled after the Kvant-1 module from the Mir space station, was a fairly simple upgrade in that I simply added a QBE probe core, a spare battery, and monoprop thrusters. The SM-PL+H however, was almost completely redesigned to reflect the most current diagrams for the NEM Science and Power Module for Russia's proposed OPSEK space station. Along with the probe core guidance, a full RCS and propulsion system was added, power and propellant storage, and a dedicated communications system. Since this new version provided pretty much everything that a lab module, habitation module, and a utilities module provided, it was re-designated SM-PLHU. Truthfully, this one module could act as a small space station by itself, albeit one limited to a single docking port. But as a single module station, you only really need one. Next on my list, before I pivot back to M3V, is reviewing my Satellites & Probes Market. Some of these were built shortly after CommNet was added to KSP, and I really didn't have a complete grasp on the game mechanics of the comms system. As such, I'll be looking for capability gaps where new satellites can be added and existing satellites revised as needed.

@eloquentJane ninja'ed me. I just did a test run to LKO to include several undocking/redocking maneuvers from the EV-2C just to make sure. Otherwise, @Beetlecat, I'm glad your enjoying the craft file use.

@Nertea, I just wanted to say that for a long time, the Near Future mod packs were what I was most excited about out of all your various mod collections. But in recent weeks, I've been looking forward to the SSPX revamp more than anything else. Some excellent and quality work you've been showing in this thread. (not that your others weren't quality work )

1) Squad didn't make the console version, which was already pointed out. They contracted another company to do it. 2) Regardless of how much involvement Squad had in the console release, they're human too. People and businesses make decisions. When things don't work out, you deal with it the best you can with the resources you have. You don't just quit, and you don't crucify people for mistakes, you should praise the fact they didn't cut bait and go home. 3) Maybe because they decided to persist through the "crisis" instead of cutting their losses and abandoning the console community. (Regardless of how that community feels about the long, long wait for the new console release, they have NOT been abandoned) 4) If you read about the origins of KSP and then compare it to it's success and amount of sales (at one point it was among the best sellers on Steam), I would hardly call it a "non-blockbuster". 5) This is potential for a cherry-picking argument, but this thread has already derailed quite a bit. TL;DR: KSP is just a game. It's a game with a large, dedicated following, yes; but it's still just a game.

Awesome! Thanks @linuxgurugamer!

Hi @asparagus stagings is ugly, welcome to the forums. I'm assuming you're referring to the one on the first page of the thread? I'm afraid not. That was from years ago when the J-33 engines were a lot more powerful, and the craft itself used previous iterations of Infernal Robotics and Nertea's Mk IV Spaceplane Parts. Both of those mods are still around, but are different than the version displayed in the screenshot. ____________________________________ EDIT: I've taken advantage of the new "Control From Here" action group command to allow players to more easily control the ER-4 'Mole' Duna exploration rover throughout it's mission. There will be three commands occupying action groups [8], [9], and [0]. [8] will give the player proper control during launch & orbital maneuvers, [9] will give the player proper control for the Skycrane, and [0] will ensure proper orientation for rover control on the surface. Additionally, I've mapped the rover brakes to action group [6] so that when the player releases the ER-4 rover from the Skycrane, the brakes will toggle to prevent any initial surface movement. I'll be adding a similar action group set-up for the HLV-6A 'Warthog' Duna lander to ensure proper control axes throughout it's mission profile as well. Also on the items accomplished for today, is most craft and subassemblies updated to 1.3.1 (3 remain as I tweak/revise them), and a new scanning probe available, pictured below. I've ran multiple test flights, each was able to insert the 'Watchtower' into a near-Eve solar orbit utilizing only the rocket and payload stage. That leaves plenty of delta-V available for orbital adjustments if necessary using the ion engine.

It's something I've done to my 'Javelin', 'Thunder' and 'Lightning' rockets this summer: added a structural "boat-tail" piece using the respective manufacturers' parts. The technique of using the Rockomax Brand Adapter on a Mainsail isn't new, I've seen them used before when people have made Delta IV Heavy replicas. I just saw it as unnecessary at the time. However, when I was trying to revamp the 'Thunder' family to be closer to the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets, I looked at the cost and delta-V impacts to adding them. The costs aren't bad (500 for the Rockomax adapter and 150 for the Jeb's Junkyard adapter), and the delta-V impacts were anywhere between 15 and 25 m/s if I remember correctly. Pretty much negligible in my opinion.

Oh I'm not any better. If you were to scroll through my craft listing, the vast majority of my craft are either designed to be operated in the Kerbin SOI, or are just a bunch of station subassemblies (nothing fancy there). It is a lot harder to finish a project when it consists of a number of craft that are all part of an interplanetary expedition. You make a change to one piece, and depending on what that change is, it could impact all the rest. I remember when I would consider a bunch of single-purpose modules designed to work together a big project. With M3V however, it's kind of like a "Voltron" concept or the Power Ranger "Zords". Each craft can operate independently, but can be pieced together in various combinations to form something else. The EV-2L configuration is an EV-2 'Runabout' capsule docked to the front of a LITE reusable upper stage. Each half can operate independently, however, and can be reconfigured on the fly. Dock the EV-2 capsule to an SLV-M and it is now a crewed lander for low-grav moons like Minmus. It's definitely gotten me to think outside the box. I force myself to look a craft and say "now how can I turn this orbital vehicle into a lander?", or "how can this interplanetary ship be turned into a surface base?". Some of these things I would have never even considered a few months ago.

@katateochi, wanted to follow up with you to report the two issues I reported on the previous page are no longer present. Thanks!

The past couple weeks I've been extremely busy with real-life stuff, but I've managed to sneak a few new craft out the door onto KerbalX, as well as some updated craft files. The list of existing, updated craft are as follows (so far): - 'Javelin' light launcher family - 'Thunder' medium launcher family (to include the republished 'Thunder 4' series), and the 'Lightning' medium launcher - 'Titan' heavy launcher family - All CisMunar Economy-related craft files to include the HLV-5 lander family, HLV-5C cargo rack launcher, and PD-32/64 orbital propellant depots - IV-1 'Meerkat' ISRU rig family (IV-1C is redesignated as IV-1D)- EV-1A and EV-1B (Javelin 3 launcher) New craft available are listed below:- IV-1C 'Meerkat' variant optimized for Minmus ISRU operations (hence why the existing IV-1C for Duna was re-named IV-1D) - HLV-5D 'Porpoise' monopropellant transport variant- EV-2L 'Runabout' crew vehicle, which adds a more versatile crew transport for the CisMunar Economy- SLV-M 'Tender' service/lander vehicle, which adds a dedicated monopropellant transport for the CisMunar Economy- EV-5 'Drifter' Block 2; and associated component lifters, the first craft specifically designed for Eve missions. I'd also like to clarify that the EV-2L and SLV-M are the second and third M3V-rated craft to be published. Technically the 'Titan 4N' was the first, although the M3V project didn't exist in it's current form back in February.

Sounds like you're not utilizing the "Control From Here" commands. After dropping off the rover, right-click on the QBE core on the rover itself and click Control From Here. This will reorient the Navball to the proper control axis to drive, instead of being focused on the sky. Not sure why the Skycrane is so hard to control for you, it's actually rather easy (assuming you're not trying to perform acrobatics). Ensure the reaction wheel is turned on, which is more than enough; RCS isn't needed. I've done plenty of tests in Sandbox as well as utilizing this craft in my career. I wouldn't put something on KerbalX if it wasn't thoroughly tested and used already by myself.

Ah, yeah, I'm on Google Chrome, so maybe the issue is only with that.

@katateochi, I'm experiencing two issues on the site. 1) When updating craft through the EDIT CRAFT page, when the new window pops up asking YES or NO to update the craft, when I select YES nothing happens. I tried waiting for a minute, and then refreshing the page, but the updated date doesn't change in the top left corner. If I upload a craft that replaces an existing craft file of the same name, that update method works fine. 2) Whenever I'm logged in and try to go to My Hangers, it returns a 500 error code...primary buffer panel again. Someone needs to check those panel welds. We appreciate the continued hard work.