Raptor9

@Jester Darrak, and anyone else that's interested of course, below is the graphic that will correspond with Group 1 of the 'Thunder' rocket family. Since these haven't been released yet, performance data has been redacted. The far right screenshot at the bottom is an image of the new 'Thunder 2' upper stage, contract-produced by Jeb's Junkyard & Spaceship Parts Co. (and inspired by the ULA Centaur upper stage). The 'Thunder 3' configurations are meant to be analogous to ULA's Atlas V. The 'KeoSat', having the stronger RA-2 dish, has the longest range.

The 'Lightning' hasn't changed much in outward appearance, but when i get home from work tonight I'll put up some images of the new 'Thunder' rocket configurations and upper stage.

@Skylon pretty much nailed it on the head on both points. These craft are designed with specific mission sets in mind. When comparing the EV-2A's and EV-2C's delta-V requirements for a Munar landing mission, the EV-2A needs the additional propellant for the Munar insertion braking burn. In the case of an EV-2C mission, the 'Titan 2P' (modeled after the SLS EUS) provides the insertion burn before jettison. The EV-2C only needs to perform orbital adjustments and the return trip to Kerbin. The EV-2B is based on the CST-100, and as such is meant to be a relatively cheap taxi to LKO space stations (which is why it doesn't even have a dedicated comm device). Having said all that, when I get home from work today I'm gonna look at swapping out the radial monopropellant tanks for those FL-series (since they do hold more; 80 vs 60 units). I'm not gonna cut the monopropellant amount however; 240 units in 4x radial mono tanks was already fairly low by my standards. EDIT: I've removed the 4 radial RCS tanks from the service module, and instead replaced them with 4 FL-R10 fuel tanks and additional LF+O tankage. This gives the EV-2C an increase of ~150m/s delta-V and 80 additional units of monopropellant. Thanks for the suggested alternative @Jester Darrak. I know it's not exactly what you had proposed, but I'd call 150m/s more delta-V and a slightly larger reserve of monoprop for the cost of 4 additional parts a win. I'm hoping the 1.875m parts in the DLC will give me the option to make one large LF+O tank to trim that part count significantly without a hit to performance, but it's still way too early to be making plans around that.

I hear ya. I just came off a 3.5 month break from KSP. Definitely feel the creative thoughts flowing again though. Sometimes you just have to put the mouse down.

Another awesome video @Cupcake.... I love how you always use parts for other visuals, like the antennas and seismometers for fishing poles and beer soda cans. No idea how you turned the mini drill into a pogo stick, lol. My favorite part was knocking the debris over with the engine plume. Question: which visual mod gives Minmus that greenish gaseous look around the surface?

@Nertea, you never fail to impress. Nice! [Insert GIF of man in nicely-tailored suit and an eye-monocle clapping his appreciation]

Yes...if nothing else for referring to himself in the third person.

Some nice flying there @Cupcake..., despite the reportedly high number of takes.

I prefer to load a rover into a long-range plane, land near the border of several biomes, kick out the rover, go do it's thing, return to plane, find another area of multiple biomes, rinse, repeat, etc. Coincidentally, that's exactly what I originally designed the ATSV for. Which reminds me, I need to make another version of it powered by fuel cells...(*sigh* So much to do)

They're not uploaded yet, I'm waiting for 1.3.1 to drop to fix a couple bugs with struts. The 'Thunder'/'Lightning' series are my favorite too. With the new update, I'll be expanding the 'Thunder' rocket family from 5 configurations to 9. The rather heavy RE-I5 Skipper-powered upper stage on the 'Thunder 3' has been replaced with a modest upper stage closer in comparison with ULA's Centaur. These additional configurations will hopefully provide a more tailored launch selection for whatever payload mass you're wanting to launch to orbit; and they are more analogous to their real-life Atlas V and Delta IV inspirations.

@HvP, thanks for bringing back those nightmares...

As the PSA states on the OP, I'm still doing some light experimenting and tweaking of some craft files while I wait for the 1.3.1 patch. The main focus is the never-ending effort to reduce part counts and costs. The latest version of the 'Lightning' rocket (inspired by ULA's Vulcan/ACES), has a reduction of 9 parts and nearly a ton of dry mass from the LITE reusable upper stage. This will equate to better performance for use in the CisMunar space economy, and the overall cost of the 'Lightning' rocket itself has been reduced by over 10,000 funds. The 'Thunder' rocket family is also undergoing some tweaking to squeeze out more performance gains. It's my goal to hopefully shift some payloads (ie IV-1 'Meerkat' series) to the single-core 'Thunder' & 'Lightning' rockets from the SLS-inspired 'Titan' family, which are twice as expensive. Other craft that have seen slight improvements are the EV-1B 'Skiff' (better launch performance), and the CST-100 inspired EV-2B 'Runabout' (reduced part count; important for servicing high part count ISS-type space stations). I'm also interested in some feedback from users of the LV-2D 'Cricket' reusable singe-stage lander. The existing version of the 'Cricket' is designed to depart from an orbiting space station in low Munar orbit, land on the Mun, and then return to the station before exhausting its monopropellant fuel supply. To attain maximum performance from it's propellant reservoir, I tightly packed (not-clipped) inside the lower fuselage 8x Stratus-V Cylindrified mono tanks around two FL-R25 core tanks, plus 4x externally mounted Stratus-V Roundified mono tanks. This arrangement resulted in some nice aesthetics and enough performance to make large inclination changes pre-landing and post-ascent, but refueling the lander is a bit of a pain with so many tanks inside of the lander. I've tested a new version of the lander that has replaced tank arrangement in the lower fuselage with a single FL-R1 2.5m monopropellant tank, and added two additional externally-mounted Stratus-V Roundified tanks. The result is an LV-2D that is lower in part count and much easier to refuel, but with a slash to it's delta-V budget due to reduced propellant capacity. Landing to Munar equatorial regions is still possible (assuming the station staging orbit is prograde and equatorial of course), but large inclination changes to reach higher latitudes isn't possible unless a disposable descent booster is brought along for each landing attempt. So let me know what you guys and gals think about it. Existing LV-2D Pros: Large delta-V, more landing sites in reach from staging orbit Existing LV-2D Cons: Higher part count, tedious/time-consuming to refuel after each landing New LV-2D Pros: Lower part count (11), easy to refuel after each landing New LV-2D Cons: Less delta-V (~400 m/s), limited landing site selection, disposable descent booster is required for non-equatorial landing sites (resulting in higher costs and less than 100% reusability)

Nice idea. If there is one thing NFT and @Nertea's other related mods needs, it's more publicity.

I agree on both points. 1) Parts, specifically parts that permit - More surface base parts in the form of bases and EVA's - More structural and orbital parts for more station and large orbital vessel variety - Hinges, servos and such for designing custom-built ramps or doors for deploying rovers and other equipment to a surface 2) Expanded EVA functionality like what KIS/KAS adds 3) More planets or more interesting planets or more interesting surface EVA activities on existing planets 4) Part upgrades and/or switching logic in the nature of selectable variants of the same fuel tank part. - Example: Take an FL-T400 fuel tank and be able to switch between a couple different skins/stats on the tweakables menu. The existing texture would be heavier in mass but stronger for higher G's like rocket launchers or Eve landers. Another texture that looks like the shiny gold of vacuum-only tanks on probes or landers; it would be more expensive, lighter in mass but would be relatively weak in strength like for zero-G operations or low-gravity landings on Mun-type locations. A sort of thing that allows you to keep the same size and type of part fuel tank, but allows you to trade mass vs structural integrity to save on either cost or mass.

@Nertea, those new solar panels are really cool, and the new textures and updated IVA's for the NF Spacecraft look really sharp. All your work is impressive, but I wanted to say thanks for the IVA work in particular since we know that's something you don't like dealing with one bit. My favorite features are the hanging tablet-looking displays in the PPD-1 cockpit.

Gorgeous.

@katateochi, I have either a question or a bug report (depending on your response ) I was making a few more hangers for mass downloads, and I noticed that KerbalX doesn't seem to like the "+" sign. One of my craft, the 'Titan 4C+' is in my "VAB (Raptor9)" hanger, but when I was doing a test download, the craft isn't included in the zip file; however it's sister rocket 'Titan 4C' is. The reason I think it's the "+" sign is because a few of the craft that have it in their craft file titles have it omitted after download (ie 'EV-3 Hab+Lab' or 'EV-4 Hab+Lab Mk1' become 'EV-3 HabLab' and 'EV-4 HabLab Mk1') I have no idea if this is a limitation of the website software or not, but figured I'd bring it up. Thanks.

@kbz, hello and welcome to the forums. EDIT: Also to everyone else. I finally made dedicated mass download hanger links on KerbalX for my SPH, VAB, and Subassembly folders. (I forgot I hadn't done that yet ) These three zip downloads will give you all of my published craft files pre-sorted for the appropriate save game sub-folders. *The one caveat I have is the 'Titan 4C+' will not be included in either the VAB or the Rocket Market zip downloads. This one will need to be downloaded manually from its craft page. Will report back if a solution is found. ____________________________ I would also like to thank the users that have recently, and in the past, identified problems with my craft. I can only test these craft so much from my standard design approaches, so the feedback I receive only helps to improve my own techniques. Since all these craft are used in my own KSP gameplay (not just showroom candy) you're helping me out in my career save. Even if the issue isn't related to the craft design itself, please keep constructive feedback coming. I may not always implement your suggestions, but they do provide a broader perspective of gameplay beyond my narrow scope.

This is all your fault. I'm laughing imagining the various possible reactions @Vanamonde might be having after reading this.

This was a quote from @5thHorseman last October: "so that you don't go from 0g to a full 1g in a single frame when you load a ship. I don't know if it's just for the launch pad or counts ships landed on other planets. In the past, that sort of thing could destroy a ship. It's a toggle because in rare cases, easing in gravity can be worse for a ship than snapping it on. I've never encountered one of these cases so can't give any details, but I've heard others say it." I too have encountered cases in that were favorable for one or the other. Generally I leave it on, unless I'm encountering something that's causing joint failures or a part's G-force limits (also a toggle-able feature) to be exceeded. I bring this up because I'd hate for other things in your save (like surface bases) to get messed up after switching this off. Just some food for thought to keep in the back of your mind as you continue to play. Don't want to be the advice-giver that creates more problems than solutions for you.

Do you have "Ease in Gravity" in the settings enabled? If so, try turning it off and see if that helps.

Do you have any mods installed? I haven't had any such issues. I plan on revising/updating most of my Station Module subassemblies (not to mention a number of other craft). This will include additional modules that I was prototyping in my 1.2.2 career save, some of which are used to build that station. However, I'm kind of taking a hiatus from KSP to avoid getting burned out, which is why I haven't finished some of the utility aircraft I was talking about recently. I do occasionally boot it up to tinker with a few ideas, but I'm trying to avoid it for the time being.

I'm afraid not, whenever I save a craft as a subassembly, I always need to "re-draw" the struts because they disappear. Just one of those KSP-isms we have to live with AFAIK. On a related note, when adjusting the endpoints of struts it plays havoc with the rest of the struts placed when using symmetry.

As a general rule, I consider the use of reaction wheels outside of station stabilization and small sats/probes as "cheaty" since KSP RW's are overpowered IMO. Mind you, that is entirely my own subjective view. I endeavor to include an abundance of monopropellant in ships like the EV-3, -4, and -5 for this very reason. Specifically which craft were you using?

I use Microsoft Paint for all the editing. It's not fancy by any measure, but it works. An FAQ section is a good idea, I'll add that this weekend. In other news, for those of you not aware of the recent update to the KerbalX site, there is now a bulk download option for all craft that are within a hanger. Below is a quote from the KerbalX thread: There are a number of my craft already sorted into applicable hangers, like the EV-4 MEV component lifters, but quite a few are not. This weekend I'll be coming up with a categorized hanger list on the KerbalX site, with links to each hanger on the thread OP. We'll see how it comes together, but it will take a little time to ensure all craft are appropriately categorized. I appreciate everyone's patience, and please send some kudos @katateochi's way for his hard work. EDIT: Categorized hangers have been set up on KerbalX, with associated links in this thread's OP. Don't worry, I'll be adding an ALL CRAFT hanger download link soon, since I ended up setting up 18 categories for download.