Raptor9

If you're referring to plane/spaceplane landing gear than I believe it may be an issue of weight-bearing capacity. Not sure what landing gear you're using, but some of my heavier fighter planes like my Su-35 and F-15-sized aircraft had to have their main landing gear upgraded one notch. As I pulled back on the stick, the rear tailplanes pushed the tail down, which initially compressed the rear landing gear, causing them to fail if I pulled the nose up aggressively enough. Since upgrading the the gear, haven't had any issues.

So far, since 1.1, 1.1.1, and 1.1.2 have dropped, I've successfully updated and re-published 20 craft files and 21 subassemblies to KerbalX, all now to 1.1.2 currency. I decided to take a break from the latest round of updates to publish something new I developed late in the 1.0.5 game. Going along with my Apollo-era craft analogues such as the EV-2A 'Runabout' crew vehicles and LV-1 'Frog' landers, the 'Sky Lab' single-launch space station is obviously derived from the real-life "Skylab" launched in 1973 with left-over Saturn rocket hardware. Now available for download on KerbalX, direct link is on the OP in the VAB drop-down section.

EDIT: Apparently KSP 1.1.2 released this morning fixed the 1.1.1 wobble.

For whom this may concern, I'm updating my craft one by one to KSP 1.1. I'm trying to equally divide up my work between SPH and VAB craft files, however I am sorry to say that I will not be updating any of my landers until the landing leg bug is fixed. This in my opinion is a significant enough issue to not waste time playing around with it. I may release updates to my v1.0.5 Mun-bound 'Titan 5' rockets this week though. I've overhauled the LV-1 'Frog' landers a little, so I'm probably going to push new 1.0.5 craft out for those this weekend. For the most up-to-date list of 1.1 updated craft files, reference the SPH/VAB directories on the OP, or the most recent update list at the bottom of the OP.

I'm experiencing the same thing as @LaytheDragon & @JimTheDog. I'm currently running KSP Win v1.1.0.1230. It is quite troubling.

I like that Badger ATV by @ScriptKitt3h. Looks like something that could be airdropped for fun...I mean science surveys...around Kerbin

Like the MX-5 Miata of your dropships

That screenshot is desktop wallpaper material there. Awesome!

I don't use mechjeb so I'm afraid I can't help you there. Are you placing the nose "watermark" on 15 degrees or the flight path vector? The nose should be what's placed at 15 degrees; placing the flight path vector at 15 degrees above the horizon will put the SR-19 into a slightly steeper climb than optimal. To make sure, I just took the SR-19B for a test sortie (in KSP 1.0.5) and I went supersonic just over a minute after leaving the runway. I chose the B-model since the crew cabin is heavier than the A-model's cargo bay, unless you put something really heavy in the SR-19A's cargo bay like a full ore tank or a bunch of metal girders. Also, I don't use FAR or NEAR aero models, and these craft files are untested in KSP 1.1 pre-release. Not sure if any of this applies to you, just trying to think of possible causes why you would be getting different performance. I will say the SR-19's will be getting tweaked somewhat after 1.1 is officially out of experimentals/pre-release. I want to squeeze a little more performance out of them for an increase of in-orbit delta-V. As it stands, they're only able to rendezvous with low orbiting space stations or place payloads in low-orbits, and only after careful rendezvous/orbital adjustments. They're right on that line of being non-useful. The first thing to go will be those radial monoprop tanks mounted inboard of the engine nacelles. They're the biggest sources of drag in the transonic to high supersonic speed regions. I may publish a new model in 1.0.5 if I can get them to my liking, but I'm pretty busy with real-life stuff at the moment.

@Nertea is like Tony Stark...he has projects upon projects. He tinkers. He builds.

Posted this in last week devnotes...but I think it applies even more to this thread right now.

This & This ^^^

Working on an alternative LV-3 Ascent Stage. This one is a little more akin to the proposed Altair LSAM ascent stage. Compared to the existing LV-3 Ascent Stage, this one carries one less Kerbal, and requires a pilot Kerbal since it doesn't have an integrated probe core. I don't see these as disadvantages however, since my existing EV-2 orbiters only carry three Kerbals anyway, and I try to stay away from using too much probe core tech. I don't want to make my pilot Kerbals irrelevant. EDIT: oh and this alternative design is one less part than the current one...that should help with framerates

It is against the rules, and there is no role-playing here.

Yeah, because running the SOI gauntlet to get to Laythe isn't hard enough. (No snark there by the way, I actually want the same thing)

I'm not going to argue with you. And by the way, careful 'engineering' is how I described my 24-77 engine placement/thrust limiting, and component placement according to mass. My CoM definitely does travel, a lot compared to other landers I've made. But I've been able to mitigate this issue by routing a few fuel lines here and there, and by finding a happy medium in my CoT. As it stands, during the initial descent, my CoM is aft of my CoT. By the time I've landed, it's traveled forward of the CoM. But the control authority is within acceptable margins. And I completely understand how to balance landers/VTOLs in the manner you described. That's the main advantage of designing a vertical lander such as my LV-3-series (all symmetrical around the CoT axis), but the problem is getting Kerbals and rovers down from the usually high- or top-mounted pods/platforms. Horizontal landers like the ULA XEUS don't have this logistical issue, but building a KSP-analogue along a similar design layout means overcoming limitations that the "lego"-part system of KSP has. I'm not saying your solution isn't a solution to address such limitations, but the function imitation of this lander isn't suited to it.

As great as Cupcake is at VTOL's, I don't require outsourcing at this time. The lander I was talking about is working fine; I was simply trying to provide an explanation as to why so much testing and thruster tweaking is taking place. The design isn't held up at all, I'm just a perfectionist and want to make sure I put it through it's paces through several scenarios/contingencies. That's a bit drastic @max_creative. They aren't going to be killed; as @Majorjim pointed out, they'll just require a quick refit and KerbalX update. I'm well aware of the changes to the landing gear and already have some ideas on which gear will need to go onto which craft. If anything, the planes will be better since I will have several more options to choose from to ensure they're sitting properly on the ground. Take the X-11 (Su-27-analogue) for example. I might be able to have the fuselage sit upright instead of so nose low. Well, I wouldn't go that far. I only clip fuel tanks ever so slightly. Those small grey LFO tanks are barely clipped into the lower sides of the Mk2 crew cabin. I consider heavy fuel tank clipping cheating (in my KSP play-style), and wouldn't clip tanks inside other pieces just to solve a CoM/CoT issue. At the risk of repeating my reply to Max_Creative, this lander's CoM/CoT states aren't an issue. I was able to solve the problem via careful engineering and repetitive testing. There are no unnecessary control systems installed for the purpose of VTOL stability, only what is needed for normal attitude control. In fact, the mono-RCS blocks on the ascent stage are only used to control the ascent module as it returns to orbit, and are only switched on prior to initiating the ascent sequence; and I refuse to use SAS torque to compensate for control issues. If you download any of my craft on KerbalX, you will discover that every SAS torque capable command pod has it's reaction wheels disabled.

The biggest issue with making a horizontal lander vehicle is the asymmetric mass layout along the longitudinal axis. As fuel is burned off, the Center-of-Mass travels. I've slowly tweaked down the descent thruster layout and RCS/Vernor control limiters to keep a relatively stable and responsive handling throughout the entire descent. Even the ascent module required it's own individual tests to find the best balance. Having said all that, the lander is coming along nicely. The delta-V reserves are certainly impressive, but these are all equatorial landing sites I've tested. If a player has to do large inclination changes pre-landing or post-ascent, delta-V reserves may start getting a little tight. As it stands, with topped off tanks, I was able to deorbit from 150x150km equatorial orbit to a hover over the Mun, conducted about 5 minutes of hovering around to find a flat level landing site near a crater, and still had 1/3 to 2/5 fuel remaining. I topped off the crew module's LFO tanks from the main fuel tank in the back, and initiated the ascent sequence back to a 150x150km equatorial orbit. After having some fuel remaining, I worked my altitude up to 293x285km orbit, after which I could have pushed higher on monopropellant if I needed to. With that much fuel in the bank, in some situations it would probably be more economical to fly the entire lander back to orbit to refuel instead of leaving the descent stage on the surface for use as a propellant depot.

Nothing fancy. Microsoft paint.

Kronal Vessel Viewer

As my design development is never-ending, the latest area I've been trying to tackle is inspired by none other than United Launch Alliance. After watching Das Valdez's twitch broadcast (go to 1 hr 54 mins) on March 9th in which he had ULA CEO Tory Bruno talking about all sorts of cool rocket stuff, I decided to try my hand at making some of my own KSP analogues of the Vulcan rocket, ACES upper stage, and XEUS lunar lander. ULA hardware on the left, my own on the right. For the most part I tried to imitate function instead of making raw replicas. While I'm still ironing out the above designs, I'm also planning to release a series of pre-built launchers in the same manner as my Kerbodyne 'Titan 4C' and 'Titan 4C+' 3.25m heavy lifters (which I'm also updating). The launchers will be based around the Jeb's Junkyard 'Javelin' 1.25m rockets and the Rockomax 'Thunder' 2.5m rockets. Each launcher will have a certain weight class, payload, and target orbit in mind when selecting which variant to use. For example, one 'Thunder' rocket may be for heavy payloads and have a powerful 'Skipper'-equipped upper stage, but another 'Thunder' variant may have a less powerful upper stage equipped with RCS thrusters and more battery reserves for pushing satellites into precise geosynchronous/geostationary orbits. As you may have guessed, since my Vulcan analogue is derived from my existing 'Thunder' hardware, I've named it 'Lightning'.

@Kuzzter ...that rep

@GregroxMun If you wish, you can add an additional 1.1 feature to the OP. Yesterday on the Squadcast it was confirmed that three of the Asteroid Day mod parts will be in 1.1. The large gold-colored probe core, the large static solar panel, and the deployable comms dish will be added. The telescope piece and associated asteroid detection functionality will not be included.

That is one huge monstrosity...

You didn't offend me, or anybody else it seems. We were simply providing our views regarding IVA's based on our own play styles. Personally, I can understand not wanting to release a mod until it fit the modders personal sense of completion. As an avid craft file publisher, I refuse to post a craft file on KerbalX until I have the appropriate set of visual diagrams, description, and action groups clearly documented. That's my personal standard of completion. In your first post you asked who cares about IVA's and who uses them. People answered your question...why do you want to delete the thread? If you want to delete the thread so bad, contact one of the moderators in the Support section. It appears to be Raster Prop Monitor.