Raptor9

Unfortunately, it appears that the rotor blades do not have the capability to control attitude of rotor craft via cyclically-feathering blade pitch as helicopters do; despite the rotor blades' PAW having Pitch/Roll/Yaw toggles. For the moment, conventional helicopter designs will require other means to control attitude, such as reaction wheels.

I'm no modder, so I suck at reading output logs, but I would start with removing Wild Blue Industries.

@Neil Kerman, have you tested it in a stock KSP install with no mods? I doubt the craft file is the issue, however it does include Making History DLC parts. If you don't have that installed, it won't work.

$25 and 1 cent?....that's making my OCD get the Forest Whitaker eye.

Yep, I'm aware of that. But everytime I try a test flight, control in all three axes is either unpredictable or nonexistent. Do helicopters need a KAL for the rotor blades to be able to perform proper and sufficient attitude control?

It seems to me that the rotor blades have been (either on purpose or inadvertently) programmed exactly like the prop blades, as a means of strictly propulsion. However the pitch/roll/yaw functions appear to be included in case someone wants to use these devices as fixed control surfaces (for whatever reason, but KSP is a lego-like system where people use parts for all sorts of reasons). To make matters worse, the spinning rotor blades themselves are adding a gyroscopic stabilization effect, reducing the effectiveness of reaction wheel parts to "cheat" attitude control into the rotorcraft. Cyclic feathering of helicopter rotor blades in itself doesn't produce pitch/roll effects. Cyclic feathering induces tilt of the rotor disc, which in turn offsets the total lift vector of the rotor system from the Center-of-Mass to produce the pitch/roll effects. However, since the KSP rotors are not mounted on articulating hinges, nor can the rotor blades themselves flex to allow rotor disc manipulation (as in the case of rigid-rotor systems), no actual positive attitude control is occurring. There are some physical changes happening, but I believe they are a side-effect of how the rotors are interacting with the KSP physics engine. I'm working on a graphic to illustrate possible changes to the KSP rotor parts to make this possible, or at least predictable. But I need more time to flesh out the behavior before submitting a feedback report on the bugtracker.

Oh. I guess I mis-read your question. When you said "command pod" I was thinking all "command" parts, not the crewed pods specifically. In that case, I'm not sure, but with all the ways players build in KSP, I'm sure there is some situation where it would be beneficial. But alas, I still haven't answered the original question.

IIRC, the reasoning behind them was so that you didn't have to put an antenna on every rocket just to get it into orbit. Especially since the Communotron 16S is the only one designed to withstand high-speed atmospheric flight. This could be a showstopper for newcomers to the game that might not readily be able to diagnose why their rocket wasn't responding to input and key commands while on the pad. But the built-in antennas are short-ranged enough that once you get a little distance away from Kerbin you would lose partial control of a probe/satellite (or full control depending on your elected settings). By this point you would be out of the atmosphere and probably had already deployed vacuum-only antennas, so the short range of the built-in antenna wouldn't matter since it was only for ascent through the atmosphere.

That's a pretty fair assessment I think. ________________________________________________ I try to avoid directing such posts at a specific forum user, but when I do, I normally address their user name or quote something they posted. When I make a forum post regarding people complaining about DLC's costing money, it's normally addressing those that are complaining without any sort of reasonable alternatives to the concept of the DLC business model. But it's more like speaking to the room, if the thread were a room. (Speaking to the "room" in general) I personally think a lot of the backlash stems from those posters that seem like they flat out do not want to pay for a product they desire; and to rationalize their behavior, they equate Squad and/or T2 as evil people and themselves as a victim of Squad's/T2's supposed greed. And when this happens, a lot of people (admittedly myself included) feel the need to defend the members of Squad from being demonized for decisions that are entirely and understandably business-related. The two truest things about the internet, is that there will always be someone that disagrees with you, and you will never get the last word. EDIT: Unless you're a moderator, in which case you might get the last word.

I'm well aware , I was in Rocketology's Twitch stream and someone eagle-eyed viewer spotted the previews minutes after Squad posted the images to their twitter feed. I shelved rotorcraft experiments shortly after starting experimentation when I discovered how weak the electric motors were at maintaining RPM when applying blade pitch. So I'm hoping these fuel-powered engines have a lot more torque when increasing blade incidence.

It's no problem. Actually, the Prospector has been capable of this for quite some time. It received the upgrade during my Sat/Probe revamp project last summer.

(Sigh) Another announcement, another debate about DLC's costing money. I really wish more people would take it upon themselves to learn more about how economics work. I'm extremely frugal with my money, some have even called me cheap. But I personally think $15 dollars for the content in either DLC is more than reasonable. But this isn't a garage sale where you get to haggle. As with the previous DLC, either you think the content is worth the price, or you don't. Nothing is going to change how the world works, this is how trade has been for thousands of years.

Well the thing is I'm not really big on spaceplanes in general. While Ranger Corps does open up other options for craft file design, in the particular case of the SVR-23, I don't see myself returning it to the catalog. The Prospector, despite being displayed on the graphic in orbit around the Mun, is actually meant to be used elsewhere if needed. Any planet or moon within the Kerbin, Duna, or Eve SOI's should be within reach of the Prospector's rocket lifter (I've sent it to polar orbit around Duna), and the second generation of this satellite received a boost in electric storage for the sole reason of being able to relay an orbital survey of any planet within those SOI's, including Kerbin. For finding areas on Kerbin suitable to set up forward refueling sites, I prefer to use aerial surveys from the C7 152R. Ore concentration is only half the story, since a reconnaissance overflight is still necessary to find suitable landing sites. However, other aircraft are capable of performing this function, like the C7 305R, or any aircraft equipped with the MERSA pods. As long as you fly below 1000 meters AGL, the Surface Scanning Module still functions to identify ore concentrations. Even though I use my Mir analogue around the Mun, you could use it to perform orbital surveys in lieu of the Prospector, since the OM-L3 has the required hardware. You have plenty of options already.

Unfortunately not. Besides the fact that I learned to hate them, there was a lot of overlap between them and the SR-21 'Phoenix' spaceplanes, so I depreciated them long ago. ________________________________ EDIT: While I'm signed-in to the forums, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the way forward. First and foremost, I'm not done playing KSP, but I may be less active in the coming months. After pushing Ranger Corps out the door, I was ready for a break to recharge my creative batteries. And I've been wanting to restart a career for quite some time now to take advantage of all the new stuff in KSP. On top of all this, and I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but my real-life occupation continues to demand more of my time and focus. Some nights when I get home, even when I do have time to play KSP, I don't have the energy. Having said all that, aside from my career gameplay, the areas I've been wanting to re-visit are as follows: 1) Revise my LV-2D/E Duna landers to update the 24-77 engines with the new models, hopefully reduce part count slightly, tweak the ER-2 rover behavior, add side docking ports to be able to plug them into the BM-series subassemblies if desired, and add Breaking Ground surface experiment options for LV-2D specifically. Because adding cargo containers and experiments is so straightforward, I am considering not including the equipment itself, but rather allocating space in the cargo compartments that will allow players to add them in if they own the Breaking Ground DLC. In this case, I would examine which experiments and support equipment would be necessary for Duna surface science, and specify a loading configuration for the player to follow to ensure the payload is equally distributed to maintain balance and control during descent. 2) Update my LV-1 Apollo-style landers to include Breaking Ground surface science experiments. 3) Resume my revision of my SVR-20 shuttle analogue for better balance and control during launch, hopefully include better landing characteristics and predictability, an increase in monopropellant supply, and an optionally-removable mount for a Canadarm-style RMS. The RMS itself, assuming it works, would be a separate subassembly download to allow better flexibility between DLC and non-DLC owners. 4) A few other small ideas, like a new high-performance science-collection aircraft for the KSA for example. Aside from that, we'll just have to see where things go. There are of course plenty of other applications for the Breaking Ground parts, plus the new turboshaft, rotor, propeller parts that were just teased. The future of KSP is still bright, and there is still lots to do.

In the early alpha days of KSP, prior to v0.25 when there wasn't a career mode, I never really had any background story. Around the time v0.25 and career mode came out, that was when Squad was adding a lot of detail and lore to the game, such as companies/agencies, the Admin building strategies, and a lot of parts grouped by manufacturer. Shortly thereafter I started publishing craft files with their associated graphics. Some of the details that I included in those craft summaries had some background story for flavor, but not really any sense to it beyond that. After 1.0, I started to solidify my building and publishing strategies, standardizing my rocket lifters aligned with manufacturers, and creating clear-cut craft naming conventions. This was the time when I started to revise and link the various craft file descriptions/captions/summaries into a coherent timeline and space program progression with consistent background information. But it was strictly for immersion. There was nothing formal; just a common thread that I had in my head on how it all linked together. A lot of it obviously came from real-life inspiration, so it's not like I was creating anything new. For example the Kerbals started with suborbital launches with single capsules, progressing to Mun landings, then space stations in LKO, then returning the Mun, Minmus, and then going to Duna. The first serious concepts for an established "Kerbalverse" materialized when I had the idea for Ranger Corps, mainly as a way to justify certain aspects of the project. A volunteer government organization with a separate charter than the Kerbal Space Agency, but with similar operating locales (to include space), was how I could justify the Ranger Corps' craft files in a game that thus far had no indications of separate nations or a major space race. Plus the alternative launch sites (Dessert and Woomerang) gave me options as well. The recon/scouting functions of the Ranger Corps stations/aircraft and the forward logistics functions of the KALV series was justified using a storyline thread that the Kerbals had always lived along the coastal regions, and hadn't ventured into the unexplored regions of Kerbin (also as a way of rationalizing why Kerbin lacks civil infrastructure outside it's launch facilities, airfields, and ground stations). So essentially, I made the craft first, but in a style that seemed (to me) logical; and the story and background "Kerbalverse" sort of grew after the fact and really took on a life of it's own. Until the idea of the Ranger Corps, I really hadn't thought about formalizing my take on the Kerbal story. But since I finished the Ranger Corps project, I am seriously considering throwing my hat in the Kerbal story-writing ring. I removed it and a lot of the others because I'm migrating to a new youtube channel and I wanted to remake a lot of those older videos with the latest designs and filming techniques. I watch those older vids and I cringe.

You're more or less correct, but a better description would be "these craft aren't tech tree friendly". Whenever I started a new career, I would do a lot of early career grind by farming local KSC science, ad hoc craft for part test contracts, or other such things. But since I've already gotten past those early career grinds multiple times (around five times already), I simply don't do them anymore. Whenever I get around to starting my new post-1.7/Breaking Ground career save, I'm just going to grant myself the prerequisite science to unlock the required tech nodes as needed. I'll still need to do some of those early career contracts to build up my funds for more advanced missions, like early LKO or Mun missions, but I really don't care for going through the stock tech tree non-sense anymore.

This is something I've considered multiple times before, however haven't ruled out. It's just real life commitments have made it difficult to expand my Kerbal activities. The other side of it was the Proton analogue was a 1.875m rocket, which was way too small for some of the payloads I wanted to lift. Hmmm...Interesting; I may have an inaccurate or incomplete understanding of how the CommNet logic works. When it comes down to it, nothing beats a field test. I have yet to do any serious Career mode play for over a year, so haven't had a chance to test out a lot of my new craft outside of a token test mission.

6x LV-T30 Reliants and a single LV-T45 Swivel in the center for control. Not exactly accurate to the actual Proton, but then again, I didn't need it anyway.

Yeeeaaahhh, I will not be doing this. Thats like the U.S. telling the Russians to adopt the same designation system for all their aircraft. Neeeever gonna happen.

I used to really pinch pennies when it came to craft design, especially expendable rocket lifters. But nowadays I tend to spend more time just simply avoiding certain high-fund items if they aren't necessary, like expensive probe cores or ion engine tech. The Vernor thrusters used to be one of those things I hated throwing away on boosters since they were so darned expensive, but they've since been cut to 150 per unit, so "meh". The main thing that allowed me to relax my focus on launch funds and expendable rocket lifters ( the 'Thunder 3' and 'Crossbow' launchers are still fairly cheap for their capabilities) is implementing measures to ensure more and more reusability for anything that leaves the atmosphere, as well as my CisMunar Propellant Economy which goes hand in hand with that strategy. In-space reusability/refueling is THE most important aspect in my opinion that reduces required funding levels for any major missions. Reducing how many rocket launches you perform in the long run will do more to reduce the space program operating costs than squeezing a rocket lifter with minimal cost-saving measures.

The OKTO2 doesn't in itself, but certain crew pods (Mk1-3 Capsule, Mk2 Lander Can, and the MEM from the Making History DLC) have a "Probe Control Point" installed in the part already. The OKTO2 just takes over spacecraft control duties, allowing a single pilot onboard to remotely control probes via the PCP. Well the 'Crossbow' rockets were influenced by both Angara images as well as the Soyuz-5 concepts, which included multi-chamber RD-series engines. None actually. I just use the Alt-F12 menu to cheat my way to orbits. If I need to land stuff, I just just do a normal EDL. This normally isn't much work, but sometimes atmo EDL's can get repetitive during testing. I simply removed the aft docking port from the SM-N1, mounted an FL-A10 adapter in it's place, and then a small docking clamp to that. Yep. Yeah, I need to update that graphic for sure. If I remember correctly, a previous poster in this thread had the same issue that was caused by a mod. I believe it was FAR causing it. Thanks for the troubleshooting help @AlchemicRaven. _____________________________________________________________ That last outstanding craft is now on KerbalX. The robotic satellite/probe servicing craft, the OR-TSL 'Dhow'. It's a really straightforward probe, with a forward docking port and a large reserve of propellant (for it's size) to dock to other craft. It also has an aft docking port between the engines to allow large spacecraft to carry elsewhere if need be. It's modeled after Lockheed's "Jupiter" orbital tug and satellite servicing spacecraft.

Aaaannnd, final batch of craft files are live, with one exception. I forgot to finish the graphics for the robotic satellite-servicing spacecraft, so it didn't make the release. I should be able to knock it out this weekend. I've just been really busy at work. Anyway, the first two craft files go hand in hand. The OV-3L, which is my TKS/VA analog, and the OS-3RS which is my Almaz analog. Before people get all up in arms over these two; yes, I know the VA capsule carried more than one cosmonaut. Yes, I know there were designs for the Almaz to carry an onboard VA capsule, yes, yes yes, I've done my research. Just because something exists a certain way in real-life, does not mean that's how it needs to be in KSP. OV-3L & OS-3RS AND THE SOVIET TKS & ALMAZ SPACE STATIONS OV-4MP AND THE ROSCOSMOS FEDERATSIYA SPACECRAFT OV-5DS AND THE SOVIET TMK/MAVR SPACECRAFT Quick note that the OV-5DS requires both of the DLC's for usage. 'BOLT' ORBITAL TUG AND 'CROSSBOW' LAUNCHERS With the exception of that one outstanding craft file, this wraps up my 'Ranger Corps' project for the time being. However, like M3V or my other architectures, it doesn't necessarily mean it's finished. This just gives me another avenue for craft file styles and techniques to branch out into. This was probably one of my biggest projects to date, around the same size as M3V, but compressed into a singular week of craft file releases. Personally, I'm happy I was able bring the Soviet/Russian spaceflight heritage to my KSP save, since they accomplished some rather amazing feats in the 50's and 60's when aerospace technology seemed to be advancing at warp speed with the aids of slide-rules and chalkboards instead of advanced computing power. I hope that in the near future we will be back in a worldwide golden age of spaceflight that rivals or surpasses those times.

First of all, the KSP SAS functionality isn't the greatest, which is why I usually control attitude manually with SAS as an assist, rather than the sole provider of control inputs. Having said that, you should have plenty of fuel to get the HLV-5A to a Munar orbit to top off on propellant prior to committing to a landing. The reaction wheels are not needed at all for control. Having said that, the vertical thrust engines are only used for final approach; most of the velocity is cancelled out via the primary RE-L10 Poodle engine. If you are maxing out the throttle while using the 48-7S Spark engines to execute the landing, you're not doing it the way the lander was designed to be used and may encounter control issues. It sounds like you either have mods altering the behavior of the craft, or you aren't quite performing the mission in line with the tutorial video as you originally stated. That's all I can surmise from what info you have provided. Time and inspiration. I've been playing KSP for quite a while, and inspiration is a valuable tool. Like @Jestersage pointed out, developing your own build style that is driven by whatever inspires your creativity is the key in my opinion. Without inspiration, there is no way I could have built the catalog to the size and detail it has become. KSP is like a self-feeding educational tool. You want to learn how to do something in KSP, you read about how to do it in real life, and that research inspires your builds in KSP, which inspires further reading, etc etc. Don't fight it, release your inner nerd. ____________________________________________ EDIT: It's too late for me to release the next batch, so that will be planned for tomorrow (if work doesn't interfere again).

You'll have to be more specific. Are you running out of fuel at a certain point, are you encountering control issues, missing action group functions, etc?

On the contrary, I actually have them configured for maintaining stability on these stations, they are just deactivated for launch. They are activated along with the deployment of the solar panels and antennas via Action Group [1], however they are only intended to be used to maintain a certain attitude vector, say for example Prograde so the station is always level relative to the horizon. Like my 'Scout' probe, you can use them to adjust the attitude by selecting a different SAS sub-mode, but they aren't going to be very powerful and the response will be slow. For most attitude adjustments, or any manual attitude flying, you will need the RCS thrusters.