Jump to content

Raptor9

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,599

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Raptor9

  1. Raptor9
    I'm afraid I'm not familiar with that component. You'll see in the next batch of craft files.
  2. Raptor9
    In today's update we have analogs to the Soyuz 7K-LOK, Soyuz/LK/N1-L3 Soviet moon landing configuration, Soyuz-TM, Progress-M, Salyut-1, Salyut-7, and an abbreviated line-up of R-7 rocket inspired lifters. Regarding the N1-L3-inspired 'Grizzly' rocket, I wanted to have this rocket solely powered by Jeb's Junkyard engines, both for sizing and for fictional scenario reasons within the 'Kerbalverse' concept. The most glaring inconsistency is the 'Grizzly' rockets size in relation to not just the OV-2M spacecraft and L-1 lander, but also the 'Olympus 5' rocket. In reality, the N1-L3 was about the same height as the Saturn V, whereas my 'Grizzly' is only about 2/3rds the height of my 'Olympus 5' rocket. The main limitation was part count, which really hindered how true to its real-life counterpart I could make the 'Grizzly'. In the end, I believe I found a good balance between function, aesthetics and frame rate. THE OV-2 'DRAKE' & THE SOYUZ SPACECRAFT While the real-life Salyut stations were launched on Proton rockets, my Proton analog was neither large enough or powerful enough to launch these monolithic space stations. So, assuming the 'Grizzly' rocket system was to be adapted for other uses, the 'Grizzly-IC' intermediate cargo rocket system was devised, removing the 1st stage from the 'Grizzly-M' and modifying the second stage slightly to serve as a 1st stage. These stations are intended to support exploration of the Kerbin wilderness by serving as crewed orbital reconnaissance satellites for scanning biomes, terrain elevation, anomalies, as well as relaying communications from exploration or search & rescue teams on the surface. OS-1, OS-2 & SOVIET SALYUT SPACE STATIONS One final note about these spacecraft. While I performed a lot of online research trying to identify and narrow down the precise models and variants of the real-life Soviet/Russian spacecraft I was attempting to emulate, my research may be flawed and some of these spacecraft's real-life influences may be mis-identified. There are a LOT more variants of both the Soyuz spacecraft and the R-7/Soyuz rocket family out there, and each has it's own unique and precise differences from it's various sister spacecraft/rockets. So it is very possible I may have gotten my "infobits" crossed here and there, but again, I think I have gotten a rather decent and faithful set of Kerbalized analogs published here. Tomorrow I plan to release the final set of craft files for my 'Ranger Corps' project in its current form, but if I don't get to it due to work (which is very possible considering my schedule tomorrow), the release will happen as soon as I am able.
  3. Raptor9
    Well, if the capsule has an emergency solid rocket motor reentry thruster pack, there will need to be some thrusters that can re-orient the capsule into the proper attitude prior to activating that system. I don't know if this was accurate to how the Voskhod's emergency reentry system functioned, but I figured it was a simple means to accomplish the same overall functionality in KSP.
  4. Raptor9
    Another day, another batch of craft files. This update is mainly focused on the KALV family of vehicles, but also leads us into the spacecraft side. The KALV-series builds upon and expands the original ATSV, further enabling exploration of the Kerbin continents via dedicated exploration and logistics vehicles (the ATSV has received a much needed facelift and update as well). All of these vehicles are designed to be air-dropped, however ensure the only fuel in them is their fuel-cell bipropellant in their small Oscar-B tanks. Otherwise the larger logistics vehicles will be too heavy and will likely impact the surface at higher velocities. Also pay attention to the warning and caution associated with them, lest you let KSP physics ruin your mission. As a further note, the FHT is a subassembly, allowing you to attach it directly to the ATSV in the SPH if desired. The ATSV and FHT are designed to be airdropped together. In other instances, if you try to air-drop the ATSV or ATLV by themselves...bad things will happen. This is unfortunately the best I can do with the current implementation of physics in KSP. KERBIN AIR-DROPPED LOGISTICS VEHICLES & FORWARD REFUELING SITES Obviously inspired by Sputnik, 'OP-1' (or Orbital Probe 1) is essentially a test payload for launch trials of the 'Kodiak' rocket system. The rocket has been pre-rotated for it's appropriate launch azimuth from Woomerang, so all you have to do is pitch down and any failed launch will result in it splashing down in the ocean to the east/southeast of the continent. Inspired by Vostok and Voskhod respectively, the OV-1X (Experimental) and OV-1OT (Orbital Trials) are the earliest spacecraft in the Ranger Corps orbital vehicle test program. Not really much to be said about these craft, except I tried to incorporate key systems from their real-life counterparts, such as the emergency reentry system on the Voskhod. These 'Kodiak' rocket launchers a specifically tuned in thrust and propellant levels to achieve low Kerbin orbit.
  5. Raptor9
    Next batch of Ranger Corps-related craft/subassembly files are uploaded. The 3x Fuel Drop Tank subassemblies and the remaining Orbital Module subassemblies, along with the C7 170 'Firebird' and the C7 310 'Pelican' aircraft. While the 'Pelican' isn't part of the Ranger Corps per se, it will prove useful in setting up remote field sites. The C7 310 has very good STOL capabilities, a large fuel reserve, and a decent cargo capacity as well. For those that don't recognize it, the C7 170 'Firebird' is inspired by the Russian MiG-31 supersonic interceptor. From an aerospace junkie's perspective (ie. Me), the MiG-31 ranks up there with high performance aircraft like the SR-71 and XB-70. What's unique about the 'Firebird' is unlike some of my other fast-moving and high-flying jets, the C7 170's airfoil is tuned for stable supersonic cruise around 15,000 to 16,000 meters altitude. Using a design technique from the WR-24 'HawkEye', the C7 170's lifting and control surfaces are angled in such a way that the aircraft is neutrally stable at those altitude/airspeed conditions. At lower altitudes it may require a significant forward pitch input to maintain attitude, but for the most part the 'Firebird' has a low workload to maintain level flight at high altitudes. Additionally, like the X-8, the C7 170 has modular engine mounts, allowing easy interchange of engines and aft fuel tank assemblies for cruising at even higher altitudes like 30,000 meters. A sensor probe mounted near the cockpit is standard for measuring barometric pressure and outside air temperature, along with underwing pylons for additional fuel tanks, M.E.R.S.A. sensor pods, or M.A.P.S. probes. The 'Firebird' also has a significant fuel reserve, allowing it to circum-navigate around Kerbin at high altitudes and airspeeds without refueling.
  6. Raptor9
    My understanding, it's based on the gesture that Mexican civilians make during the playing of their national anthem, since Squad is located in Mexico City.
  7. Raptor9
    Well, to be fair I implemented them because I wanted to try a new direction in craft design, not because others wanted me to. But I'll go more into the thought and design process of each day's craft releases when I post them.
  8. Raptor9
    OMG, I am literally in tears from laughing so hard. Nice work.
  9. Raptor9
    RANGER CORPS ANNOUNCEMENT I'm very pleased to finally release a sizeable project I've been quietly working on alongside the other collections I published within the past six months or so. I started work in late fall of 2018, and ever since I've slowly been chipping away at it until last month. Enough chit-chat, roll the video... WHAT IS RANGER CORPS AND WHY IS THIS A THING? THE "KERBIN-BASED LOGISTICS" PROJECT & M.A.P.S. - MULTI-PLATFORM AIR-DROPPED PROBES FOR SURFACE _______________________________________ The entirety of this project will have to be released over the span of several days due to limitations of how many KerbalX craft you can upload at one time (to prevent spam). In addition to the numerous existing craft that have been updated, notably aircraft and the Soviet/Russian station modules, there are currently 47 brand new craft files/subassemblies to be uploaded. The first ten (minus the fuel drop tanks) have been uploaded and are shown below in the graphic: A link to download these can be found in the Subassemblies section of the OP. I intend to release the next batch each day, but if I don't it's probably because real-life stuff has prevented me from doing so. As soon as I am able, I will resume publishing until the project is complete.
  10. Raptor9
    Correct, Kronal Vessel Viewer. It's listed as 1.5.1+, and it still works in 1.7.1...haven't downloaded 1.7.2 yet, but I'm sure it'll be fine. Nah, there really is no need to. The only time I really update the Gateway Station is if the new configuration adds functionality that I like. The most recent update I performed added a station module for storing propellant, along with a docking port that can be used by an upcoming satellite servicing robot I'm building. Technically, there are two "Gateway" stations in my save. The first one is just named 'Wernher Station' and is around Minmus; this one is modeled after the slightly older version of LOP-G, the Boeing Exploration Habitat (picture below). There have been so many iterations of the "Lunar Gateway" concept by NASA in the past decade: Exploration Gateway Platform, Deep Space Habitat, Exploration Habitat, Deep Space Gateway, now Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway. You could easily change which Station Module subassemblies you use to build any one of them, or throw some custom ones in there yourself if you're trying to keep the "accuracy" up to date. I'm not too concerned with it, the design will probably change again next year.
  11. Raptor9
    That would be outside the scope for the catalog. The whole purpose of the catalog is to make available craft files that have been thoroughly tested and proven on actual missions. Not everyone wants to spend hours in the VAB/SPH editor creating or perfecting designs; some just want to fly and/or explore. This may be due to a lack of interest in the engineering aspect of KSP, or a lack of proficiency. Regardless, the point is to let others benefit from engineering and testing that has already been performed within my own save so they can accomplish their KSP objectives within theirs. If it's not in my catalog, then it's not in my career save either.
  12. Raptor9
    I finally had a chance to really dig into the DLC's robotics today. Not just making stuff like robotic arms and ramps, but testing specific applications with multiple craft together. So far the results are fairly mixed. As an example of a failed, however rather humorous test, I tried docking two ground vehicles together via a robotic arm. The resultant behavior would be characterized as "unacceptable for publishing on KerbalX", ha ha. I've already scratched a small handful of possible applications off my list of ideas. I think the most that I'll do to the LV-1 family of landers is add the surface science stuff, and keep the rover deployment method as is. It's too bad, but hardly unfortunate. In the end, I would rather have a proven craft that works well despite being less accurate to it's real-life inspiration. I mean, worst thing that happens is an existing craft doesn't change to incorporate the BG DLC. With regards to my space shuttle, what I think I'm going to do is (whenever I get around to it) finish the SVR-20 revision and keep it with just non-DLC parts as I originally stated last month. However, if I get a working CanadArm RMS, I'll probably post it as a subassembly, and include an easily removable mount in the SVR-20 cargo bay to attach it to. And if someone does want to use it, it's just a couple more mouse clicks to mount it prior to launch. At least, that's the plan at the moment.
  13. Raptor9
    I would probably depreciate it. Otherwise it can lead to duplication of craft files with people confused as to which craft might work with "this version of KSP" or "this particular updated architecture", etc. Any time my catalog grows in size, it's to accommodate additional capabilities that I believe are necessary, otherwise I try to keep the catalog from ballooning needlessly any more than it already has. Plus I'm sure there would be players asking me to update the old craft file to work with the newest version, etc etc. I definitely want to make the side solar arrays deployable instead of needing them to be undocked and reattached by the EV-2A. Not sure if I'll have the ATM-esque part be deployed by servos yet or not, I haven't gotten around to exploring it. I believe someone on KerbalX already has, but I wouldn't have much interest in making something of that nature anyway. This is all true. When the Making History DLC was released I re-organized my various booster families, with the 1.875m 'Javelin' series being analogous to the real-life Titan family and the 5m 'Olympus' being the Saturn analogues. However I have never gotten around to posting them as standalone lifter families like the others. This has been due to a combination of low priority and a lack of necessity. The capability gap between the 'Arrow' and the 'Thunder' is more important to eventually fill, since I have never needed a dedicated cargo lifter more powerful than the 3.75m 'Titan' family. The heaviest payloads I have ever launched are the HLV-6 Duna landers, and even those didn't come close to the 100 ton payload rating for the 'Titan 4C+'
  14. Raptor9
    Unfortunately I've been really busy with work and haven't had a chance to mess around with it very much. I spent about an hour the other night experimenting with the robotics, but that's it. Hopefully I'll get some more KSP time soon. I've already had plenty of ideas of how these robotics can revolutionize a lot of my strategies. However, I am cautious to modify any existing designs prematurely. My designs are thoroughly tested and proven to varying degrees, with the more complex architectures heavily reliant on multiple craft to work properly. What makes this DLC different from the majority of the Making History parts and a lot of the previous new base game parts are the fact the robotics and surface experiment/cargo containers add new functionalities that will undoubtedly need a few refinements in the near future now that they are out among the masses. Any implementation of these into my catalog will be more deliberate and gradual than previous KSP updates. I hesitate to say this (because as you know I try to refrain from talking too much about projects I'm working on), but there is something else I want to focus on that I was wanting to publish, even before the Breaking Ground DLC was announced. That is my priority right now whenever I get back to KSP.
  15. Raptor9
    With any of the modules that use the 'LV Lift Rack' to place them on the surface, whether it be the Airlock modules, LR-3 rovers, etc, after you have them safely on the surface use the ABORT action group to detach the equipment from the 'LV Lift Rack'. Reference the BM module graphics for additional information such as action groups.
  16. Raptor9
    Per your usual videos, this one has the cringey, edge-of-the-seat precision flying; sleek, innovative designs; and some comical events...(who needed those solar panels anyway). Great video as usual @Cupcake...
  17. Raptor9
    I like KSP in the fact it seems casual, while implementing elements of realism...or rather it's a realistic spaceflight game, while keeping some gameplay aspects casual. It all comes down to a subjective definition of those two terms. KSP in my opinion achieves a good balance when realistic aspects of spaceflight are there, but the minute details of the aspect are implied and don't require attention from the gamer. An example is the comm network. You need it to relay data around celestial bodies due to line-of-sight limitations, and dedicated tech to operate as relays vs a simple transmitter, etc. However it stops short of getting into spectrum management, solar interference, signal delay, and physically having to point the dish at your destination.
  18. Raptor9
    Yeah, I don't play KSP or publish craft based on how other people feel about my reasons or design choices. I don't judge anyone else for deciding differently how they spend their money, but I don't play my copy of KSP based on how other people think I should either. In the end, I believe you should play KSP in a manner that inspires your curiosity and creativity.
  19. Raptor9
    I love Dunkin Donuts...unfortunately we don't have any where I live though. Well, obviously I will be looking to add those to the LV-1 series of landers, since they are the Apollo-inspired landers. As for the rest of the landers, we will have to see how the final mechanics are designed for transporting and deploying the new experiments. I'm just glad we will have more to do on the surfaces themselves. I'm not gonna promise anything, since I don't want to make any assumptions on what will be possible with the DLC. We can only speculate. I will say that the first atmospheric tech I will be looking into for feasibility will be vertical lift in the form of helicopters or tiltrotors. Legitimate swing-wing jets like the X-12 and C7 140 may also be possible. These are all ideas I've considered this week. It would be nice to have those features for everything you listed, especially if I could make the double-length Gigantor XL solar arrays be fold-able/extend-able for the 'Pioneer Station' ISS-analogue. That way I could ditch the SM-MSAT's and have the SM-TP2S2 and SM-TP3S3 have everything in one module to make the massive solar arrays. As mentioned, we will have to wait and see how it all pans out.
  20. Raptor9
    I thought your national pride was Tim Hortons? Funny story, I had never heard of it until a couple years ago. I was checking into a hotel in Edmonton and asked the desk clerk if Tim Hortons was a popular restaurant in the Canada or something because I was seeing them everywhere. I'll never forget the look the guy gave me. I think it was a mix of shock and pity.
  21. Raptor9
    Don't get me wrong, having my plans preempted by Squad releasing more content isn't a bad thing in my mind. It just means that anything that was close to being released will have to be re-visited, at least in lieu of updating it later and creating more work for myself. I've given this some more thought, and that may not be the case. Regarding the SVR-20, I assume you mean the possibility of adding a robotic arm (RMS)? It really comes down to the size and nature of the DLC's smaller robotic parts and such; we'll just have to see. I don't want to make any assumptions on the capabilities or limitations of the robotics. Regarding the LV-3 landers, about the only thing I see myself doing is adding a legitimate deployable ramp for the LV-3B's rover. But that depends on the load-bearing capacity of the hinges to hold a ramp with an ER-3 rover on it. I'd like to keep the LV-3A as a simple crew transport/science lander, and I don't see myself changing how the Base Modules are deployed off the LV-3C/D cargo landers. The original prototype iterations of the LV-3D in fact had deployable ramps, but the ramps actually weren't the problem. It was the various ways I tested to get them down the ramps that encountered issues. You would need wheels on the modules obviously; but whether you had the modules self-drive themselves down or pull them down with an LR-3-style rover, the only way it worked out was to have a ramp that had a very shallow deployed angle to the surface. Even with a short lander like the LV-3D, this required a rather long ramp, and made it very impractical and cumbersome. In my opinion, the most ideal way to offload cargo from the top of a "vertical" lander is using a winch/crane system. Since I don't see winches in our immediate future (assumption), a simple, controlled rocket thruster hop is the simplest way to reduce complexity of offloading the modules at the landing site. And the propellant tanks double as storage for outpost fuel cells. Really, the only extra parts that aren't used after placing the base modules on the surface are the rocket engines themselves, or the lift rack assemblies (but you can easily get rid of those).
  22. Raptor9
    Sunday night I update 195 out of the 243 craft files on KerbalX to 1.7.0. Monday morning I read that there's a new DLC coming out in 24 days.
  23. Raptor9
    The "early access players get free DLC" and the "DLC isn't worth X number of funds" arguments will always continue I'm sure, but I guess I'll toss in my own 2 funds. In order to (hopefully) prevent any false information from being propagated any more than it has already (like the last time a DLC was announced) I'll reiterate what @razark already mentioned: the early access players DID NOT receive the DLC for free because they are special, or because it was a reward for investing in KSP so early. It was a legal decision based on a poorly-worded clause in one of the earliest EULA's. No more, no less. Squad (or rather, their publisher) doesn't charge players for DLC's because they are greedy people. They are running a business, and businesses require a recurring revenue stream to stay open. It's the way the world works. I mowed lawns for people as a kid. Did I charge money? Absolutely, because I had to pay for gas for the mower, maintenance, and so I could save whatever slim profit margin I had left so I could buy comic books and Reese's peanut butter cups.
  24. Raptor9
    Without knowing how fast those servos can change their speed (again, assumptions/speculation) you potentially are in the same situation as the jet VTOL method, in that you are waiting for the rotation speed to spool up and spool down. That's why I suggest the control surface deflection method, it could *potentially* be more responsive and precise. I'm quite familiar with the intricacies of rotorcraft physics. I doubt that would be a reasonable implementation since KSP physics might treat cyclic feathering differently than real-life, not to mention getting into gyroscopic precession and all those other aerodynamic properties of helo blade systems. I think it would just be easier to link to the throttle input for collective increase/decrease, and let reaction wheels act as the attitude control mechanism; for lack of a more fleshed out aerodynamic physics simulation in stock KSP.
  25. Raptor9
    @SQUAD (or @nestor), I noticed that the imgur hi-res album shots displays a quad-copter with what seems to be rotating servo motors of some sort. My suggestion (if not already considered/implemented) is that aerodynamic control surfaces have an option to be linked to throttle input via the PAW, similar to the Deploy function but scaled via the throttle setting through the allowable deploy range limiter. Example: Four spinning servo motors, and each have four control surfaces attached, each with a *potential* "Control by throttle" option enabled in the Part Action Window, and deploy limit set to 75%. As the throttle is increased, all control surfaces increase pitch uniformly through their respective limiter settings. When throttle is at 100%, the control surfaces are at 75% deflection, when the throttle is cut to 0%, the control surfaces return to 0% deflection. My reasoning is this: 1) Historically when making a jet-powered VTOL in KSP the vertical thrust to increase/decrease lift has a slow response time while waiting for the engine to spool up/down. Since control surfaces react much more quickly to control inputs, having the option to link them to the throttle would result in much more responsive lift thrust for better controllability. 2) When making propeller/rotor-based craft, users will often adjust lift produced by spinning control surfaces by having the PAW's pinned and adjusting the deploy limiter range to increase/decrease lift in a similar manner; however with craft that have more than one prop/rotor system (like that quadcopter), this must be done one rotor at a time, leading to moments of asymmetric thrust, not to mention a very clunky and imprecise method for controlling a craft. In essence, I am referring to how helicopters and similar craft manage vertical lift in real-life. The engines maintain the rotor at a constant RPM, and the rotor blades themselves adjust their pitch to quickly and precisely increase/decrease vertical lift. I'm obviously making a lot of assumptions on how these rotating parts would/would not work (or if this was even possible to be coded into the aero control surfaces), but I wanted to bring up this functionality because I believe it to be very important if someone wanted to make rotor-based craft in KSP like that quadcopter.
×
×
  • Create New...