espm400

I had another idea for you guys to mull over. I don't think it would take much, but a pWing style control surface. Not an aileron/flap (although that would be pretty cool), but something like a horizontal tail plain where the whole part pivots, like in most fighter jets. As I said, just a thought. BTW again, awesome mod. Thanks.

Ever since I picked up B9 Aerospace I've been screwing around with fighter planes (what can I say, I love 'em). So I figured I'd post what I've done so far. With the exception of the X-15 and the X-29, they all fly very well, although the only one I'd consider done is the F-15/ACTIVE analogue. A bit of a side note; I am using FAR and Deadly Re-entry. As I said, only the one is done, the others are at various stages of tinkering, although most only need lights and some finishing touches. the X-15 is having some troubles on release from the carrier jet (might be because it's a five minute design. The X-29 on the other hand has a different problem altogether. It flys great at low to mid sub-sonic, but as soon as it gets to trans-sonic speeds it pitches violently (I can still easily keep it pointed forward though...) and then DE does this to it. Notice the lack of engine and control surfaces? G-forces are a bitch. Once I'm finished with these I figure I'll do some Russian and European jets as well (maybe an XB-70 if I can figure out how to make it look decent), but for now, I'll just keep on these. EDIT: Both the F-15/ACTIVE and the F-16 analogues are capable of pulling off Pugachev's Cobra Maneuver (my standard F-15 can as well, to a certain extent). Can make for some really spectacular landings, among other things...

I guess I'm on of the few who had never heard of him (save seeing his name dropped here in the forums) until about a month ago. Since most of my learning in KSP has been through trial and (violent) error, I haven't really resorted to watching the Youtube for tutorials, with the exception of docking. As I originally came into KSP through the (0.13?) demo, and then through a .15/.16 version of the game on a borrowed computer I had never dealt with it. Then I purchased the game for myself in .19 and I just couldn't figure out docking for the life of me. Now, I haven't heard him mentioned, but before I'd heard of Manley, I had been watching 'KSP with Stomp,' and it was his videos that showed me some of the finer points of docking. The guy's also got an excellent speaking voice and some entertaining videos to boot. Unfortunately, he dropped off the face of the Earth a couple months ago and I've heard nothing of him since. Having recently started watching Manley's videos, I can say they're both on par with each other for entertainment value, although Stomp doesn't have the added physics explainations or Scottish accent (both of which I enjoy).

Figured I'd do a Soyuz LK, just because I haven't seen one in this thread yet. Normally I don't use this one, as it doesn't have IonCross Crew Support with it, but why not? Okay, I fail at upping the album... I'll just post the poignant pics then... http://i.imgur.com/yH1o2FE.png' alt='yH1o2FE.png'> EDIT: The first two pics are actually from a second launch. I got to orbit before I realized that I hadn't taken any screens. Also, you'll notice a missing solar panel. That was the fairings' fault. Bad Fairings!

I watch a lot of 'Quick Looks' on Giantbomb.com, and KSP was featured last August ( http://www.giantbomb.com/videos/quick-look-kerbal-space-program/2300-6420/ ). I spent the hour or so of the video laughing my ass off and immediately decided to get the demo. I played it for a while, but as I have the attention span of a ferret on crystal-meth, I put the demo down after a few weeks. Then a few months ago, lo and behold it gets released on Steam. I saw it and realized I had a pre-paid Visa with $25 still left on it, so I said, why not? Played it a bit more until I discovered ALL OF THE BLOODY MODS! Lets put it this way, got the full version at the end of May, and since then according to Steam, I'm up to 178 hours.

Wasn't expecting this one when I woke up this morning, but... When you have a dream that involves ground texture clipping...

Hence why I put '*insert joke here' by the pic of the craft on fire...

KSP parts may be stronger, but I would like to think real world rockets have a higher potential for rigidity (sans struts, that is). I would love to more than one connection between parts, it would reduce, if not eliminate the 'wobble like a fish' factor you mentioned. Also, we may be able to dock at a significantly higher velocity, but real life has docking cameras 'stock'(frankly I use the Lazor Docking Camera). Also @DeadWeasel: Fantastic...

Okay, story short; went to a buddy's birthday party last night and got, uh, more than a little intoxicated. Upon arriving home, decided to watch a certain Mike Meyers movie, and partway through I got curious; would it actually fly? Some of you may already know where I'm going with this. Also, to be clear, I'm using Deadly Re-entry and FAR, which makes the following even more surprising. First, it made it to orbit, so I guess it's a rocket-based SSTO Damn, missed the island hideout Here's perhaps the most interesting part. With DE installed, it actually survived re-entry. Not the landing however, oh no... Not a bloody parachute on the thing. http://i.imgur.com/ZIO7qFd.jpg' alt='ZIO7qFd.jpg'> Now normally I wouldn't have posted this, but this afternoon when I booted up KSP and went to load a ship, I noticed a ship named 'Dr. Evil' that I only vaguely remembered building. After trying it out, I just couldn't believe how well it performed. Well, Dr. Evil, you've proven your chops today. You've definitely earned your title of 'Evil Genius.'

Well, on the plus side, I just started a new save (got DE and IonCross Crew Support, so it seemed appropriate). On the downside, I just finished all of the boring stuff (sending about half a dozen RemoteTech comsats into KSO, plus one on either side of Mun, and one on either side of Minmus.

Imagine when you wake up in the morning and spread your butter (or jam, to each their own) on your morning toast. Well my ship was the butter, and the Mun was the toast (gravity was the cruel, cruel knife). Somehow, probably due to the shallow angle, my pod survived and came to a rest some kilometers from the crash site...

Well, as I said, I've been using AutoCad for a long while myself, but after finding Blender Cookie, spending about two hours watching tutorials (while sober), and the last four hours applying what I learned, I have to say, it's a helluva a lot faster and easier using Blender. Although some of the camera controls still trip me up (gotta stop right-clicking to pan the camera), all in all it's starting to grow on me, and it's safe to say I've got the basics down. On top of that, I found a tiny little program called 'ImageJ' that allows me to get fairly accurate measurements off plain old jpegs so long as you have at least some info and preferably one good profile view. I'm fairly confident that I managed to get reasonably accurate measurements for all the modules of the H-G from one overhead shot, and two iso shots of the original model, and the only info I had to start was the total overall length. I'll probably have questions in the future (like how big of a model file can you have before you start causing massive lag), but since you guys have answered my question and otherwise helped me out immensely, I'll save that for another day and another thread. Thanks again all. EDIT: The more I work on this ship, the more I realize that it's a great object to learn how to use this type of program (at least in my opinion). Let me explain; first off, I'm building the ship in modules, not as a whole and as it's my first use of this software, I'm not going for that much detail as of yet. Secondly, if you look at it's design, the two cargo holds are very simple designs and are basically the same, the third has shown me how to replace pieces I've cut out, as well as the mirror modifier. I haven't started on any more of it, but the fourth and fifth cargo modules are increasingly more complex. Then you have engine module and the cockpit, which is a myriad of shapes that have to be precisely placed. As I said, this is starting to grow on me... http://i.imgur.com/YUYm3J0.jpg' alt='YUYm3J0.jpg'>

To all of you, thanks for the advice, I really appreciate all of the helpful insight. I'm going to give Blender another go, seeing as it seems to have a knowledgeable and fairly dense userbase. Given as I already have the program, I will probably use basic designs in AutoCad to figure out scaling issues (I'm currently starting work on the Hunter-Gratzner from Pitch Black, which has surprisingly little detail on it's size specifications), and get a basic layout before I start modeling in Blender. Perhaps once I get more comfortable with Blender, perhaps I will use it for all this, but given that I found on this was an interview with it's creator (the model used for the movie was 9' @ 1/36th scale), I ended up with an approx. size of 100m (324'), which I figured would have to be scaled down, which for me is currently easier in AC. Again, to all those who replied, thanks for the support. Also, @DYJ, I may take you up on that offer if I continue to struggle with Blender, although a touch of sobriety may aid me just as well (at least as far as last night's first attempt).

@Phawks: Thanks for the info, I'll definitely check both the programs and tutorials out. The only reason I mentioned AutoCad is that it's the only program I'd ever done 3D design with and I'm familiar with it. Long story short, I've had a copy of it since before a P133 chip was top of the line. I did a tech-design class my last year of high school and finished the whole semester's curriculum in two weeks. For extra credit I did 3D scale model of an R33 Nissan Skyline, right down to the pistons and brake pads. Had to bring in my own rig just to finish it as it was cooking the school's computer. As you said, it has been over a decade since I put in any time with it, so maybe you're right. I'll check out what you mentioned.

Just a quick question for curiosity's sake, as this is my first foray into modding with KSP; Is there any way to use the 3D models created in AutoCad in the game? Either by importing them into Blender or anyway else. The only reason I ask is that I grew up with AutoCad and I'm pretty good with it (also my old man buys the corporate version on a regular basis, so I always have a copy available to me). Given, it's been nearly a decade since I've used it in any major respect, but I still remember the basics. That being said, this is also out of laziness, since I just got Blender and in my current state I don't have the patience to learn how to use it. I spent a good two hours with it and got nowhere. What can I say? It seems easy enough, but I just don't like the interface. So basically I'm asking if I can model in AC and fine tune in Blender. EDIT: I just realized that this is probably the wrong forum (I'm guessing either Modeling and Texturing or Plugin Development), so I that's the case, please move my thread mods. Sorry and thanks.

Nope, I was referring to the Hunter-Gratzner from Pitch Black. Always though that was a cool ship. Not to mention the screenshot epicness of bringing it into the atmosphere with Deadly Re-entry on. I just can't seem to accurately get the very front of the ship as it tapers in three directions. Maybe I'll just take some time and figure out how to create collision meshes and just make some one-off parts, although I don't even know where to begin with that...

Just a curiosity of mine right now, but has any thought be put into something along the lines of a 'Procedural Panels' type mod? I'm currently trying to replicate a spaceship from a certain Vin Diesel movie, and so far I've spent six hours working on the cockpit section alone, and right now working on the very front and having a helluva time joining the top and bottoms of the front fuselage. I was using square B9 panels for most of it, but as the front tapers to smaller than 1x1, square panels don't cut it. I've resorted to pWings, but as they taper from root to tip, I'm not getting the aesthetic I'm looking for. My thought was a pWing style part, but instead adjusting root, tip, and free form, it would remain a constant thickness, and have a height, width, and free form adjustment. Just my two cents.

First off, let me state for the record, that isn't MY video, just one that helped me out in a big way. When I started incorporating multi-couplers into my designs anywhere but at one of the ends, all but one would fall away when I decoupled, and until I saw that video I was lost as to why. Secondly, I use that setup (given, with a quad-coupler) in virtually all of my interplanetary and station designs, mainly for the added rigidity. That being said, all four ports would be docked (I could right click and undock them), however in such a case, I couldn't tell you (without some testing) if all of them were cross-feeding, as they were all connected. On the testing side, I spent some time tonight making a design vaguely similar to yours and assembling it in orbit. From what I gathered, it was basically a center stack feeding the outer stacks with engine blocks at the rear. That was using 3x symmetry for everything (I had just never experienced this). First off, docking was an absolute bitch, and this is coming from someone who has all but mastered docking perfectly with my own designs. Just to let you know, I've always been a fan of having a central core plus engine block with exterior tanks feeding the central core. That way if I have unexpected fuel or engine issues, you don't end up with a completely uncontrollable craft (most of the time). As I haven't yet tried out my own suggestion to you, and won't get around to it tonight (it's 6:30am and I'm tired. Thank god I'm off work today), I will try it out at some point tomorrow. I also have a suggestion for your future craft building; stick with a central main core c/w engine block and cross-feed your externals (with or without engines) into that. That way you not only eliminate the fuel tree issue, but it's a damn sight easier to ditch your dead weight (well, mass technically). P.S. I've never understood why people use 3x or 6x symmetry. For me, I require 4x RCS thrusters whenever I place them, and using either that with 3x symmetry everywhere else, or 3x thruster blocks leads to an aerodynamically, aesthetically, and/or unbalanced ship. Maybe I'm missing something (again, I'll never say I'm infallible), but for me, 99% of the time it's 2x, 4x, and in the case of asparagus staging (rare for me nowadays. They're ugly ships and I also now use FAR), 8x.

Thanks for clarifying that, I don't like when I misinterpret stuff like that as it make me feel somewhat foolish. Anyways, I haven't built many ships with multiple ports set up in this manner, and the few I made were either abandoned or had cross-feeding to the central tanks as well as a port in the center. Now I may not have a full grasp on the way the parent-child handles stuff like that, so I will defer to those with said knowledge (as I said, I mainly just use a single multi-coupler with ports to strengthen and line up my parts). Just a quick thought - similar to Tiron's - before I go; would you be able to build the majority of the ship in 3x symmetry (for ease and accuracy) and just switch the 1x for the docking ports themselves? I just know from when I was learning how to build asparagus-style rockets how annoying it is to do manual symmetry, as I originally did 2x three or four times on the core for ease of staging, before I realized it was actually easier and quicker to adjust the staging than to manually line parts up perfectly, unless I'm missing something (which is often the case).

Okay, so I got Bobcat's Soviet pack the other day and decided to see how they worked with my also recently acquired Deadly Re-entry and Ioncross Crew Support. Unfortunately, the Buran and Kliper don't seem to get along well with DE and FAR combo, and none of the pods support ICS, oh well, they're cool designs and the Soyuz craft work great. Anyways, decided to modify a Soyuz TMA to carry the LK lander for a quick Mun touch and go. The mission was mostly successful (the lander tipped over and busted the docking port, but I managed to right it), but on the return trip a strange anomaly appeared in deep space. http://i.imgur.com/UY590kg.png' alt='UY590kg.png'> There was one other glitch on that mission; as I disassembled the Soyuz for re-entry, I realized a minute too late that I had forgotten to transfer Bill from the orbital module to the decent module. RIP Bill Kerman, you will be missed (you made a great splash though). EDIT:I thought I had my draw distance higher. Thanks to non-rendered craft not recieving atmo drag, Bill is still alive. It will be an interesting rescue (as his periapsis is just under 25km), but he can be saved...

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here. Are you referring to having problems with multiple ports on the bi/tri/quad-couplers or the six port cube? Either way I've never experienced the lack of cross-feeding with the six-port, and since I started using the method in the video I haven't had issues with multi-couplers either. Mind you, I generally just use a two-quad coupler setup to make a single more structurally rigid joint. I've never tried to dock, say, two separate ships onto a single bi-coupler. Perhaps some screens of the design you're referring to might help.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but I'll probably come off as one (sorry, I woke up literally two minutes ago), but it really bugs me when people don't actually read the thread before posting a response. Especially when the solution to the problem is in the post directly previous to the one being made. Honestly, watch the video in my post right above yours. It should solve all of your problems.

I posted this in a similar thread last night, but given that the OP was suggesting parts, it got moved. It basically was two points: First, for those of you unfamiliar with how to incorporate multi-port designs into your spacecraft, here's a tutorial that helped me out loads. It just shows you how to circumvent the parent-child part tree system in a manner that just forces the other docking nodes to dock while still on the launchpad. Second, unless you're a total mod purist and don't want any, I would suggest at least taking the two quad-couplers from this mod: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/half-meter-parts-and-other-useless-crap-r4-2/ I use the quad-couplers simply because they allow docking at 90* angles so I end up with cleaner designs. The mod has a bunch of really useful small diameter parts, although some of the batteries and a few of the other parts are quite over-powered and as such I have removed. The structural parts are great though. Hope this helps EDIT: Gimme a couple hours and I'll up a few example pics. I recently installed 'Deadly Re-entry' and 'Ioncross Crew Support,' so I also ditched most of my old designs and started a new save. So far I only have my RemoteTech coms satellites up.

Naw, they just started using FAR and over-cooked the turn a bit.

Although I have yet to check it out, I keep seeing this large cargo bay (the wide one in B9 aerospace) in the pics here. Somehow never noticed it. Should make designing a better cargo SSTO a damn-sight easier...