Logan.Darklighter

Honestly? I was thinking about that and it would be very do-able. You could balance it better port and starboard. I'm near certain you'd have to lose the "fly through" hanger aspect to have room for the thrusters, but maybe not? In any case, it'd actually be a pretty good thing to put together as a less part-heavy alternative to a full Battlestar. *LIGHTBULB* You know what? Since I was going to maneuver and dock the separate pieces (with RCS thrusters and disposable boosters) ANYWAY, I could make a version that could fly on it's own. I could even make a version that could dock on either port and starboard (but not angled, like the battlestar one) so that two or more of them could link up or link side to side to a slightly larger ship LIKE a battlestar... HOLY CRAP... you know what I just realized? I've by accident re-created the ARMD platform concept from freaking MACROSS! - - - Updated - - - The "shark jaw" look of the bow is inspired by elements of both Galactica and Pegasus. And I was VERY much thinking of adding howitzers into the space between the "teeth". Give it some real "bite" you know? (Har har... ) It's also one place where I figure to add a battery of Missile Launchers. Another good name! Added to the list, and thanks! - - - Updated - - - BTW - a question for veteran users of BDA: I seem to recall that adding more Weapon Managers allows for more targets to be engaged individually by different weapons. Am I remembering this right or is that a Myth to be "Busted"? (I'd love it to be true, because if it is, a Battlestar or even an ARMD style carrier could protect itself against multiple attackers at the same time with different banks of weaponry!)

Here's what I've got so far on the front section. I think it's going to look suitably mean when I get all the details and armaments onto it. EDIT: Here's the two sections mated together in the hanger. I'm beginning to have trouble fitting things into frame!! I'm very much considering getting one of the hanger extension mods so I can put it all together to check thrust and center of gravity before I launch anything.

As far as an alternate nose that would look the part better, have you considered Lackluster Labs SXT pack? There's a couple of interesting options in that mod, and they are "stock-a-like" parts that use the Squad textures so as to cut down on memory usage. One of the better possibilities appears to be this cockpit section here:

Here's an update on my progress. This is the middle block - or as I refer to it - the Battlestar's Spine. This is what everything else attaches to. The basic structure is complete, now I just have to add some power generation, RCS modules, weaponry and ammo. Also I'll need to design a temporary command module for getting it into orbit. Just in case it isn't apparent just how enormous this is going to be, remember that those Kerbal workmen on the floor of the SPH are TO SCALE! I've got the basic structure on the forward section of the Battlestar done as well. Still messing about with making sure the parts will fit without getting in the way of each other for a clear docking.

Very nice work! Love it! I've done my own version of the M35 Mako, but most of it's suspension flexibility and "bounciness" comes from the Kerbal Foundries wheels I've used on the design. I'm quite impressed with a stock suspension that does most of the same things!

Nice work! I was going to suggest radiators but then I saw in the last pic that you already have some installed. I know the engine you're using - it's from the OPT parts pack - which I also have installed. And OPT engines almost feel like cheating sometimes. Hehe... Needless to say - putting that particular engine on as light an airframe as you've got is like putting a racing tuned V8 block engine into a Mini-Cooper. I do notice a possible design tweak that MIGHT help with the heat a bit. You've got standard fuel tanks right behind the ram-scoops on the wings. Though you'd lose some fuel storage, might I suggest replacing those with the standard size engine precoolers? They still carry 40 units of fuel, so you're not giving up ALL the fuel you've got stored there. And it might help distribute the heat load some more. Also - consider adding a reversed nose cone or trailing fuselage segment to the end of those ramscoop pods (clipped through the wings) and a pair of small vertical stabilizers. It'll give you greater control authority and stabilization as well as allowing an extra place for heat to distribute to. A pair of small radiators attached to the pre-coolers behind the ramscoops (the size just smaller than the ones you have on the main body) couldn't hurt either. And lastly, since your forward RCS blocks were the first thing to go, maybe placing one of those small radiator panels as close to the nose as you can get it might also help? Hope these ideas help!

LOL! No kidding! Basically - take that entire hanger you see above, right? Chop the width in half and keep the existing length front to rear - and that'd be a SINGLE LAUNCH TUBE if I did that to scale! Make no mistake - I'd love to try it if it were anywhere near the realm of sanity to consider it. But I can already hear the faint mechanical moans of agony as my computer and graphics card cringe at the thought of rendering even the limited concept above, much less a true Battlestar at the proper scale! LOL! I don't know if KSP can even handle such a thing at all! Some sources put the length of the average Battlestar from the canon (either original or NuBSG) at anywhere from 1 to 2 kilometers! You'd be running into a situation where - as you approach the ship - part of it would show up but the rest would still be beyond the 2.5 km render distance of the stock game! Oi...! Mind you - I'm running BD Armory, so my render distance is around 10 KM. But even so, I'm SERIOUSLY pushing the limits of what's even possible! Maybe someday when KSP finally graduates beyond the 32 bit limit and all. Or if Ubiosur welding ever gets updated to 1.04+ standards... - - - Updated - - - BTW - I've tested the gun emplacements and firing arcs in static ground tests. Just the hanger pod at the end of the runway on launch brackets, firing the guns at various targets such as the destructible buildings and some "target drones" set up around the area. And just the hanger pod guns ALONE put out an absolutely WITHERING amount of fire! And that's just with the "defense" 50 cal and relatively fast firing smaller LLL cannon mounts. Can't wait to see what the main body of the ship does with it's capital ship level guns and missiles! Yes - we will have MOAR DAKKA!!!! - - - Updated - - - I like that name! I'll definitely keep that one in mind as a possibility. Thanks!

Here's a little something I'm working on. You could say I was inspired by the return of Macey Dean. First off - I'm not going to attempt something that emulates Battlestar Galactica or any other Battlestar from either original or NuBSG in terms of absolute looks. I'm going for something that WORKS similarly and has more or less the same form and layout. Hopefully it will look good on it's own merits, but make no mistake - it WILL be a Battlestar type of ship. Specifically There will be hanger bays in pods to port and starboard, a generally wedge shaped front end and a set of massive engines at the rear of the main body. Also - though I do use mods, I'm going to do my best to get it into space legit. That means it's going up in several pieces and will be assembled in orbit. So - here's what I've got so far. The hanger pod design, using B9's HX series of parts plus BD Armory and some bits from LLL. The hanger pod design is not fully finished yet, but it's 95% there. What's left is to figure out where the docking ports for the sub-craft will go as well as placing extras such as supplemental lighting. I also fully intend to utilize KAS and KIS for some things, such as refueling and even limited repairs. I'm pretty happy with the overall result. Especially since I've managed to keep the part count down around 94 parts! Hopefully I'll be able to keep the fully assembled craft under 250! You'll notice the placement of the dual (and giant!) docking clamps on one side. The other side had a nice "armored rib" look to it that evokes but doesn't copy that of the armor (and launch ports) of the Galactica. If you look closely this is one of the best views to spot the armament - mostly facing outward. There are LLL Cannon Turrets and 8 BD Armory 50-Cal turrets spaced around the hull. 2 each are positioned above and below the hanger entrances to discourage other fighters or (hopefully) shoot down any incoming missiles from getting inside the hanger! There's a power plant producing frankly insane amounts of power. But the ones in these hanger pods are really just auxiliary back-up units. Aside from the asymmetry to port and starboard, all the details of the hanger pod design are mirrored so that I only had to create ONE design and not do major work flipping all the hull elements for two separate hangers! All I have to do is get two of the same type into orbit safely and then the main ship can dock with them and it doesn't matter which side goes where because both work on either. These hangers don't have any engines themselves, but they do have a LOT of fuel and will be able to feed boosters which will be clamped to them for delivery to orbit. And they are perfectly balanced so there shouldn't be any oddities with weight distribution causing RUD events during the launch phase. This was the easy part, though, I suspect. And I'm wondering if the main body of the ship will go up in one piece or need to be split up. In any case, once I get the overall design nailed down, I'll check it in the SPH/VAB for thrust balance overall before sending the separate parts up. Incidentally, I've got my own take on a Viper Mk II, and two of these will fit side by side in that hanger above! I'm hoping to be able to fit at least 4 of them per hanger. One last thing - any suggestions on a name since I'm NOT claiming this as a reproduction of Battlestar Galactica?

And now over 1000 likes and no dislikes. Expect that number to go up up UP! Specially since Scott Manley also gave him a "HULLO!" And the video is suitably EPIC. The design of the new ship and fighters is amazing. Speaking of epic - THAT LAUNCH!! I've seen him do that before - but I thought for sure with the new atmospherics and all that he'd have to assemble in orbit! NOPE!! Once again Macey lobs thousands of tons of CAPITAL SHIP up into stable orbit in ONE FREAKING LAUNCH!!! No MechJeb to help stabilize, doing it all by the seat of his pants "old-school". HOW??? Just... HOW!?!?!?! The dude is freaking epic. He seemed a bit chagrined at himself that he verbally went "over the top" with his narration at that point. But considering the accomplishment of getting the Laniakea into orbit, I think there's NOTHING over-the-top about narration that includes the phrase "...on rocket-fueled wings of fire!"

If that can actually land on Tylo, then 9/10! (Minus 1 point just because it just looks like a brick.) Meanwhile - been working on a BSG Viper. Can legit get to orbit - JUST! It usually winds up at 72-74KM with around 10% fuel left. Needs a refueling station (or a handy Battlestar) to park and refuel at for further space operations.

Bingo! Removing that module did the trick! Now it works as it did before! EDIT: Wait... damn it. No. Not quite. If you have a hatch or airlock attached to something that doesn't have a crew interior it still won't let you in.

Argh, you're right. I posted this in the wrong forums. Should/Can I get someone to move this to support?

Whenever I start a career save, I get no contracts to start with. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Bupkiss. Zero. They never ever show up under any circumstances whatsoever. I've deleted save after save and I'm THIS CLOSE to just going back to sandbox and giving up entirely forever on any career mode. WHAT AM I DOING WRONG HERE?????

Yep. Me too.

Wait... what? *Goes and checks*. Sonovabitch! That's awesome. Not difficult at all. It's just the pistons and some gantrys that the KAS winches were attached to (which I wound up not using in any case). Easily stripped. Other than those parts, I think it's mostly stock or MK4 parts exclusively. No... wait - the Intakes on the tail I believe are from B9. I don't have time to check right at the moment. When I get in this evening I'll see if I can work up a craft file to link.

Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey! 8/10, because arguably there's too much spaceship to fit in the box. My SSTO based on Thunderbird 1.

I'm about to test a .CFG mod I've used before to add sound to another engine with a similar problem in development. I THINK it'll add a standard jet sound to the Lander VTOL engines. I'll come back in a few minutes after the game reboots and let you know if it worked. If it does, it's a VERY simple bit of code you can just copy/paste into your VTOL .CFG file and I'll detail how to find it and what to add in where. EDIT: Okay cool. It works! If you can't abide silent VTOL engines, here's what you can do until Benjee and crew get a "canon" sound loop going. Follow this folder progression (if you know how to install Endurance or other mods, this will look familiar) KSP -> GameData -> Endurance -> Parts -> LANDER In the LANDER folder, look for a file that says: landerVTOL.cfg Double-click to open that up, it should open with your standard text reader/editor. This is the relevent section of code in the .CFG file: The section I've highlighted in blue lettering above is the added section. This will simply tell the part "Use Squad's standard Jet Engine sound file". Just copy that bit of code and insert it in the section of the .CFG above just like it appears above. (If you'd rather use a rocket motor sound, the code is easy enough to find. Just look for similar code in Squad's engine .cfg files or mods by other creators that use the stock sound files. I just like the jet noise for VTOLs even if they are rockets because it helps me differentiate between the two sets of engines. If I hear the wrong sound I know I hit the wrong action group! ) I recommend keeping a back-up of the original .cfg file somewhere safe, just in case. And there you go - no more silent engines. Easy, eh?

Heya Lack, I have a potential bug report for you for KSP 1.04. The attachable Hatch Door and Airlock interior space for Kerbals doesn't seem to work the way it used to. They'll pass Kerbals into a hull section where there's room for them, but they won't accept Kerbals into their own interior spaces. The Hatch Door is supposed to have interior space for 3 Kerbals and the Airlock has room for 8. If you assign Kerbals to them in the VAB/SPH, then they can start there. But out in the field, if they exit that space for EVA, then the hatch/airlock will ONLY pass them directly to the interior hull space. Also - The Crew Manifest mod doesn't work to transfer them into/out of those spaces as it used to. For example - if there's a 2x1 Hull section with a free seat, then using an airlock or Hatch to board will pass the Kerbal directly from the hatch/airlock to the interior space/seat, completely bypassing the airlock's interior. Also - there's no way to move a Kerbal to a hatch or airlock from inside the crew hull section. Even with the Crew Manifest mod. If you click on "EVA" in the Kerbal's portrait in the lower right corner, and the hull section doesn't have it's own integral door set up (via the swappable hull options) then it will "pop" them out of the hull and bypass the hatch/airlock. In space they go tumbling until they right themselves with an EVA pack. On the ground, they just sprawl just outside the pod until you take control of them. This also means that if you have a full 2x1 pod with 3 Kerbals in it and assign any Kerbals in the VAB/SPH to hatch/airlock spaces, that they will start there, but if they EVA there will be no way for them to re-board! (Unless there's another hull section or pod nearby that they can enter). Stranded Kerbals are not a good thing. (Particularly if you're using a life support mod!) A few screens for illustration: Here we have a full rover. 2 Kerbals in the cockpit section. 3 in the 2x1 cabin in the middle. There is one Hatch and one Airlock door. In addition to the Kerbals in the interior spaces, there was 1 Kerbal apiece assigned to the hatch and airlock doors in the SPH before the rover was loaded on the runway. In this screen the Kerbal assigned to the hatch door has just exited. Leah Kerman is still inside the airlock door space. The 2x1 hull is still occupied with 3/3 Kerbals. You can click repeatedly to move a Kerbal from the 2x1 Hull to the Hatch door and nothing will happen. They do not transfer. Now both Kerbals that were assigned to the hatch and airlock are outside. If we EVA one of the Kerbals sitting in the 2x1 hull then Richdun (who was outside) can use a hatch or airlock to pass directly into the interior space when ( for Board is pressed on either the hatch or airlock. But the interior space supposedly assigned to the respective doors (Hatch=3, Airlock=8) is not accessible either from the 2x1 hull or from the outside. If I click "EVA" on Richdun's portrait, he gets "popped" out onto the ground without using either the hatch or airlock or appearing on the outside of either holding onto the rails. An undignified exit... If we re-board a Kerbal so that the 2x1 hull module seats are full, then the message "Cannot board a full module" appears when another Kerbal attempts to enter. And now, where we started with 7 Kerbals aboard this rover when assigned in the SPH (2 cockpit, 3 hull, 1 hatch, 1 airlock), now we have 2 Kerbals stranded outside the rover that has no more space for them. On the other hand, if you use the switchable textures on the hull sections so that an integral door option is chosen, then entering and exiting works normally as for a regular crew pod from the stock game. That at least is a nice feature! Overall I'm thinking this can't be "working as intended". Maybe the direct pass-through was intentional, as also possibly the removal of the interior space of the attachable doors. But the inability to use the airlocks or hatches from the inside properly can't be intentional. And if the interior spaces of the hatchs/airlocks were meant to be removed, then the documentation and interior space indicators need to be edited to reflect that.

Mind = BLOWN!! Also - that is simply gorgeous! Love me some old-school torus stations. (Cues up "Blue Danube Waltz". )

I think 2-3 pages back Nertea mentioned something about this concept. Ah yeah - here it is: (Red bold for emphasis) So yeah - he's definitely looking into this. Someone earlier mentioned it would also be nice to have a science lab version of the passenger cabin. If I may make an original suggestion/question of my own, Nert? I know you're working on a cargo elevator TB2 style. Is the intent to include a "pod" style arrangement where a cargo container is lowered/raised through a middle "frame"? Or alternately is the intent to make a variation on the existing ventral door cargo bay with a platform/elevator? With the former, obviously there are problems with something like a cargo section being a separate piece. I don't think KSP would handle that very well. You can't just "swap out" pods like the original TB2 could and not have some significant stability/wobble issues. At least not in that exact fashion. So I expect the "pod" will either be a permanent part of the module/part, or you'll be working with something more along the lines of the latter moving platform idea. (which has been done before with a few mods - Wayland's Devo once had a large shuttle mod with such a design, but that was about 4-5 versions of KSP back and it had some other unrelated issues that made it impractical to work with.) In either case - I'm wondering if a "cargo pod" could be developed that would fit with the existing model - something with perhaps an integral pair of docking ports opposite each other so they can be secured even without the use of something like KAS/KIS? My experience with the Wayland Eagle tells me that it's better to have close-fitting sets of opposing docking ports/CBMs for flight stability. I don't think it matters whether they are a fore/aft config or a port/starboard config. But any "pod" that is a separate piece that docks with a larger craft to become an integral unit MUST have an opposing docking port arrangement for stability. Otherwise you have to secure it with KAS or something (like I did with the rover above in my earlier post). Maybe even have an integral set of "rollers" or wheels integrated like a rover so that it can be manipulated or rolled into place by other rovers? Or maybe even make an optional pod that can configure like a KIS container that can fit larger volume stuff inside and can be placed aboard? The intent with my ideas above is to provide a suggestion for a cargo pod/container that is NOT dependent on a particular cargo bay/part arrangement. In other words, it could work as both a "roll-on/roll-off" container for a regular aft ramp load in the field or be able to work with the vertical arrangement of a TB2 style ventral/dorsal cargo section. I'm considering putting something together using existing parts/mods to better illustrate the above concept. But I hope you get the basic idea of what I'm talking about. Don't mind me - I'm just "brain-storming" with the full knowledge that I may well be "over-thinking" this.

Now that's a real classic look right there! Broadsword Merc Cruiser/Orion Moon Shuttle! (Yeah I know it's not either of those things, but they were the first spaceships using that form that came to mind instantly. )

I just want to add that the LANDER is actually PERFECT. It's balanced, stable, and forgiving in atmosphere, vacuum and orbital maneuvering. I've yet to try it with a load docked under the ventral docking clamp, as per the source material. But I think once I figure out how to do it, it'll work out. So between the Endurance and the Landers, you've got a perfectly viable transport system to the outer planets just with those craft alone. (BTW - have you looked into the possibility of adding code options for the Deepfreeze mod so the Endurance can have proper hibernation units?)

Well I've flown the Ranger, the Lander, and gotten the Endurance to orbit with the help of a large booster stack. I love most things about the set and the way that the craft operate... with one GLARING exception. The Ranger - lovely flyer to and from orbit. INCREDIBLY POOR with fine orbital maneuvering and docking. Mainly because of the weird center of gravity and the placement of the RCS thrusters in relation to what the reaction wheels are trying to do to stabilize the craft. The Reaction wheels and the RCS are FIGHTING each other for control and making it impossible to dock, particularly with the angled docking ports. (If Cooper had had to dock with this version of the Ranger the story would've been over before they left Earth orbit... ) Not only that, but the Reaction wheels alone are way too powerful in orbital maneuvers. Just as an example - the Ranger overcompensates at the end of any maneuver node if you're using Mechjeb. It does fine right up until the last remaining percentages of delta-V needed for the maneuver. Then (with or without RCS) chases the maneuver node endlessly around the Navball, continuously over-compensating and then trying to re-center. And with fine maneuver controls on, will still never find the maneuver node to finish burning. Manually docking or auto-docking either way is a nightmare. Even manually the RCS is WAY over-powered and can't be damped down to reasonable levels even with fine control turned on. And don't even THINK about using Mech-Jeb's auto dock - angled docking port or regular, you'll run out of RCS long before it ever links up. Since the RCS and reaction wheels are integral to the model, is there any way at all to add a slider that will damp down the power on the RCS and the Reaction wheels like there is for the VTOL thruster? A thrust limiter control for the RCS at least would help a great deal. If you could do it for both the RCS and the Reaction Wheel power it might make the Ranger into something useful for orbital maneuvers and make it possible to dock with it (both manually and with Mechjeb).

HA! Nice! I missed that! I learned a few things doing my "kitbash" solution - primarily that it's possible to stack one IR piston on top of another and use the new "offset" tool to fine tune the overall height of the pistons so that they "telescope" smoothly in tandem to both produce a high enough clearance for something like the above (that's not 4 pistons above - it's 8!) and at the same time collapse neatly into the vertical space allowed so that they don't stick out. Just the knowledge that that's even possible is something that may come in handy in the future. So even if Nertea comes up with a native part for the Mk IV that (with less part count!) does the job better, I'm still glad I did my version above. Useful knowledge to have for other potential projects!

BTW - got a full album up of my iteration of TB2. You might want to check it out to see how I used IR Robotics to recreate one of the original TB2's best gimmicks. (And yeah, Nert, that's a hint as to what I think is possible for an optional part. )