Jump to content

GoldForest

Members
  • Posts

    3,954
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by GoldForest

  1. @CobaltWolf A lot of parts need to be rotated, they don't come out of the part list in the right oreintation. 
     

    Also, why the size reduction? 

    Also also, now it is unstable, really bad. I get endless aileron roll spinning and the control surfaces and RCS combined can't counteract it.  Even Atmospheric Autopilot can't cope. 

    Also also also, the extended fuselage doesn't seem to have a node. 

    Also also also also, would you put a node on the engine to allow for vertically mounting the X-15 on rockets? Like in this picture:

    x-15b-saturn-stack.jpg

  2. 3 hours ago, zw_45 said:

    @CobaltWolf, I found some weird thing about the drag force of x15 fuselage. At Mach 1.4 / 15000m, the total drag is 71kN, which might be too big for a plane of this size.

    Then I set “dragModelType = none” and “useInternalDragModel = True”, the total drag becomes 42kN at Mach 1.5 / 14000m. I think this would be more reasonable, and the final speed is Mach 4.2 / 22500m.

     

    Is this with or without the new update? 

  3. X-15. (IDK why, but on my laptop on my main game, it loads fine, but on my desktop with JUST BDB and dependencies installed, it throws the error.)

    Also, @CobaltWolf X-15's engine needs a node. :P (For those wondering, the engine doesn't have a node on bottom/end, so I had to use some trickery.)

    Full album: Imgur: The magic of the Internet

    TwGNfh8.png

    MjILLH1.png

    CMpiGiu.png

    EyNP2hU.png

    AG9JNnp.png

    Z6gmzgn.png

    HChiOkm.png

    (Oops, overshot the KSP... oh well. At least the landing was soft enough the craft survived a water landing.)

  4. 2 hours ago, Zorg said:

    The issue of how to handle surface attach hasnt been decided yet. On one hand the no surface attach concept was something that helped distinguish the balloon tanks and worked as a balancing factor given how much better the mass fraction is compared to other tanks. On the other hand we do know a lot of users like decals and there is a lot of scope for fun decals on the Atlas series especially the various test launches. I'm probably leaning towards allowing surface attach. Even on the current base tank model you can surface attach to the LR101 mounting points and slide things up whether its decals or other things so maybe it doesnt matter so much other than making things awkward.

    I have a suggestion for that. You could make a colidable mesh on the pipes/raceways that runs up the center of the tank.  That would allow decals while not allowing surface attach to the actual tank itself. 

    Of course, the best solution is probably just to allow surface attach on the tank itself. I mean, KSP is about lego-ing rockets and allowing things that IRL wouldn't allow. 

    11 hours ago, Blufor878 said:

    Careful, we should avoid War Thundering the KSP community.

    That is really cool that we have actual irl rocket folks among us, though.

    How would knowing what rocket Invader works on be anything like what happens in War Thunder? :huh:

  5. 20 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

    I'm doing a white version (what do you mean metallic?) and I'd like to do one in the style of the "modern" Apollo CM but I really don't want to be the one to make it. :P

    White painted metal. And actually, could we get a, dare I say, naked X-15? (A non-painted silver version)

    I'm guessing you're leaving the honors of the "Modern" version to Invader? 

    36 minutes ago, Blufor878 said:

    "Sweats profusely"

    Oh, that's not that bad. You want to see worse? 

    x-15b-saturn-stack.jpg

    There's also drawings of a X-15 with shorten S-I  stage and a X-15 with full size Saturn IB, but I can't access the document for those images. 

  6. 11 hours ago, kspbutitscursed said:

    X-15 on a Titan IV missile

    Rocket*

    Titan IV was never a missile. :P The last Titan "Missile" was the Titan II, IIRC. 

    Or were you suggesting someone make a Titan IV missile? Which would be a Titan IV without the SRBs TBH, so it would just be a stretched Titan II?

    Okay, now that I'm picturing that, that is cursed. A Titan IV without SRBs... just... the widened fairing atop a stick... ugh, hurts me!

    Sidenote: Apparently Titan III's program was called SSLS, with various acronyms. Titan III, best SLS! /joke

  7. So, I did a quick and dirty copper color conversion on the Atlas D, just to see what a copper Atlas D would look like. Hope you don't mind @Zorg :P

    I don't really have any photoshopping skills, so this was really quick and dirty. A simple "Recolor" in Paint.net.

    And of course, I did an oxidized version as well, because why not.  I know a copper rocket would never reach oxidation of this level, but hey, I think it looks good. 

    Oh, and for the memes/lawls I did Delta Blue. Metallic Delta Blue... cursed, blessed or blursed? 

    Also, I just realized I made RGB Atlases... Gaming Atlas confirmed!

    (Copper Red, Copper Green, Delta Blue) 

    bn5cnpR.pngICv5As4.pngN3vL1Ie.png

  8. 32 minutes ago, septemberWaves said:

    What is the function of the pipe that sticks out below the Atlas skirt, and why was its shape changed after Atlas A?

    The big pipe is a discharge pipe for the tanks. Something about efflux. 
    The small pipe is the turbopump overboard pipe. 
    Why they were changed, idk.
    Probably to fit the center better slash work with new ground equipment/launch pad. 

×
×
  • Create New...