[1.12.x] Mk2 Expansion v1.9.1 [update 10/5/21]

[Fireheart318]

This is an essential mod for me. I don't use it thaaat often, but when I need it, it's a life saver. For example, submarines: They're horribly inefficient and slow and get messed up when fuel drains. Rockets are even worse. The nuclear jet has allowed me to cruise below the waves for hours on end and kept me aloft on Eve! Those were just the first two examples I could think of. One thing, though, the SCRAMjet is VERY hard to use. Can I have a tutorial? I've only gotten it to speed up once or twice and the first time it worked, it got me halfway to Eve without using rockets! Well, I used rockets to go to space to speed up enough on reentry to get the engine to work but you know what I mean.

[FirroSeranel]

6 hours ago, Fireheart318 said:

This is an essential mod for me. I don't use it thaaat often, but when I need it, it's a life saver. For example, submarines: They're horribly inefficient and slow and get messed up when fuel drains. Rockets are even worse. The nuclear jet has allowed me to cruise below the waves for hours on end and kept me aloft on Eve! Those were just the first two examples I could think of. One thing, though, the SCRAMjet is VERY hard to use. Can I have a tutorial? I've only gotten it to speed up once or twice and the first time it worked, it got me halfway to Eve without using rockets! Well, I used rockets to go to space to speed up enough on reentry to get the engine to work but you know what I mean.

 

 

I've been experimenting with it as well, and I think it's just... not that useful. Don't get me wrong, it's amazingly cool and an awesome model! It's just... kind of filling a niche that exists on Earth, but not so much on Kerbin.

Minimum engagement speed of Mach 4 is a whole Mach number higher than the max efficiency point of the best Ramjet engines available.

Nominal peak efficiency at Mach 15 is absurd. Mach 15 is well beyond escape velocity! Actually I think it's close to enough to coast all the way to Jool! If you could even keep it in atmosphere long enough to gain that much velocity, which I doubt you could.

LKO velocity is somewhere closer to Mach 6 - 7, when this thing is still just edging past half-power. The only use I could see for it having a nominal ideal speed of Mach 15, would be to do a hyperbolic gravity assist with jet-powered Oberth effect around Kerbin or Laythe, but... yeah. That's not gonna be very common, if it's not just so fast that the game splats you as soon as you touch atmosphere from extreme overheat.

In many test runs, I couldn't even get up to a speed when the SCRamjet had enough power to take over, using six RAMJets and two Nukes. The RAMJets could get me up to about Mach 4.2, and then were just not powerful enough, which was just barely enough to get the SCRam to turn on, but not enough to give it any appreciable power at all, and the two Nukes weren't enough to get me there either.

To be intuitively useful, to my mind (and these are the kinds of designs real SCRamjets are being developed for), you need to be able to do a smooth hand-off from Ramjets or Turbojets to the SCRamjet, without needing a rocket in between. That means having a significant overlap of useful velocities, during which the two power curves effectively "cross-fade" to maintain a reasonably flat net power curve. If I -do- need a rocket to bridge the gap, then that means four types of engines (or at least three, if you're just using it for LKO stuff and satellite delivery).

If I'm gonna have to have three types of engines already (RAMJets to get me up to ~12-15km and Mach 4, upper-stage sustainer rockets to get me up out of the atmosphere, then high-efficiency vacuum engines to do anything useful in space)... I just don't see the very narrow speed and altitude range at which the SCRamjet is actually helpful being worth its weight and drag.

Because of the smaller scale of Kerbin's atmosphere, even though it's not technically "realistic" to do so, I'd tone it down to turn on at Mach 2.5, hit at least 50% power by Mach 3.5, and peak around Mach 6 with a dropoff back down to 50% or so by Mach 8. I could see it being a useful (but still not life-changing) engine with those stats, but as it is, it's just not worth its weight in fuel from what I can see. Unless I'm missing something and its weight in rocket fuel + a couple of aerospikes -doesn't- add more dV than hauling the beautiful-but-niched-out-of-usefulness Hyperblast up into the upper atmosphere?

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by FirroSeranel

[Bit Fiddler]

is it just me or are some parts not providing "body lift" like the rest of them?  Specifically I have seen "HS-x" cockpit and the "service bay" do not provide any body lift like the other parts do.  is this intentional?  or just an error?

 

And on this topic does the service bay have a ton of drag to it, even when it is inline with the rest of the body?  it seems to have a huge drag coefficient.

 

all of this data is coming from the in-game overlay to show lift and drag, so I may just be misreading it or do not understand the overlay.

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Bit Fiddler

[Nori]

I was playing around last night with Throttle Controlled Avionics (TCA) and a bunch of parts from your pack and noticed something I thought a bit odd.

Most of your jet engines have no gimbal action. For some of them this isn't a issue, but for anything that is intended for use as a VTOL or high altitude use, it is almost essential to have gimballing.

Is there some specific reason for this exclusion?

[Fireheart318]

Two little things that bug me (other than the SCRAMjet):

1: For whatever reason, the nukejet doesn't work if I have KSP Interstellar installed. While I only use it for beamed power (which doesn't work for me for whatever reason), it gets annoying fast as soon as I want to go to Eve or build a submarine. Or build a submarine on Eve!. I know why it does that (the engine is programmed that way) but I don't know the reasoning. Please explain.

2: You can't double click on the glass in IVA to zoom in. While it may not seem like a big problem, just try using Raster Prop Monitor with it and use the side monitors and then try to look ahead. How long until OCD kicks in? It wouldn't be annoying for me if I didn't focus mostly on planes and rovers; things that you have to know EXACTLY where you're going or you're gonna crash. I don't care about the zooming in part, I just want to auto-center my view.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Fireheart318

[FirroSeranel]

Here's a Harrier-styled Jump Jet I made using Mk2 Stockalike Expansion parts, and enabled by Throttle Controlled Avionics. Couldn't quite get it in one take though. D:

 

[Jiraiyah]

@SuicidalInsanity

Hi sir, considering that your mod has few cockpits, could you please add a patch for texture replacer to use this mod ?

as you may find in the mod's config, it is really easy to add support for it but at the same time, it needs the part names (not the one in the config but the one in the modeling software) too.

thanks sir

Edited October 20, 2016 by Jiraiyah

[SuicidalInsanity]

@Fireheart318: Given the number of people who have had issues with the scramjet, a tutorial is reasonable; I should be able to have one together in a few days

@FirroSeranel: Max efficiency is closer to mach 10, and hypercrusie on Kerbin is feasible; most of what you mention will be covered in the tutorial. Also, nice plane; it's always fun to see what people come up with using these parts.

@Bit FIddler: Both the HS-X cockpit and the service bay both have ModuleLiftingSurface, so they should be providing a small amount each; service bay drag I'll look into, it's probably related to the part's DragCube.

@Nori; For high speed engines the only ones I can think of lacking gimbal are the scramjet and ramjet; ramjet has a variable geometry nozzle so a gimbal is reasonable to add. For the VTOL engines, most of the gimbal stuff is still there, just not actualized in the .cfgs. If I remember correctly  I removed the gimbals because they were attempting to gimbal as if the engines were oriented for horizontal flight regardless of actual engine orientation, which led to engine gimballing fighting with control surfaces when in VTOL mode.

@Fireheart318: I'm going to need an output_log for the nukejet issue; chances are its a KSPI-E thing since that's whats handling the M2X-KSPI compatibility patches. IVA zooms can be added

@Jiraiyah: I'll have to take a look at Windowshine, but it shouldn't be too difficult to make a patch for it.

[FirroSeranel]

5 minutes ago, SuicidalInsanity said:

@FirroSeranel: Max efficiency is closer to mach 10, and hypercrusie on Kerbin is feasible; most of what you mention will be covered in the tutorial. Also, nice plane; it's always fun to see what people come up with using these parts.

2

I still think the minimum speed should be lowered a bit. I do -not- want to have to use rockets to transition from one jet engine to the next, nor do I want to have to dive 10 km to build up enough speed. From a meta perspective, if NASA were designing this, and they had a several-Mach gap between their launch engine and the SCRamjet, during which the ship has 10% of the thrust it has in the full power curves of each type of engine... they'd call it not-viable and keep designing one or the other, or both.

Alternatively, you could make one of the other Mk2 form factor engines much more powerful at higher speeds. Actually they seem pretty underpowered in general, IMO, compared to the stock engines, unless I'm missing something?

For example, for Max Thrust...

1x Afterburn = 190

1x Whiplash = 130  Seems okay except that I can easily get 2x Whiplashes in the same space as the 1x Afterburn. With a little planning, and your wonderful, wonderful 3-way splitter, I can even get 3 on basically the same fuselage setup.

2x Whiplash = 260

3x Whiplash = 390

So... why should I ever use the Afterburn? I do notice it drops off slightly less quickly at high speed... but sacrificing a third to half of the power available to -get- to the point where the shape of the power curve starts to matter makes the Afterburn a tough sell. Since I'm basically building at least a triple fuselage to get both types of engines on the ship in a symmetrical fashion, it's going to be a pretty heavy ship. My designs so far come in at about 60-70 tons, not including payload capacity, which I'd like to see at least 5 tons of on a Mk II, whether for science gear, or satellite delivery.

The problem with a more patient climb is that these engines are still pretty fuel-hungry. Not as much as rockets, but they still guzzle it down, so the longer I take climbing up toward thin atmosphere, the more fuel I burn, the more fuel I have to bring with me, and the heavier the ship gets, which means more engines, which starts the cycle over again.

Ultimately the limiting case is the runway. I need enough power to get the ship up to anywhere from 90 to 120 m/s before I run out of runway, depending on how much wing I use (keeping in mind that more wing for lower liftoff speed means more drag later on). I can do that easily with multiple Whiplashes carrying along a Hyperblast's dead weight. It's... pretty dicey with the Afterburn.

But... like I said, maybe I'm missing something. Hopefully the tutorial will explain it.

I do have the feeling that when FAR updates for 1.2, these engines will suddenly come into their own, as FAR's drag model is much more accurate, and winds up being significantly lower at all altitudes than Stock, though I acknowledge that Stock is much much better than it used to be.

[Rushligh]

I have been waiting for that Front-Opening cargo bay for the longest time; you have no idea. this makes using the MK2 hulls as an aeroshell/fairing perfect!

More so on the side of an aeroshell, it makes for a deploy-able housing for retrojets!
(or weaponry if you're a BDA user)
 

also, @FirroSeranel is right about the mach15 speeds, that is in fact far faster than any shuttle has entered the atmosphere; reason being that nothing can stand that much heat going either way.

also, it'd be nice of the Banshee engine could be electric, or mode toggeling. it would also be realistic; (sort of)

[Bit Fiddler]

ok this is maybe a question for KSP in general but what are all the numbers on the reactor telling me?

 

 

I assume the "thermal efficiency: 81.4%" is telling me I am a bit hot so the reactor is not as efficient, and thus ": 81.38% load" will be pegged at this value and never give us full power?

but then there is another number,  "Cooling: 99.67%"...  (well it is changing but ya)...  what is this telling me?

 

 

And lastly could we get a 1/2 and a 1/4 size reactor?  sometimes this one is just overkill on the EC output and the weight is just wasted at that point.

[JBrown247]

Is this stuff OP? I mean it is cool, but I am just thinking it looks a little OP when looking at the numbers. Am I missing something? Also, this stuff should be integrated into the CTT a little better. 

Not trying to be mean or anything like that. I think I am missing something or I might move these to the back of the CTT myself it needed. 

[FirroSeranel]

8 hours ago, Bit Fiddler said:

ok this is maybe a question for KSP in general but what are all the numbers on the reactor telling me?

 

 

I assume the "thermal efficiency: 81.4%" is telling me I am a bit hot so the reactor is not as efficient, and thus ": 81.38% load" will be pegged at this value and never give us full power?

but then there is another number,  "Cooling: 99.67%"...  (well it is changing but ya)...  what is this telling me?

 

 

And lastly could we get a 1/2 and a 1/4 size reactor?  sometimes this one is just overkill on the EC output and the weight is just wasted at that point.

 

Basically, your available cooling system is working at 99.85% capacity, so it's basically tapped out.

The reactor is running too hot, so it's producing less power.

The moral of the story: you need to add more cooling. Probably just a couple of small radiator panels would be enough.

[SuicidalInsanity]

@FirroSeranel: You really shouldn't need rockets to transition to scramjet mode, and diving 10km is the last thing you want to do. Regarding Mk2 engines, they are actually pretty much in line with or slightly better stock engines (except for the MATTOCK, which is the " much more powerful at higher speeds" Mk2 engine). The M2X engines in general produce ~150% thrust for 140-150% mass compared to their stock counterparts; Choosing engines for a craft is always a sliding scale of "How much thrust do I need?" and "How much mass budget can I spend on engines?", and the M2X engines were intended to be a mid-range option. Per your example, 2 Whiplashes produce 260 static thrust vs an Afterburn's 190, but you pay for that extra ~50% thrust with ~55% increase in mass cost (3.6 tons for 2X Whiplash vs 2.6 tons for the Afterburn), plus the added mass cost of the bicoupler. If a craft doesn't need that much power for that much mass, then mk2's or if a small craft single size 1s can provide what is needed, and if that much power is needed, then it is still available as an option. Also of note is Mk2 engines have slightly different optimum flight profiles than stock engines

@Rushligh: mach 15 was mentioned since its more the theoretical top end of performance, but yes, you have point there.
For the Banshee I can look into an electric mode, but I'm not sure about mode toggling; I recall reading somewhere KSP doesn't like tri-modal engines,I'll have to do some experimentation

@Bit Fiddler: The numbers except for cooling on the reactor popup are from ModuleResoruceConverter and its associated ModuleCoreHEat
Thermal Efficiency is how efficient converter - in this case the reactor - is operating; 81.4% means the reactor is currently producing 81.4% of its rated output.
Reactor load is what percent of maximum output the reactor is outputting - this is mainly for things like Fuelcells, where they are configured to fill batteries to 95%, but not top them off allowing for a trickle charge effect to prevent unnecessary LF/O usage. In this case, the reactor is generating the maximum it currently can - 81.4%. Reactor load and thermal efficiency are linked
Core Temp is how hot the reactor core is - 1421.9 is the current temperature, and 1250 is the optimum temp. all ModuleResourceCoverters that have heat generation have a thermal curve determining how much heat the core produces, and a thermal efficiency curve that determines how efficient the device runs when below, at, or above optimum temperature. Core temp determines Thermal Efficiency.
Cooling is how effective the integrated radiators on the Reactor are performing, what percent of their rated cooling ability is currently being used
I can see making a 1/2 sized reactor, not sure about the 1/4, that seems too small for a reactor - maybe a mk2 RTG slice, maybe

@Jbrown247: yes and no. Things like the end game stuff - nuclear jet, scramjet, etc. could be considered OP, most of the rest of the stuff should more or less be inline with stock. Is there anything in particular you have questions about?
 

 

[JBrown247]

16 hours ago, SuicidalInsanity said:

 

@Jbrown247: yes and no. Things like the end game stuff - nuclear jet, scramjet, etc. could be considered OP, most of the rest of the stuff should more or less be inline with stock. Is there anything in particular you have questions about?
 

 

I am probably just misunderstanding some numbers. Without having KSP open, I was looking at the thrust on the jets compared to stock. The rapier stock is around 400, while some of your engines were around 2,000 and unlocked earlier. I think I am missing something. I am an English professor, not a scientist lol. I think I need to play around with them more to understand what is going on. 

 

Also, if the "OP" stuff is unlocked late in the tect tree, especially late in the CTT, I have no problems with it being "OP," because that is what the higher techs are supposed to be. 

Great mod though. I have this and the MK3 installed. This is going to be a fun playthrough 

Edited October 22, 2016 by JBrown247

[SuicidalInsanity]

As requested, here's a quick tutorial on the Scramjet:

Spoiler

Using the Scramjet 101

The first thing to consider when using the Scramjet is despite having the word 'jet' in its name, the Scramjet from a game mechanics perspective is closer to the traditional rocket upper stage motor used on more conventional spaceplane designs; its operational flight envelope is more or less similar, as is its moment of activation and general use guidelines. Let's take a look at it:

2.6 tons, static thrust of 110kN, max thrust at mach 10, Isp of 2000. As mentioned in the description, this engine will not function below mach 4. This sets the Scramjet apart from other jet engines. In KSP, using jets is a matter of grabbing a fuel tank, adding an air intake somewhere, and bolting a jet nozzle to the end. The Scramjet, from a craft construction perspective, is no different, but from a use perspective requires an extra step unique to it: bringing the craft the Scramjet is on up to a prerequisite speed. In this it is more like an aerospike or a Nerva than a jet; a secondary engine engaged after the jets are done to finish accelerating a craft to orbital speeds

Bringing a Scramjet craft up to speed is probably the most difficult part of using a Scramjet; it requires patience, precision, and good craft design. This tutorial aims to facilitate that.

To demonstrate the optimum flight profile for a Scramjet craft, we could use the M2X Hyperblast example ship:

However, like most example craft, it primarily exists to serve as a technology demonstrator - the Hyperblast example ship is functional, and showcases how one could build a Scramjet vessel, but taking a closer look – No docking ports, solar panels, passenger capacity, or cargo space, and a heat shield nosecone that in 1.2 is going to generate a substantial amount of drag – this vessel isn't very useful from a gameplay perspective, so lets build something that is:

Here is a simple crew shuttle I threw together in 5 minutes or so. SR-71 derivative design, delta wing, 2 ramjets in nacelles, central scramjet. Scramjet has it's own intake so the the only intakes needed are the shock cones and precoolers for the Ramjets. The only changes from default part settings was draining the Oxidizer out of the hypersonic nosecone, setting the service tank to its monoprop variant, and setting activation toggles for the control surfaces, disabling yaw on the elevons and disabling pitch/roll on the rudders. The 2 “Puff” OMS engines have been added to action group 1 to toggle them on/off. 44 parts, 34.250 tons, seats 8.

At launch, SAS is turned on, OMS engines are in their own stage, and the Ramjets and Scramjet are staged together. The Scramjet will flameout, but by staging it now, it will automatically activate when the craft gets up to speed.

Takeoff is like any other takeoff. A minute into the flight I decide to gain altitude more quickly and pitch up to 40 degrees for a swift ascent.

During the climb pitch attitude is gradually decreased to maintain steady speed. At 12000m the craft is now high enough to begin accelerating, and a moment later the nose is brought down to 0 pitch. Because this craft needs a shallow AoA to maintain level flight, zero pitch results in a shallow dive.

One shallow dive later the craft hits mach 2 and I gradually pitch up. This shallow ascent will be maintained until the craft hits a cruising altitude of 15000m.

At 12.5 km up the craft hits mach 4 and the Scramjet ignites. Vertical speed has hit 100m/s, that will need to be reduced to prevent overshooting 15000m. At this time comes a balance of pitching up/down to maintain desired altitude and keeping AoA as close to 0 as possible to minimize drag.
The Scramjet will produce more thrust as the craft continues to accelerate, but for that, higher altitude is desired.

At 15000m the craft levels off, and for the next 100-150m/s of acceleration vertical speed will be kept as close to 0 as feasible to keep the Ramjets in this 15000m sweetspot to get as much acceleration out of them as possible.

The craft is getting quite toasty at this point, so as soon as it hits the magic 1500m/s, the nose is pitched gradually up. Despite a ~5 degree pitch up, at this speed it is enough to give a 100m/s vertical speed. Higher altitude is desired to reduce heating, but lingering as long as possible at a lower altitude will permit getting those extra few m/s before ramjet thrust falls off.

1500m/s is the magic number because at this point, the Scramjet more or less becomes self-sustaining; Any further acceleration from the Ramjets is helpful, but the Scramjet is now producing enough thrust to to sustain the speed necessary for its operation and begin accelerating the craft on its own.

At 19000m the Scramjet is producing as much thrust as both Ramjets combined; Ramjet thrust will only continue to fall off from here to pitch is increased another few degrees to being the climb to hypercruise altitude.

Optimum Scramjet cruising altitude has been reached, and craft temperature is less dire than it was; If speed records or circumnavigation are desired, then pitch should be reduced during the climb to 31000m to achieve a near zero vertical speed by the time 31000m is reached, and then pitch should be reduced further to -5 to -10 degrees or so, entering a shallow dive to maintain altitude. At this speed running out of planet is a concern; the curvature of Kerbin causes the surface to fall away faster than gravity can pull the craft down toward it.

The goal is space, so pitch is maintained and the craft continues to climb out of the atmosphere, spending only enough time to accelerate to orbital velocity before hitting 36000m; that that point the Scramjet is now too high to operate, flaming out from lack of intake air. The craft is now on a ballistic sub-orbital trajectory, and SAS is switched to prograde to reduce AoA drag.

Apoapsis is around 500 km.  At this altitude, with the speed the craft has carried with it, circularization is fairly cheap, and well within the ΔV budget of the OMS engines. With more precise piloting, either by throttling down or decreasing the angle of the crafts ascent, apoapsis can be set to a lower altitude, likewise, prolonged acceleration while in hypercruise can raise apoapsis to a desired height for low-orbit stations, Munar intercepts, etc.

The Puffs don't produce much thrust and are inefficient, but they are sufficient for the job at hand. Were this craft equipped with RAPIERS instead of Afterburns, circularization could be achieved with ~100 units of oxidizer.

Orbit. Hardly the most optimized of crafts; it's carrying far more LiquidFuel than it needs, but for something thrown together without prior testing, it served well enough. Functioning scramjets are not constrained to this particular design; any spaceplane design that can hit ~1400m/s on jets is a viable scramjet design, regardless of hull type, be it mk1, mk2, or even mk3.

It should cover at least the basics; I don't really have much experience writing tutorials, so if there are any glaring deficiencies, let me know and I'll set about correcting them.

@JBrown247: I can take a look at the CTT patch - if 1.2 changed things in the tech tree I should do that anyway, but the only engine I can think of offhand that would produce that much thrust is the Mk3 TurboRamjet from Mk3 Expansion, though considering the less finished nature of M3X it's possible that it isn't where it's supposed to be.

Edited October 23, 2016 by SuicidalInsanity
fixing typos

[C04L]

SuicidalInsanity , I am wondering.

The 5way mk2 rcs block.

could you add the option to switch the colour to stockalike white as well as the default black?

Mainly because when I learn your rcs thrusters I never use any others and I love using them on my rockets.

would be cool if you added it to a to do list - not asking for right away as its just cosmetic. but if it can be done would be great for the look of my craft.

[StahnAileron]

I remember using the Hyperblast a couple times in 1.0.5 just to see. I used it in conjunction with OPT's Turbo-Ramjet. I used it extensively, so I knew how it handled. (It topped off at around ~2200m/s @ ~35km alt. It chokes above its upper speed limit.) Getting to Scramjet speed wasn't going to be a problem. (OPT's engine ramps up horribly fast once you hit Mach 1.5 or so...)

Holy crap was I going fast: I broke 3000m/s. I had to keep pretty aggressive down pitch to not fly off the planet. (I think one run I did with 2 Hypers had me at SOI escape velocity... Or pretty damn close to it.) I was laughing in amazement during those runs. Trying not to burn up was the hardest part. (I did have RealHeat installed though.)

[Kerbrian]

Hi, there's no TWR or Delta-V infos in editor mode when i use the mk2 stockalike engines, it's a known issue ? Thank you for this great mod

[cy-one]

What are the operation parameters of the Scramjet? I'm currently playing around with it, but it's kinda.... every time different at which speed/height it can activate.

Fun thing though. Blew up my cockpit due to overheating at [email protected]/s

[Tarheel1999]

2 hours ago, cy-one said:

What are the operation parameters of the Scramjet? I'm currently playing around with it, but it's kinda.... every time different at which speed/height it can activate.

Fun thing though. Blew up my cockpit due to overheating at [email protected]/s

There's a detailed tutorial 4 posts above yours.

[cy-one]

9 hours ago, Tarheel1999 said:

There's a detailed tutorial 4 posts above yours.

Thanks for pointing out my stupidity and lazyness

[Tarheel1999]

24 minutes ago, cy-one said:

Thanks for pointing out my stupidity and lazyness

In your defense it was hidden behind a spoiler. 

Edited October 26, 2016 by Tarheel1999

[cy-one]

I think the flight path is very important.. as I had trouble getting my scrams to work even at 1.4 km/s

[Benji13]

Is there any particular reason why the parts hold so little Xenon when in that mode? I know they aren't xenon tanks but still, seems a bit nerfed...

Edit: WAIT STOP HOLD UP. What the kraken has imgur done to my screenshot? oh well, it was supposed to show the mk2 tricoupler holding 200 xenon and the small xenon tank holding 700 xenon.

Edit again: Wait, hang on. I have Interstellar Fuel Switch installed. Do these parts even hold xenon or is it IFS adding the (pitiful) xenon amount? If so, does anyone know how to change it?

 

Edited October 29, 2016 by Benji13