CptRichardson Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 What about a Mark 2 end-cap that merges flat with a surface, like the angled aerocones? The idea being to create an endpiece that radially attaches to a Mark 3 fuselage, or to a rocket (so you can radially mount the nuke engines on) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidBowman Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Could we by any chance also get that second inverted cockpit you made with Mekan1k's suggestion? Looks so good!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zutaca Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 I would really like to see T- and X-junctions for attaching Mk II parts oriented like wings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuicidalInsanity Posted May 23, 2015 Author Share Posted May 23, 2015 @ObsessedWithKSP; Is something like these RCS blister pods what you had in mind?@CptRichardson; Radial aerodynamic Mk2 engine mount? Should be fairly easy.@ DavidBowman; I did save the model, so I don't see why not. I'd have to make an IVA for it, though.@Zutaca; They would also work great for stations. Sure, I can do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudgetHedgehog Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Something like that, yeah.. Looking at them though, making them rectangular to fit in with the sides of the Mk2 might look a bit nicer (somewhat similar shape to the B9 spotlights with the cover (I can get a picture if you don't know the ones I mean), but continuing the Mk2 slope). Or something that can be slotted in line with one of the chines and not look out of place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuicidalInsanity Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 @ObsessedWithKSP: Since I already had the chine RCS units, I interpreted 'RCS block' as something more akin to the RV-105, but aerodynamic. I suppose I should add a 2-axis chine RCS block to the lineup too.@Zutaca: Done Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CptRichardson Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Idea: Literally expanded Mark 2. Split vertically down the centerline length so as to insert a flat across 1.25 meter section in between with a variety of different fillings. Shielded Engine Mount, double width cargo bay, retro engine system for landing, drill bay system that lowers the drill down from inside the hold, etc. Might also provide a much higher lift rating, like one of the large wings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudgetHedgehog Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Since I already had the chine RCS units, I interpreted 'RCS block' as something more akin to the RV-105, but aerodynamic.Didn't know about them - fair enough, the little blister pods would be ok as well then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryphorim Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I'd like to see someone do a Mk2 Cockpit for rovers and SEVs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuicidalInsanity Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 (edited) @CptRichardson;That's sort of moving out of scope of mk2 pieces. One one hand, I'd like to stay with the mk2 form, on the other, I am doing a parts pack to expand the mk2 form and what can be done with it. Hmmmm... I'll think about it.@ObsessedWithKSP; I've made one further RCS block - a rectangular trapezoid shaped one designed to continue the slope of mk2 fuselages and seamlessly fit on the sides of a mk2 fuselage where the black stripe is. Its less aerodynamic than the blisters, but can be used instead of the chine pieces.@Gryphorim; I had an idea originally for a sort of bomber-esque observation/high visibility mk2 cockpit/mk2 cupola thing. Shouldn't be too hard to adapt that idea for rover use as well.Edit: Though I'd try my hand at a service bay:A work in progress. the idea was to have an easily accessible compartment for stowage, with the central column holding Monoprop tanks and batteries. Edited May 28, 2015 by SuicidalInsanity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
temporalExile Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) Edit: Though I'd try my hand at a service bay:http://i.imgur.com/Z3GyfeO.png?1A work in progress. the idea was to have an easily accessible compartment for stowage, with the central column holding Monoprop tanks and batteries.Nice, but a bit big IMO. I think it should be at most half the size of a cargo bay. Actually, the Mk2 system could use some half length peices in general.Edit: When I said cargo bay, I did mean short cargo bay. Edited May 28, 2015 by temporalExile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuicidalInsanity Posted May 28, 2015 Author Share Posted May 28, 2015 Its currently about the size of a short cargo bay. I can make it shorter, but too short and you can't stuff much of anything into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuicidalInsanity Posted May 31, 2015 Author Share Posted May 31, 2015 Some new cockpit WIPS:SR-71 Blackbird inspired cockpitCockpit inspired by '70's to '90's artist concepts of cancelled spaceplane/USAF black projectsBoth still have some rough edges, but that's something to work on when I have more time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidBowman Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 That second cockpit looks very (VERY!!!) awesome!That first one, the SR-71 inspired cockpit looks...less...awesome? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_v Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) No offense, but I have to agree. I'm not sure what it was that struck me when I first saw it, duck? penguin? somehow it seems too 'cute' and not quite mean enough to be an SR71... maybe the angle of the canopy? perhaps it's a little too far forward, or the part slightly too short overall?Either way, they're both miles better than anything I could make Edited May 31, 2015 by steve_v Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuicidalInsanity Posted May 31, 2015 Author Share Posted May 31, 2015 No offense taken, and thanks for the feedback. The SR-71 'pit -it does look a bit short, and the windows should probably be smaller; it will need more work before I'm satisfied with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curiousepic Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) I was just today wishing for a short (half-small-cargo bay) size service part. I'd take more monoprop/battery capacity over open space. Edited May 31, 2015 by curiousepic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_v Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 On another note, there are some parts that don't play nice with FAR, probably because:grep -R ModuleLiftingSurface *Aero/EngineShroud/part.cfg: name = ModuleLiftingSurfaceAero/Chines/Short.cfg: name = ModuleLiftingSurfaceAero/Chines/Long.cfg: name = ModuleLiftingSurfaceAero/Chines/End.cfg: name = ModuleLiftingSurfaceFuelTank/HypersonicNose/part.cfg: name = ModuleLiftingSurfaceFuelTank/Nosecap/part.cfg: name = ModuleLiftingSurfaceFuelTank/Inverter/part.cfg: name = ModuleLiftingSurfaceFuelTank/SpadeTail/part.cfg: name = ModuleLiftingSurfaceNot sure where the requisite MM patches belong though, here or distributed with FAR like everything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuicidalInsanity Posted May 31, 2015 Author Share Posted May 31, 2015 I have a MM patch for FAR compatibility that 'll be released with the next update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_v Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Awesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sashan Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 I was that smart guy with NTR temperature distribution. Your NTR has too small throat-to-nozzle ratio. In other words, for your reactor and throat teh nozzle should have like 4x the diameter, and thrust should be on order of 250kN. I know that would make the nozzle larger than the rest of the part, so I'-m suggesting you to make it have a diameter just a little bit smaller than the center part diameter, and scale the reactor down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuicidalInsanity Posted May 31, 2015 Author Share Posted May 31, 2015 So - increase size of throat and nozzle on the NTR? Shouldn't take too long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vitasalato Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Great work with the Shielded Mk2 docking port Instead why your part overeat so easily? Why you don't putt the same Max temp of other stock parts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuicidalInsanity Posted June 3, 2015 Author Share Posted June 3, 2015 @Vitasalato; Remove the DRE patch in Mk2Expansion/patchesAlso, the Blackbird cockpit has been reworked:Changed it to have a 1.25m node on the front and got rid of the crazy large windows. Its an improvement, but feels like its still missing some je ne sais qui.Not looking forward to the IVA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WesleySmalls Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 No offense taken, and thanks for the feedback. The SR-71 'pit -it does look a bit short, and the windows should probably be smaller; it will need more work before I'm satisfied with it.IMO it did look pretty good, not SR-71-alike, but it does look good. Maybe a different window set and imo it would look like a great cockpit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.