MC3craze Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Eh, I\'m waiting for animation before I add that. Kyle and Winston are doing that with theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThatCrazyPilot Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 That last orbiter image made me confused for a second. I thought it was KSP at first Blame me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted January 5, 2012 Author Share Posted January 5, 2012 Kyle and Winston are doing that with theirs.But those are just decouplers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comradephil Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 But those are just decouplers.I was hoping for a 'OH THEN I MUST ALSO' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigibro606 Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I was hoping for a 'OH THEN I MUST ALSO'That sounds like Nova. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huojin Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Attempting landing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThatCrazyPilot Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 I would that happen? Did you do that intentionally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DYJ Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 And yes that thing is landed, and those are indeed rcs units and a rcs fueltank.The vanguard still handles like a plastic bag caught in a tropical storm on methamphetamine (and I mean that in the nicest of ways) , if you are going for realism it needs to be heavier and have it\'s CoG moved forward/ it\'s AMC moved back. If you are simply aiming for playability you should still move the CoG further ahead, a real plane tends to nose down as it slows down, not up.And if the rest of the craft is borderline indestructible shouldn\'t the nosecone be that too?And why does it feel like all it\'s control authority comes from 'magical pod force' rather than it\'s control surfaces?Apart from those minor issues it\'s a wonderful little shuttle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC3craze Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 And yes that thing is landed, and those are indeed rcs units and a rcs fueltank.The vanguard still handles like a plastic bag caught in a tropical storm on methamphetamine (and I mean that in the nicest of ways) , if you are going for realism it needs to be heavier and have it\'s CoG moved forward/ it\'s AMC moved back. If you are simply aiming for playability you should still move the CoG further ahead, a real plane tends to nose down as it slows down, not up.And if the rest of the craft is borderline indestructible shouldn\'t the nosecone be that too?And why does it feel like all it\'s control authority comes from 'magical pod force' rather than it\'s control surfaces?Apart from those minor issues it\'s a wonderful little shuttle.I think the magical force is so high because RCS is bugged. Otherwise I think nova would make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huojin Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I would that happen? Did you do that intentionally?Not at all. Pretty much what Damnyoujapan just said, it handles fairly horribly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 I think the magical force is so high because RCS is bugged. Otherwise I think nova would make it.Yeah, exactly. RCS practically doesn\'t work for rotation right now, so invisible force is the only way...The winglet model also leaves a lot to be desired. The fact you can rotate it 90 degrees and fly unimpeded upsets me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andras Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Definitely some magic in the SAS module. If you hold nose up against the SAS force, the Vanguard gains speed and altitude. If you up the crash res of the SAS it\'ll speed up and take off after sliding on the ground.If you put it into a 90* nose up position, it describes giant \'U\'s in the air as it gains and loses speed and altitude, but never stalls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Definitely some magic in the SAS module. If you hold nose up against the SAS force, the Vanguard gains speed and altitude. If you up the crash res of the SAS it\'ll speed up and take off after sliding on the ground.If you put it into a 90* nose up position, it describes giant \'U\'s in the air as it gains and loses speed and altitude, but never stalls.I think the gaining speed isn\'t accurate. It\'s registering total speed compared to Kerbin, not airspeed. I can\'t do anything about the stall model. It was said that it was fixed, but apparently not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gojira Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Would you still be able to make an RCS fuel tank from half of the body?Not for use in atmospheric conditions, mind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andras Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I think the gaining speed isn\'t accurate. It\'s registering total speed compared to Kerbin, not airspeed. Speed will go up, then down a bit, then continue to go up while gaining altitude at 10m/s. Flight time is limited solely by how tired your finger gets holding 's' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 Speed will go up, then down a bit, then continue to go up while gaining altitude at 10m/s. Flight time is limited solely by how tired your finger gets holding 's'Like the stall thing, I\'m not sure if it\'s something I can fix... The winglet code is pretty screwed up right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huojin Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 The shuttle runs out of fuel pretty damn quickly, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OtherDalfite Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 I was hoping for a 'OH THEN I MUST ALSO'Change your signature! Good god it\'s huge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieD76 Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Right i\'m no artist Nova so dont take the pi** to much . But have a request...strike that...i have a challange! I know your busy putting Vanguard in orbiter but personlly i love it in kerbal and havent used anything other than it since you uploaded it. So....If your willing to invest a little more time in modeling it how about changing the rear fuel tank into 3 parts...2 tanks, and one RCS tank. I\'m trying to work the way in which it would stage, but simply put...RCS drives thruster built into the tank (ala Durgun, mei long ect) I\'v ilustrated them on the back but they would be in the sides, other than the lower ones that would alter pitch as they would point 45degrees down from the back face, if you get my drift ??? as the heat shield on the bottom doesnt want fouling. Main trusters would work as per they do now but once there either ran out or not needed, you can press space and have a fast, couple of seconds, powerfull burst from the OMS engines to de-orbit. Maybe the OMS would be better as a SRB with a couple hundred thrust, like the Noyus capsule landing rockets....either way i love this pod. yeah its not 100% realistic but people shouldnt complain about a a decent mod for an uncompleate game. Keep up the good work.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamBam Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Every time i land it, the sas/nose breaks off.what about landing gear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GroundHOG-2010 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Every time i land it, the sas/nose breaks off.what about landing gear?Should I tell you? no. This has been brought up before so go look for it. Nova has probably replyed to this question 4-5 times now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted January 7, 2012 Author Share Posted January 7, 2012 Right i\'m no artist Nova so dont take the pi** to much . But have a request...strike that...i have a challange! I know your busy putting Vanguard in orbiter but personlly i love it in kerbal and havent used anything other than it since you uploaded it. So....If your willing to invest a little more time in modeling it how about changing the rear fuel tank into 3 parts...2 tanks, and one RCS tank. I\'m trying to work the way in which it would stage, but simply put...RCS drives thruster built into the tank (ala Durgun, mei long ect) I\'v ilustrated them on the back but they would be in the sides, other than the lower ones that would alter pitch as they would point 45degrees down from the back face, if you get my drift ??? as the heat shield on the bottom doesnt want fouling. Main trusters would work as per they do now but once there either ran out or not needed, you can press space and have a fast, couple of seconds, powerfull burst from the OMS engines to de-orbit. Maybe the OMS would be better as a SRB with a couple hundred thrust, like the Noyus capsule landing rockets....either way i love this pod. yeah its not 100% realistic but people shouldnt complain about a a decent mod for an uncompleate game. Keep up the good work..Well, the current engines are intended solely as OMS and deorbit engines - nothing more. Still trying to think of a way to implement RCS propery without destabilizing the vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieD76 Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Thats what i use them for OMS. I usually end up running out of fuel practicing docking with discarded stages before though . I think once RSC is implemented it will be easyer, plus i can use the mains solely as OMS engines. As i\'ve said before though i love the vangard. If I had any coding or graphical skills i would ask if i could tinker with making RCS and other things but for now...its fine as it is. Would making 2 RCS tanks, front and rear mounted, ballance out the weight to leave it ballanced just as it is now? either giving them zero mass or giving the wings more lift to compensate? . Might be worth going back to it once reentry heat/friction is modeled in game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drakomis Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I can tell everyone this about this craft. Whether or not it is unrealistic shouldn\'t matter. What it does not do is break into a hundred pieces on liftoff *cougheveryshuttlemadeforKSPcough* and it can be attached to a rocket.So, hey, I love it. I flew around the globe with it and landed back on KSP, no issues (with a booster of course for the beginning). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andras Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 The PAM makes a great 1st stage booster if all you want to do is test local area glides.I\'ve been trying to set up glidepaths that bring be onto the runway from as far away as possible by lining up the TVV and the purple indicator on the nav ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts