[0.16] KW Rocketry v0.5

[tvizz]

I like the way this mod pack realistically scales. Just strut it up, (what would it be like building a house without a core structure of beams) to solve wobbling.

The vixen needs more thrust or less consumption though, it is horribly inefficient. (at 8 consumption(stock LE) it would have 120 thrust)

[CAPFlyer]

Not to stop you guys from releasing, but I\'m finding a major issue with the strength of your engine connections. Here is a basic 2-stage using only 2-meter parts. The decoupler has been tried in several positions, but this is the one where the top of the decoupler matches the top of the engine mount, which is what it should be at. Notice how much it stretches at that point only. There shouldn\'t be so much torque to do that. I\'ve tried using RCS placement to 'relieve' the stress and keep it more in line, but that\'s not working. There\'s something wrong with the connection that\'s allowing it to stretch too much.

[Yerbs]

If it slides around or moves like that you need to strut it up until HarvesteR fixes weights in the game (he should have to soon with ship sizes increasing for mun travel.)

If you really want this situation fixed, please tell HarvesteR about the bug so that it gets his attention more and hopefully will make it rise on his priority list to fix.

[tvizz]

Struts are your friend, bwana.

[semininja]

I\'m curious if changing the node type might solve some of the problems with the connections; IIRC, there are at least three types of attachment nodes, in different sizes. I\'ll muck around with .cfg\'s and see if I can figure anything out.

EDIT: You can change the size of the connections, but it doesn\'t affect anything.

[Kickasskyle]

New junk is out, grab it while it\'s hot.

[AtomicRocketBooster]

I have been checking this thread religiously for days. You, sir, are a champion.

[feanor]

New junk is out, grab it while it\'s hot.

Thank you! downloading now, will update all my rockets with this pack

edit:

Loving the RCS tanks.

Hoping for even more options in the future - one in 2 meter scale but with the same capacity as the normal one ( that\'d make it very flat, I know, but it\'d add in options available for the gentleman rocket builder who wishes to optimise his craft of getting to the blackness of space )

One thing ( and I guess i have to hit harvester with this request ) -

What is the strength /efficiency of your RCS thrusters?

Is 1 normal?

I guess I\'ll poke harvester to show these values ingame.

[Kickasskyle]

Yes, 1 is normal.

KW 1m RCS\'s are a little less strong & consuming than stock

2m ones are 4x stronger than the 1m ones

3m ones are 9x stronger than the 1m ones

The efficiency is all relative to the stock RCS modules.

[semininja]

It occurred to me in another thread, but I\'ll put it here, too: could the external tanks on the front page be turned into RCS tanks? There could be four tanks @ NE, NW, SE, and SW, so you can put RCS blocks @ N, S, E and W (relative to the stack). It would be really useful for Mun maneuvers, while still leaving room in the center stack for a small tank+engine.

Also, could you set the 2m connection node sizes to 2? I\'m pretty sure it wouldn\'t do anything much ATM, but it future-proofs the pack. I don\'t use the 3m parts, but you could set those nodes to 3.

Size 2 nodes are bright green, and larger. I\'ll get screenshots in a bit.

[feanor]

It occurred to me in another thread, but I\'ll put it here, too: could the external tanks on the front page be turned into RCS tanks? There could be four tanks @ NE, NW, SE, and SW, so you can put RCS blocks @ N, S, E and W (relative to the stack). It would be really useful for Mun maneuvers, while still leaving room in the center stack for a small tank+engine.

That wouldn\'t work; Current RCS emptying rules would start on a single tank and emptying that completely, before starting on the next; This would only imbalance your rocket worse the more you use RCS to counteract that.

We\'ll have to wait for either updated ruleset, or RCS thrusters that use normal rocket fuel ( from the tank they\'re attached to - and this too would require fuel balancing options ).

[Festivefire]

What would people think about strap-on reserve fuel tanks like this:

When/if such things are implemented, you could have different sorts of tanks for various materials.

Compressing gasses from alien atmospheres and filling your tanks with them to power adapted engines would be neat.

you can do reserve tanks that feed the parent tank with tricky placement, if you put the capsule on top of the reserve tank, then couple the main tank to it, then you put your capsule on the next reserve tank and attach the main tank to it again, do this until you have the desired amount of reserves feeding your main, then put your capsule on the main tank.

[Kickasskyle]

It occurred to me in another thread, but I\'ll put it here, too: could the external tanks on the front page be turned into RCS tanks? There could be four tanks @ NE, NW, SE, and SW, so you can put RCS blocks @ N, S, E and W (relative to the stack). It would be really useful for Mun maneuvers, while still leaving room in the center stack for a small tank+engine.

Also, could you set the 2m connection node sizes to 2? I\'m pretty sure it wouldn\'t do anything much ATM, but it future-proofs the pack. I don\'t use the 3m parts, but you could set those nodes to 3.

Size 2 nodes are bright green, and larger. I\'ll get screenshots in a bit.

I\'ve not seen those different size nodes, but as you said it\'d probably be best to set them all.

Currently working on ~interesting~ new things, so we shall see .

[semininja]

The node size goes on the end of the node definitions, i.e. 'node_stack_top = x, y, z, angx, angy, angz, size' where size = [0,4].

That wouldn\'t work; Current RCS emptying rules would start on a single tank and emptying that completely, before starting on the next; This would only imbalance your rocket worse the more you use RCS to counteract that.

We\'ll have to wait for either updated ruleset, or RCS thrusters that use normal rocket fuel ( from the tank they\'re attached to - and this too would require fuel balancing options ).

You would have the reserve tanks set up as a single part, rather than individual tanks. IIRC, that\'s how it was going to work anyways.

[feanor]

I\'ve not seen those different size nodes, but as you said it\'d probably be best to set them all.

Currently working on ~interesting~ new things, so we shall see .

That sounds very good. Any hints? partial screenshots?

[Kickasskyle]

Here\'s a subtle hint.

Top heaviness might go away shortly.

[feanor]

Here\'s a subtle hint.

Top heaviness might go away shortly.

....Excellent

And just in time for the mun update!

What parts program are you using? I\'m trying to learn blender, keeping it simple so far; simple ICBM solid round parts.

[semininja]

As far as the new winglet things are concerned, are they winglets or just stabilizers, functionally speaking? I noticed that they don\'t actually move, and I can\'t tell if they do anything.

[Kickasskyle]

In terms of parts, they\'re wings.

Just wanted some wings I could use on a center stack that were short and numerious without having to place loads.

....Excellent

And just in time for the mun update!

What parts program are you using? I\'m trying to learn blender, keeping it simple so far; simple ICBM solid round parts.

Winston does his modeling in Max, and I use Photoshop for texturing.

[semininja]

I\'m not sure what you mean by placing loads, but I\'m basically an end-user with a little bit of information (and you know what they say about that).

Anyways, I think the 2m ones, at least, could use a bit more in the ctrlSurfaceArea. I currently have it set to 2 arbitrary units, rather than the original 1.

[Kickasskyle]

It\'s basically a bunch of small wings grouped into one, saves on total parts, looks neat and makes something nice to add to a center stack for abit more guidance.

But treat it as one wing in terms of usage.

I was going to look into scaling them abit better, since other wings (I assume) get their surface area calculated from their model. I didn\'t really have any reference for the area.

[feanor]

A small issue i just found, when trying to make a SRB-X.

( 3 shuttle solids bolted together, the middle one airlit - described as 'the single worst shuttle -derived rocket ever proposed - which makes it perfect for KSP ' ) I found out that one of your SRB\'s has a weird attachment point:

The attachment point seems to be mismatched with the rocket - or perhaps the rocket doesn\'t fit? this is the KW series Globe CS-1 Mk II.

[Zeroignite]

I can confirm this bug.

[Kickasskyle]

I\'ll get on it.

Edit: Mine are all right, so I\'ll upload them and i\'ll get winston to update the main download abit later.

http://www./?ddk3nqkibzm2vd1

[CAPFlyer]

If it slides around or moves like that you need to strut it up until HarvesteR fixes weights in the game (he should have to soon with ship sizes increasing for mun travel.)

If you really want this situation fixed, please tell HarvesteR about the bug so that it gets his attention more and hopefully will make it rise on his priority list to fix.

Well, the problem isn\'t weight though I don\'t think. It\'s the fact that all attachments are at a single point instead of allowing for multiple connection points (i.e. for the shuttle, you have 3 connection points, one up front, and two aft, the SRBs are also connected in two points, one high, one low, and the bolts fire top first then lower to assist the jets in getting the proper separation). Because of this and an apparent issue with the collision mesh (which seems to have some effect on how parts behave together right now) seems to result in engines with a small attachment point or with a large plate to 'swivel' when connected in certain ways. I\'ve not had the issue with the other addon engines, only the KW pack when paired with the uncouplers shown.

However, the bigger issue in the meantime before a fix is found is that I\'ve been unable to get struts that will connect between the KW engines and tank above to fix the problem. Is there a secret to it or are you connecting the struts differently?