Open Source Construction Techniques for Craft Aesthetics

[Halsfury]

Ok so I have a way of totally circumventing the open ended interstage fairing issue, but it costs 100kg of mass

So say you want a fairing with an open ended bottom say for a 2 meter soyuz block I (my current project)

I know somebody else has done this but this is an even easier way. What I did is I took the Rockomax Brand adapter and added it to the bottom of the stage underneath a 2 meter aeroshell base (inverted of course)

extrude the fairing directly onto the sides of the adapter, then use the offset tool and push the Rockomax adapter right into the stage above it, it will act as an attachment surface for all the rocket engines and it's very presence on the rocket will keep the fairing form deleting itself even though the adapter has been moved.

This is the end result, you can see the Rockomax 1 meter to 2 meter adapter just poking out and all the engines attached to it, and the fairing in shadow mode off to the side

it's completely adjustable using the offset tool. This exploits the fact that the fairing will only finish extruding on parts or in a point but if the part onto which the fairing is extruded has been moved without ever having been detached the fairing will not delete itself

Edited May 8, 2015 by Halsfury

[HafCoJoe]

I've always been a fan of the linear aerospike that was posted a while ago, but the part count was always a bugger. I've optimized and recreated a new linear aerospike, though it still has considerable lag from all the radar. Place it in your subassemblies.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Linear Aerospike Sub (dropbox)

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Better engines with intakes:

So, the idea is to improve the look of stock engines with intakes, for this I have clipping enabled, but you can do it with a cubic strut.

Let's start with the wheesly jet:

Adding a shock cone and offsetting it back a bit gives this:

Doing the same with a circular intake:

2 ram intakes make a F-22-like engine:

Using a reliant engine and 4 intakes makes a smooth shield:

Looks good with only 1, too:

Offsetting the engine + a circular intakes results in this:

Almost any engine can be spruced up with this trick.

[Captain Sierra]

-snip-

Do the intakes function or are they purely aesthetic/dead weight? Last I saw intakes had to be facing into the airstream to function.

[GusTurbo]

They're just for looks, but they look super cool!

[Rune]

Do the intakes function or are they purely aesthetic/dead weight? Last I saw intakes had to be facing into the airstream to function.

Actually, I'm starting to doubt that. I have intakes on the shadow of Mk2 fuselages that keep standard jets lit until 10kms. So they might not benefit from speed in their calculations, but they do suck some air.

Rune. Should test the high speed performance.

[Clouds]

Do the intakes function or are they purely aesthetic/dead weight? Last I saw intakes had to be facing into the airstream to function.

Last I tried, intakes function backwards but with not nearly as much rate of intake as forwards.

They're just for looks, but they look super cool!

They DO look super-cool!

[Roflcopterkklol]

Figured i might post this, never see people have their craft burn fuel evenly, im guessing they just do not know how.

[inigma]

The secret sauce to the success of the STS-5E all stock Solid Rocket Boosters (see my sig for link) capable of lifting said craft plus a 42 ton orange and yellow tank plus hardware on its first leg to 400km orbit.

Each SRB is made of 8 stock boosters connected to the second from the top tank, strapped by 8 struts to the bottom clipped tank. All liquid tanks are empty of course, as they simply act as shrouds.

Then to the craft file itself to edit the solid booster amounts for each booster from 2500 units to 3750, to account for the extra/empty space above in the top two empty liquid tanks. It's not cheating since the individual solid boosters would contain that amount anyways if they were as long as these boosters appear, that and the extra mass is factored automatically into the game physics. Totally stock.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

The secret sauce to the success of the STS-5E all stock Solid Rocket Boosters (see my sig for link) capable of lifting said craft plus a 42 ton orange and yellow tank plus hardware on its first leg to 400km orbit.

http://i.imgur.com/1ZUpTHw.png

Each SRB is made of 8 stock boosters connected to the second from the top tank, strapped by 8 struts to the bottom clipped tank. All liquid tanks are empty of course, as they simply act as shrouds.

Then to the craft file itself to edit the solid booster amounts for each booster from 2500 units to 3750, to account for the extra/empty space above in the top two empty liquid tanks. It's not cheating since the individual solid boosters would contain that amount anyways if they were as long as these boosters appear, that and the extra mass is factored automatically into the game physics. Totally stock.

*Ahem*

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43086-Open-Source-Construction-Techniques-for-Craft-Aesthetics?p=1785432&viewfull=1#post1785432

[Zucal]

Then to the craft file itself to edit the solid booster amounts for each booster from 2500 units to 3750, to account for the extra/empty space above in the top two empty liquid tanks. It's not cheating since the individual solid boosters would contain that amount anyways if they were as long as these boosters appear, that and the extra mass is factored automatically into the game physics. Totally stock.

ಠ_ಠ

Totally stock.

ಠ_ಠ

[problemecium]

Hey, it's true that it doesn't involve any mods.

I do feel your concern as to it being a bit "hacky" though. :\

[Zucal]

Well, yeah, but it's definitely not stock. it's altering a fundamental property of a part, and that's a blurry line between "The boosters should have x amount of fuel, so I'll edit in a little more" and "This engine's ISP is too poor compared to its IRL counterparts, let me tweak it a bit."

I understand it's not the same thing, but I never make a craft that no one else could not reproduce exactly with their own game. Stock parts, stock configs.

[SHiftER2O]

ಠ_ಠ

ಠ_ಠ

Reaction xD HAHAHA

[inigma]

If you stack a booster with four empty fuselages on top, which you edit the boosters to account for those fuselages if filled with solid propellant themselves, is not cheating. It's accounting for the true value of propellant expected by the height of the total composite booster. Furthermore it is still stock since the craft loads just fine in any stock game, no editing necessary. It is even less cheating than clipping the boosters in the first place. That and the extra mass is applied by the game physics accordingly.

Edited May 15, 2015 by inigma

[Zucal]

If you stack a booster with four empty fuselages on top, which you edit the boosters to account for those fuselages if filled with solid propellant themselves, is not cheating. It's accounting for the true value of propellant expected by the height of the total composite booster.

The problem with your logic here is that there's no defined line where you can say cheating is happening. What's the difference between what you're doing, and filling adapters with fuel because there *should* be fuel there? All I'm doing is accounting for the true value of the propellant that should be there, right?

Furthermore it is still stock since the craft loads just fine in any stock game, no editing necessary.

Furthermore, it's not stock. Stock isn't defined as "loads in any stock game," it's "performs like a stock vehicle would." I literally cannot recreate your vehicle part by part and get the same performance without going into the underbelly of the game and changing characteristics of the parts. I feel the challenge in building is making do with what you have, not making do with what you think you should have.

It is even less cheating than clipping the boosters in the first place. That and the extra mass is applied by the game physics accordingly.

What? Clipping the boosters in is something any person can do from within the VAB, with stock parts and configs, with stock gizmos. What you are doing to the boosters is altering their performance to suit your craft. What you have done is literally no different than using a modded booster with more fuel. That modded booster may not load in a stock game, but it would never be considered stock even if it did. I regard changing the game itself to make it easier as far cheatier than using a building trick to make something look nicer.

[GusTurbo]

This is an interesting debate on the nature of what is "stock." I can definitely see both sides of the argument. If something can be loaded by any user with the stock game, then there is certainly some merit to the idea that such a craft is stock. For example, craft built with EditorExtensions can have things that the stock editor does not allow, like symmetry greater than 8x and surface attachment for parts that do not allow it by default. I personally consider such things to be stock. I don't think it can be compared to clipping though, since that is allowed by the default editor.

So my question about doing this, because I'm not entirely clear: are you adding solid fuel to the SRB in the craft file?

[inigma]

This is an interesting debate on the nature of what is "stock." I can definitely see both sides of the argument. If something can be loaded by any user with the stock game, then there is certainly some merit to the idea that such a craft is stock. For example, craft built with EditorExtensions can have things that the stock editor does not allow, like symmetry greater than 8x and surface attachment for parts that do not allow it by default. I personally consider such things to be stock. I don't think it can be compared to clipping though, since that is allowed by the default editor.

So my question about doing this, because I'm not entirely clear: are you adding solid fuel to the SRB in the craft file?

Yes. Essentially, all I did was to figure out how to make empty mk.1 fuselages into solid propellant extensions without requiring a mod.

[sgt_flyer]

Does it shifts the COM too ?

[inigma]

Does it shifts the COM too ?

No. That is the only limitation of this method.

Thinking about it though, perhaps there are other things that could be done in the craft file that have yet to be explored that could make that happen or possibly compensate for this. Interesting idea. Craft File Editing: now THIS is advanced KSP engineering!

Edited May 15, 2015 by inigma

[Majorjim!]

No. That is the only limitation of this method.

Thinking about it though, perhaps there are other things that could be done in the craft file that have yet to be explored that could make that happen or possibly compensate for this. Interesting idea. Craft File Editing: now THIS is advanced KSP engineering!

So wont you be the only one who experiences the new performance? Wont anyone who uses your craft and doesn't make the part change not experience the same performance as you? I don't see the point here.

[GusTurbo]

So wont you be the only one who experiences the new performance? Wont anyone who uses your craft and doesn't make the part change not experience the same performance as you? I don't see the point here.

The craft file is edited to include the solid fuel, not the .cfg, so anyone will have the extra fuel.

[Majorjim!]

The craft file is edited to include the solid fuel, not the .cfg, so anyone will have the extra fuel.

Oh ok I see. I don't approve of this naughty behavior.

[inigma]

Oh ok I see. I don't approve of this naughty behavior.

It's not extra fuel. It's compensated fuel. It's supposed to be there, but currently the game does not have solid fuel tanks allowing you to extend solid rocket boosters. This craft file editing trick makes that a reality. No mods required. File is saved, and usable by anyone. No editing necessary. Heck in the Editor you can even empty out the fuel with the slider and return it to pre-edit levels. The extra mass is accounted for by the game physics. One still has to design proper booster placement since now with the extra fuel (represented by the empty fuselages) they are heavier. It's a design trick to get around a stock KSP limitation until Squad pushes out booster extensions. Only the CoM suffers since it doesn't change. I think for boosters at least, that's a legitimate compromise. Of course, editing to give more fuel than the model would support, is cheating, but if your model intends for it via empty tanks or fuselages of any kind, then it's not really cheating. Its compensating.

Edited May 15, 2015 by inigma

[Majorjim!]

It's not extra fuel. It's compensated fuel. It's supposed to be there, but currently the game does not have solid fuel tanks allowing you to extend solid rocket boosters. This craft file editing trick makes that a reality. No mods required. File is saved, and usable by anyone. No editing necessary. The extra mass is accounted for.

What are you compensating for? No way to do it without file editing?