Open Source Construction Techniques for Craft Aesthetics

[GusTurbo]

Let's agree to disagree. This method might fall outside the spirit of this thread, but I'm not going to say it has no place in this game. Maybe take this debate elsewhere to keep this thread uncluttered.

[inigma]

It compensates for lack of mk3 boosters.

I think its not only justified but necessary given current SRB limitations. Until they publish mk3 sized boosters, this should be a perfectly acceptable stock method of designing boosters with that expected performance.

[GusTurbo]

I think the crux of the issue is that this isn't really an aesthetic technique.

[inigma]

I think the crux of the issue is that this isn't really an aesthetic technique.

Its a crucial part of the STS-5E booster aesthetic. Without it, heavy lift shuttles are limited to only using liquid boosters. Its info worthy of aesthetic value as a result.

[GusTurbo]

Its a crucial part of the STS-5E booster aesthetic. Without it, heavy lift shuttles are limited to only using liquid boosters. Its info worthy of aesthetic value as a result.

I understand that. The end result is aesthetic, but the technique itself is not, because it's a matter of editing the file.

[Columbia]

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.

Nice, nice. Exploitable engineering at it's finest.

Repped! I don't have much consideration about editing files, although I don't plan on doing it myself.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Well, that's your way of "stock", inigma has his. Nothing wrong with that.

[Zucal]

Its a crucial part of the STS-5E booster aesthetic. Without it, heavy lift shuttles are limited to only using liquid boosters. Its info worthy of aesthetic value as a result.

It compensates for lack of mk3 boosters. I think its not only justified but necessary given current SRB limitations. Until they publish mk3 sized boosters, this should be a perfectly acceptable stock method of designing boosters with that expected performance.

That's fine, but you can't make up part values and configs to get around limitations you think exist. Using your logic, I could say that certain parts are weigh more than they should or certain engines don't output enough thrust for their size and tweak their settings accordingly. You could call anything a limitation of the stock game, and adjust your game settings, or download mods to suit. What's not really cool is to call certain parts stock when they need to be altered in the game's code to have the same performance as yours, and then not say so in your craft thread.

[inigma]

Nice, nice. Exploitable engineering at it's finest.

Repped! I don't have much consideration about editing files, although I don't plan on doing it myself.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, that's your way of "stock", inigma has his. Nothing wrong with that.

Ya, its not "vanilla" stock...but rather "chocolate" stock. Requires no mods or editing by downloaders, but values per part are not vanilla. I conceed that. But in my book the values dont exceed the adopted parts (fuselages for srb solid fuel tanks) in the model, for if they did, then that would be cheating in my book. If you're gonna add fuel in a craft file, you will have to account for it by designating an empty part to store it. Else it's cheating.

- - - Updated - - -

That's fine, but you can't make up part values and configs to get around limitations you think exist. Using your logic, I could say that certain parts are weigh more than they should or certain engines don't output enough thrust for their size and tweak their settings accordingly. You could call anything a limitation of the stock game, and adjust your game settings, or download mods to suit. What's not really cool is to call certain parts stock when they need to be altered in the game's code to have the same performance as yours, and then not say so in your craft thread.

This is craft file editing, not game file editing.

I don't think you can edit part weights and thrust values in craft files.

Edited May 15, 2015 by inigma

[Captain Sierra]

-snip-

I don't think you can edit part weights and thrust values in craft files.

I believe you can actually. I do not know if the game then re-references that back to the loaded config database & corrects it to the loaded part (I know loading crafts into a game with MM-tweaked stock engines works just fine).

[sgt_flyer]

If you want to 'add' more solid fuel, you could also clip in another SRB, and limit the overall thrust - so you'll have your longer burn time without sacrificing thrust too

Now, for sure, if we had a better tweaking system avaible in the stock game, i'll use it with no remorse but if we have to tell people they can edit their .crafts files, some people might make a mistake (and forgot to keep a backup file) corrupting the .craft. (Granted, we can potentially corrupt our saves in game too - but while ingame, you can realise something's wrong before saving the corrupted - with .craft editing, you need to save the modified file before loading it - if it's corrupted at this point, it'll be a bit too late if you did not kept a backup

So, i would not recommend .craft editing techniques for newcomers

[inigma]

If you want to 'add' more solid fuel, you could also clip in another SRB, and limit the overall thrust - so you'll have your longer burn time without sacrificing thrust too

Now, for sure, if we had a better tweaking system avaible in the stock game, i'll use it with no remorse but if we have to tell people they can edit their .crafts files, some people might make a mistake (and forgot to keep a backup file) corrupting the .craft. (Granted, we can potentially corrupt our saves in game too - but while ingame, you can realise something's wrong before saving the corrupted - with .craft editing, you need to save the modified file before loading it - if it's corrupted at this point, it'll be a bit too late if you did not kept a backup

So, i would not recommend .craft editing techniques for newcomers

Yes, craft file editing would fall under advanced KSP engineering.

The good news is that once a craft is edited and made public for download its golden. No need for anyone to edit it. All can use it as is.

[Zucal]

Alright, I'm game to continue this discussion, but not here. Let's get this thread back on track!

A new version of my improved Skipper technique, this one is the same as the old one, but instead of the FL-A10 adapter using the circular intake, and the Skipper mounted on a cubic strut. The intake should also be slightly offset into the C7 adapter.

And you can use backwards-facing mining drills for an alternate orange texture. Bit heavy on the part count.

[HafCoJoe]

Alright, I'm game to continue this discussion, but not here. Let's get this thread back on track!

A new version of my improved Skipper technique, this one is the same as the old one, but instead of the FL-A10 adapter using the circular intake, and the Skipper mounted on a cubic strut. The intake should also be slightly offset into the C7 adapter.

http://i.imgur.com/6lhjVwR.png

http://i.imgur.com/lKFjoPb.png

And you can use backwards-facing mining drills for an alternate orange texture. Bit heavy on the part count.

http://i.imgur.com/2Re2Ah1.png

That. Skipper. Is amazing. DUDE THAT'S AWESOME! I love that engine and I think I might have to snip and try that.

[pTrevTrevs]

Here's a photo of a technique I used for the radial engine on my Sopwith Pup.

The photo is from its WIP stage, but the engine remained largely unchanged throughout the design and testing phase.

First, place a circular intake and set symmetry to radial. Place 8 accelerometers on the intake and use offset/rotate to move them inside the intake to the position shown. Place a small nosecone on the intake or the part directly behind it (Part clipping required) and move it forward to whatever length you want. The accelerometers represent the piston cylinders and the nosecone represents the spinner for the propeller.

[Woopert]

Lots of cool techniques here. Below is one I've been doing recently. You could theoretically do it without Editor Extensions, but surface attachment and horizontal/vertical snap make it much more streamlined and reduces need for cubic struts. I saw Zucal post his design so I thought I might post another cool thing to do with Skippers. This is a composite engine with a Poodle engine clipped with it to increase thrust and I_sp.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Related: how do you use payload adapters as interstage fairings? When I try to draw out the interstage it won't close, instead only wanting me to keep adding more fairings.

For Mainsail engines. Pretty self-explanatory. Surface attach a Mainsail engine, which will make it 'sink in' a bit, surface attach a flat 2.5 metre adapter, and centre both of them. I offset the Mainsail a bit because there was Z-fighting from the engine and the fuel tank.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Woopert

[Rath]

Here is something I hav been doing for a Long time:

Clip small radial batteries into other parts to make a small green light detail. Use a backwards communitrom 16 as an off version.

[KandoKris]

Here is something I hav been doing for a Long time:

Clip small radial batteries into other parts to make a small green light detail. Use a backwards communitrom 16 as an off version.

lol been doin that for ages, also is great as a docking port line-up aid. simply place 4 "green lights" around the docking port and hey presto instant lit up dockingport alignment lights that work even when you have no power.

[problemecium]

^ I do this when I don't have anywhere better to put batteries.

[ghostbuzzer7]

Even though its fairly easy to do. Most players probably don't do this to their Launch Escape Systems to give it more aesthetics (Not to sure if it makes it better in aero though however) You go from this...

Add a 1.25 fairing overlap it with the LES. And you got a more better looking LES for replicas such as Apollo in which don't show those nasty crossbeams.

Also, you can add an upside down fairing put a fuel tank and an engine in there. Now edit the fairing but dont cover the rocket's nozzle. You should be allowed to close the fairing in some weird way like this. It keeps everything inside it safe and yes... it works

So does the LES

Lastly I have to show is you grab one advanced cone, add 8 or 6 depending on your preference, offset them inside and it makes an aerodynamic body/Model for custom fuel tanks as shown under the cones.

That's about it thanks for viewing.

[selfish_meme]

Just on the LES you can also use it on top of landers, add a mono tank underneath two rows of radial parachutes and a row of airbrakes right at the top, and a separator and some struts. Makes a nice safe detachable air landing system.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

Even though its fairly easy to do. Most players probably don't do this to their Launch Escape Systems to give it more aesthetics (Not to sure if it makes it better in aero though however) You go from this...

http://i.imgur.com/gnJU3k6.png

Add a 1.25 fairing overlap it with the LES. And you got a more better looking LES for replicas such as Apollo in which don't show those nasty crossbeams.

http://i.imgur.com/wW24LYV.png

Also, you can add an upside down fairing put a fuel tank and an engine in there. Now edit the fairing but dont cover the rocket's nozzle. You should be allowed to close the fairing in some weird way like this. It keeps everything inside it safe and yes... it works

http://i.imgur.com/ynLDuw0.png

http://i.imgur.com/tcoz0z2.png

http://i.imgur.com/EENdwr4.png

So does the LES

http://i.imgur.com/zIwkNi5.png

Lastly I have to show is you grab one advanced cone, add 8 or 6 depending on your preference, offset them inside and it makes an aerodynamic body/Model for custom fuel tanks as shown under the cones.

http://i.imgur.com/vjnYGHO.png

That's about it thanks for viewing.

Every image I've seen of the Apollo LES show those struts, like this:

I'm interested in where you found a image of the LES with a smooth bit instead of those struts, it definitely looks good, but I've not seen a picture of Apollo with that.

[GusTurbo]

Every image I've seen of the Apollo LES show those struts, like this:

http://klabs.org/images/home_page/apollo_launch.jpg

I'm interested in where you found a image of the LES with a smooth bit instead of those struts, it definitely looks good, but I've not seen a picture of Apollo with that.

They might be thinking of the SLS LES, which is smooth.

[Zucal]

Using thermometers offset and clipped into each other, you can make cute lil' RTGs.

[landfish2]

For the following techniques I will use the SU-50 as a demonstrator:

The two features I would like to focus on are the engines and the cockpit. The engines have a long exposed metallic surface which looks cool and such. To replicate this one can use a clipped small ore tank. The cockpit flows into the body. To replicate this one can use two clipped mk1 inline cockpits and then mate this construct to a series of wing strakes. The result of these techniques is a more realistic plane:

[Guest]

Sleek nuclear tank anyone?