[1.12.x] Freight Transport Technologies [v0.6.0]

[KerbalKore]

Hey @RoverDude, I was wondering if you could provide a craft file for the starlifter, since it is really hard to get right.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Bill the Kerbal

[TheRagingIrishman]

9 hours ago, Bill the Kerbal said:

Hey @RoverDude, I was wondering if you could provide a craft file for the starlifter, since it is really hard to get right.

What's so hard about starlifter? Also, the whole point of RD's mods is to allow modular use and a .craft file can only show one use.

[KerbalKore]

The starlifter is a cargo hauler and it hauls kontainers which can be changed.

also, it is hard because of the difficulty of getting the optimal configuration.

[DStaal]

Define 'optimal'.    It's definition usually depends on the mission you intend to use it for.  (Which is why it's hard to say 'here is the Starlifter', because a freight-run ship might be very different than a colony-supply ship.  To give two examples.)

[KerbalKore]

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

Define 'optimal'.    It's definition usually depends on the mission you intend to use it for.  (Which is why it's hard to say 'here is the Starlifter', because a freight-run ship might be very different than a colony-supply ship.  To give two examples.)

i guess so, also the optimal configuration is the one with the most delta-v.

[SciMan]

Noticed something odd about the Orca command pod.

While the texturing of the pod looks like it has 2 EVA hatches, when I try to EVA directly from the pod I get "Can't EVA: Module has no hatch".

This causes problems for me because my freighters have 2 Engineer kerbals in that pod to handle KIS and KAS tasks, as well as disposing of unneeded parts. However I can't do any of that, because there's "no" hatch!

I worked around the problem by sending up a small ship with an Engineer and 2 Ranger Airlock modules, and then attaching them where I had originally placed 1.25m docking ports.

 

Did I mention that I had already sent a few large ships to Jool using this command pod before I noticed this?
That repair mission was a real pain in the booster.

Edited December 6, 2016 by SciMan

[Boiler1]

On 12/6/2016 at 4:25 PM, SciMan said:

Noticed something odd about the Orca command pod.

While the texturing of the pod looks like it has 2 EVA hatches, when I try to EVA directly from the pod I get "Can't EVA: Module has no hatch".

This causes problems for me because my freighters have 2 Engineer kerbals in that pod to handle KIS and KAS tasks, as well as disposing of unneeded parts. However I can't do any of that, because there's "no" hatch!

I worked around the problem by sending up a small ship with an Engineer and 2 Ranger Airlock modules, and then attaching them where I had originally placed 1.25m docking ports.

 

Did I mention that I had already sent a few large ships to Jool using this command pod before I noticed this?
That repair mission was a real pain in the booster.

Update to the latest version, this issue has been fixed.

 

On 11/28/2016 at 1:23 PM, Bill the Kerbal said:

i guess so, also the optimal configuration is the one with the most delta-v.

This is incorrect, as delta-v is exponentially linked to mass.  So the more mass your ship has the lower the delta-v.  A better thought would be to figure where you want to go.  This determines the delta-v budget.  The next is to determine what you need to take there.  Understand that 'less is more'.  The less stuff you take the easier it is to get there.  Then create a craft that can do that.  I like to work with 40 tons.  I don't have any problem moving around 40 tons with my abilities.  I can build a lander / rover that fully loaded will easily be able to land on a destination planet or airless body.  Then build a craft to get it there.  The key is to break the problem down into smaller steps.  

Also, remember that the Starlifter structural parts are heavy so if you can build a craft with less structural parts and more functional parts it will have more delta-v.  Basically start by stacking Kontainers until you are satisfied then add fuel tanks and engines as needed to get you there.  It makes it easy if you use Kerbal engineer or Mechjeb to do the calculations for you.

Edited December 11, 2016 by Boiler1
grammer

[SciMan]

14 hours ago, Boiler1 said:

Update to the latest version, this issue has been fixed.

Thanks, for some reason AVCmini wasn't telling me a new version of this was available. Might be because I messed with the .version file so it would stop telling me it wasn't 1.2.1 compatible after that KSP version came out.

[Sharpy]

Ok, so for my feedback:  (didnt try the LFO VTOL engines yet, so no opinion here.)

- the propfans are fine in terms of power/mass/performance, but they could freely get way more power-hungry. This thing has a nuclear reactor for a reason. MK3 stockalike provides an electric turbofan of similar parameters that draws 1000EC/s as your, which draws 7. Sure that one has LF capability so it can be less efficient on EC, but I think good balance would be that 4 Jumbos at full thrust should be putting a strain on the reactor, requiring it runs 100% efficiency or tap into batteries (or throttle down).

- The toughest parts in the stock game, MK3, have breakingforce and breakingtorque of 200. Yours have 1400-something. Sure it's rugged and tough, but damn...

- terribly disappointed the containers can carry all kinds of fancy USI resources (which I don't use) but not plain ore. Ways to carry Electric Charge and such would be nice too.

- Sorely need radiators. Stock radiators look terrible on this. I think I found one radiator part, from LLL, which kinda fits aesthetically.

- One would think this is *made* for Kontainers. One would be wrong. It's a really poor fit profile-wise. An adapter part maybe? Or at least add Tweakscale option to fit larger Kontainers in the cargo bay. Similarly poor fit for Starlifter.

- love the engine cowling part. Flip it upside down, include inline, and I have a sweet service bay. The RCS is good too.

- the way the cargo bay opens could use some more love. It's fine for orbital deployments, but on a planet, if you want to drop a rover, or send kerbals from a lab on EVA where jetpacks don't work, or even drop off planetary cargo and pick it up with a rover, it's a total bother, even upside-down. It would be great if it would unfold entirely, into a big wide flat platform.

- while the smaller turbofans make little sense for this mod...

Yay! Love them. Although the fact two of them don't even strain a single RTG a little bit is kinda... OP. I think running two at 80% should be one RTG worth's of EC usage.

 

 

[mjl1966]

On 10/21/2016 at 6:44 PM, FirroSeranel said:

--snip--
@RoverDude

Edit: The landing legs also don't adjust their feet to align with the ground on touchdown (probably owing to the landing feet changes made for 1.2). In addition, they have something strange going on with their friction. I'm currently sliding down about a 5° slope on the Mun, at a steady 0.1 m/s. If I stop with RCS, it accelerates right back to 0.1. If I accelerate with RCS, it swiftly decelerates via friction... but only down to 0.1 m/s. It won't get rid of that last little bit of slip and come to a halt.

 

THIS!  I have the exact same problem when I use the radial lander legs.  The badger just slides along the ground as if it were an ice skating rink.  There is a definite friction bug with the radial landing legs.  I wouldn't bump this except they are so darn cool and look great on the HB. 

[RoverDude]

..There are no landing legs in this mod...

[Invader_guy]

I can't find the Starlifter command pod under any category, am I doing something wrong?

[TheRagingIrishman]

10 hours ago, Invader_guy said:

I can't find the Starlifter command pod under any category, am I doing something wrong?

it's gone, replaced by Orca Command Pod

Edited December 31, 2016 by TheRagingIrishman

[Crankypoet]

I'm trying to use the GNR-2500 nuclear engine. It says "propellants: lqdhydrogen 100%. Where do i get it from? 

http://prntscr.com/dslqre

 

[RoverDude]

One of the many available tanks under logistics.  I bundle USI Core with this mod so you have access to these.

[Crankypoet]

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:

One of the many available tanks under logistics.  I bundle USI Core with this mod so you have access to these.

okay. well none of the tanks contain lqdnitrogen or can be changed to contain it. I tried them all. right klicking, starting the flight and so on. should i re-download it maby?

http://prntscr.com/dsn74u

http://prntscr.com/dsn80k

[RoverDude]

Looks like you did not include Firespitter, which is bundled.  All of the bits bundled with FTT need to be included or it will not work.

[Crankypoet]

2 hours ago, RoverDude said:

Looks like you did not include Firespitter, which is bundled.  All of the bits bundled with FTT need to be included or it will not work.

Thanks. I downloaded it again and now it works just fine. Hat off to you, sir.

[Shawarmakriger]

Edit: Found the answer myself.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Shawarmakriger

[OldSedan]

The starlifter nuclear reactor is showing a mass of 39-and-change tons in my game, but from the description and the definition in the actual part file it looks like it's supposed to be 26 tons. Is this a known thing, or should I go hunting for mod conflicts or installation errors?

Thanks

[goldenpsp]

1 hour ago, OldSedan said:

The starlifter nuclear reactor is showing a mass of 39-and-change tons in my game, but from the description and the definition in the actual part file it looks like it's supposed to be 26 tons. Is this a known thing, or should I go hunting for mod conflicts or installation errors?

Thanks

Honestly if I recall correctly, many of the FTT parts haven't really been touched/balanced in quite awhile.  For me the only parts I really use from this mod these days are the honeybadger parts.  I expect at some point this mod is going to get a major gut/overhaul.

[Somtaaw]

Newtime user to USI parts, but I've encountered issues trying to track down specific sub-parts. Only 5 (terrible) Starlifter parts show up when searching for "Starlifter", unless I search by Cross-section 5m. Similar issue with Honeybadger components, I have to sort by cross-section to find more than a tiny handful of components.

[RoverDude]

I was not aware I had any terrible parts.

But sounds like you have an installation issue.

[voicey99]

Is it me, or are the reaction wheels in the Honeybadger Control Module really weedy? On a 50t vessel, three of these modules placed exactly on the CoM take over 40s to turn it around-and that's without any cargo. In all its 250t, fully loaded glory, it's like turning a blue whale with an ion thruster. Basically, are the flywheels only supposed to be a backup system for the more powerful RCS, do they need a buff, or am I doing it wrong?

Edited January 28, 2017 by voicey99

[sp1989]

I think there might be sizing issues with some of the containers/fuel tanks. The cluster fuel tanks seem to be smaller than they should be. Just for a comparison I attached a 3.75 ball underneath whats supposed to be the 3.75 ball cluster. I thought it might have been the size wide but then the 5m cluster is no where near 5m so i thin it might be a sizing issue. 

Also had quite a few null exemption errors. 

KSP.log https://www.dropbox.com/s/tr9vbsf8e97uqwm/KSP.log?dl=0

Player.Log https://www.dropbox.com/s/ap33bfyrpq0thwp/Player.log?dl=0

Edited February 15, 2017 by sp1989