Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Raptor9]

15 hours ago, alexilahio said:

have u got the depot base crafted in a way?

Not particularly. Each mining site has three IV-1B ISRU rigs and three HLV-5B fuel transports assigned to them.  When the fuel transports are filled, I fly one up to the orbital depot and back down, and repeat with the other two. Then I restart the ISRU rigs to start filling them again. The three mining rig/transport setup is just to limit part count within physics range.

1 hour ago, Neil Kerman said:

Does anyone know where I can download all of Raptor9s craft brochures?

There's no one place to download them all, unless someone has taken the time to screen capture them all. They'll all be changing after the 1.4 update anyway.

[Gilbershaft]

@Raptor9 I almost never post on the forums but I just wanted to take a moment and thank you for sharing all of your wonderful creations with the community. In addition to using them as inspiration, I also have started just adding a lot of your stuff to the stock ships folder because I always want them available to either use or reference. 

Thanks again and keep on keeping on!

[Raptor9]

@Gilbershaft, your welcome and glad your finding inspiration from them.  I will admit, there are times when I feel burned out from the constant designing, testing, tweaking, re-testing cycle; but then I'll watch some Twitch streamers playing KSP and see some of their creations and how much fun they're having.  This in turn inspires me to dive right back into the VAB/SPH and start hammering away at my own engineering problems.  Since KSP is a game that is fueled by creation and limited only by imagination, having that inspiration feedback loop is the best resource to keep the community going.

[Thorn_Ike]

I downloaded the "Shrike", thinking it would be a great A-10 Thunderbolt. I armed it with BDA (A GAU-8 and 8 AMRAAMs, along with countermeasures), stuck an AI on it, and sent it against my fighter, which has the same thing.

Oh god...

It isn't able to turn wide and isn't very fast. It lasted about 50 seconds in the air before an AMRAAM blew it up. Tried it with David Nielsen's F-22, same thing. With David Nielsen's F-16? Toast. A CIWS? Forget it.

@Raptor9, please make a war-type version of the "Shrike". 

Thanx, 

Thorn_Ike

Edited February 14, 2018 by Thorn_Ike
Grammar!

[ExplorerKlatt]

@Thorn_Ike The real life a-10 warthog wouldn't stand a chance against any modern fighter jet. The A-10 is a ground attack craft. It is slow and doesn't have great maneuverability. It was primarily designed to support friendly ground troops. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by ExplorerKlatt

[Raptor9]

37 minutes ago, ExplorerKlatt said:

The real life a-10 warthog wouldn't stand a chance against any modern fighter jet. The A-10 is a ground attack craft. It is slow and doesn't have great maneuverability. It was primarily designed to support friendly ground troops. 

@Thorn_Ike Further, the C7 130 'Shrike' is listed as a utility/survey aircraft.  It was part of a series of straight-winged, un-glamorous aircraft designed to support science and utility missions around Kerbin, not dogfight or carry weapons.  Granted, the airframe layout is obviously an analogue to the real-life A-10, but that is where the likeness stops.  The only "object" it was meant to drop was perhaps small, parachute-equipped science probes onto mountainsides or other terrain that would be difficult to land a plane on.

@ExplorerKlatt, the A-10 is actually quite maneuverable when lightly loaded, but yeah, it doesn't have enough thrust to keep it's [much lower] speed up during maneuvers.  Not to mention any substantial loadout of weapons and ammo would impair it's maneuverability (like any aircraft).

EDIT: One thing I forgot to mention, KSP parts are not designed for war, or for modeling complex redundant systems for handling combat damage.  This is what makes the real-life A-10 so durable, whereas an A-10 analogue in KSP composed of stock parts might as well be manufactured with corrugated cardboard.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Raptor9

[Thorn_Ike]

2 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

@Thorn_Ike Further, the C7 130 'Shrike' is listed as a utility/survey aircraft.  It was part of a series of straight-winged, un-glamorous aircraft designed to support science and utility missions around Kerbin, not dogfight or carry weapons.  Granted, the airframe layout is obviously an analogue to the real-life A-10, but that is where the likeness stops.  The only "object" it was meant to drop was perhaps small, parachute-equipped science probes onto mountainsides or other terrain that would be difficult to land a plane on.

@ExplorerKlatt, the A-10 is actually quite maneuverable when lightly loaded, but yeah, it doesn't have enough thrust to keep it's [much lower] speed up during maneuvers.  Not to mention any substantial loadout of weapons and ammo would impair it's maneuverability (like any aircraft).

EDIT: One thing I forgot to mention, KSP parts are not designed for war, or for modeling complex redundant systems for handling combat damage.  This is what makes the real-life A-10 so durable, whereas an A-10 analogue in KSP composed of stock parts might as well be manufactured with corrugated cardboard.

Ah well.

[Marcin_maruda]

Wow your crafts are amazing! I would love to "play historically" starting with planes, then going through early Mun flights, ending on bases around Solar System. As i`m not very good rocket scientist i was downloading various crafts from random creators.Then i saw your thread and i fell in love with it Your crafts seems perfect for my "vision of exploring universe". There is a little mess in Download sections so can someone give me some tips in which order use those vehicles to make some kind of realistic progress.

 

I`m very sorry for my grammar and language. Not used to type a lot in global language

[Raptor9]

Hi @Marcin_maruda, welcome to the forums. 

Regarding which order to use the vehicles, it may depend on what you consider realistic progress.  Unfortunately, my designs don't take into account the tech tree progression of science and career modes, so if you do use my craft, you will have to suffer through some early career grind.

In the Categorized Bulk Download section of the OP, I've linked various KerbalX hangers based on Design Reference Architectures, or DRA's.  Most DRA's are analogous to real-life mission architectures that have been performed in real-life or proposed in concept form.  For example, the Mun DRA 1.0 includes craft that are analogues to the Apollo moon missions in the 60's and 70's, whereas the Mun DRA 2.0 craft are analogous to the proposed lunar components of the cancelled Constellation program.  Duna DRA 1.0 was based on a proposed Mars mission study from 1968, Duna DRA 2.0 was based on the Mars component of the Constellation program, etc.  Hopefully these should give you some clues as to what real-life timelines these mission architectures were meant to emulate.  Further, in each craft download spoiler drop-down slot, right below the KerbalX link, the Real-life Influence of said design is listed; which can also allow you to reference when that design was used or proposed.
_______________________________________

I want to take this opportunity to point out to anybody looking to use my designs after the 1.4 update, that any and all of my craft are subject to either moderate revision or complete redesign.  Besides the fact that we will be getting new parts, a lot of existing parts like fuel tanks and such are getting a stats re-balance, which may render some craft obsolete.

[Marcin_maruda]

@Raptor9 Thanks for help. I will post some pictures later

[Gilbershaft]

On 2/12/2018 at 12:46 AM, Raptor9 said:

@Gilbershaft, your welcome and glad your finding inspiration from them.  I will admit, there are times when I feel burned out from the constant designing, testing, tweaking, re-testing cycle; but then I'll watch some Twitch streamers playing KSP and see some of their creations and how much fun they're having.  This in turn inspires me to dive right back into the VAB/SPH and start hammering away at my own engineering problems.  Since KSP is a game that is fueled by creation and limited only by imagination, having that inspiration feedback loop is the best resource to keep the community going.

@Raptor9: I was terrible at building planes before I started using yours - I'm still not great at it, but am far better now since I started using yours as examples. I often take one of your planes, make a copy of it, and then make changes so I could understand why everything did what it did. There are a lot of wonderful creations on KerbalX but I think yours are consistently the "easiest" to understand, even your complex builds seem to stick to basic principles. My first successful SSTO Space Plane of my own design was a direct result of learning from your work. I also really appreciate that the part count of your crafts are fairly low. I'm not sure if that is intentional but its great for someone like me who does not have a PC that is ideal for KSP. 

Thanks again and I look forward to seeing what you come up with in the future! ... But don't let yourself get burned out. Its just a game after all  

[Raptor9]

31 minutes ago, Gilbershaft said:

I was terrible at building planes before I started using yours

As soon as the first alpha spaceplane parts came out (which were horrible compared to what we have now, plus the pre-v0.90 soup-o-sphere), the first thing I tried to do was build an SSTO.  And I sucked, I gave up, tried again months later when I got the bug, and gave up again.  When Porkjet's spaceplane parts got added in v0.25, they were too nice not to try again, soupy atmosphere be darned.  I still couldn't pull it off, so I decided to start at the basics with simple designs like the X-1, X-2, X-3, just trying swept wings, delta wings, different engine combos, and so on and so forth, to learn different design and airfoil layouts.  Not exactly true to real-life airfoil physics, sure; but at least seeing how they worked in KSP.

Making SSTO spaceplanes is still my weakest skill, and the only "really good" ones are the SR-21 'Phoenix' models.

38 minutes ago, Gilbershaft said:

I also really appreciate that the part count of your crafts are fairly low. I'm not sure if that is intentional but its great for someone like me who does not have a PC that is ideal for KSP. 

It's intentional.  Mainly for when a bunch of craft are in one place, like an interplanetary expedition or an orbiting space station.  I have a decent gaming computer, but it's 5 years old and I'm due for an upgrade.

[Wilhelm Kerman]

Do you have a manned spacecraft for Jool planned?

I have noticed that many of your EV-XX vehicles have a realistic base, and there isn't much of a plan for a manned Jupiter or Saturn mission at the moment.

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Wilhelm Kerman said:

Do you have a manned spacecraft for Jool planned?

I have noticed that many of your EV-XX vehicles have a realistic base, and there isn't much of a plan for a manned Jupiter or Saturn mission at the moment.

Planned? Yes.

Up until the early half of January I was experimenting with various designs for a long-range configuration of the EV-6 Windjammer architecture that was specifically configured for Jool, namely robust communications and less reliance on solar power.  Even though the EV-6 spacecraft system was inspired by Lockheed's Mars Base Camp concept, the EV-6 was intended from the outset to be an extensible spacecraft system for not just Duna, but also Eve, Dres, and Jool.  I stopped work on it however after it was announced that KSP 1.4 was coming soon and there were several part revisions and stats rebalancing that would be happening with the core game of stock parts.  After the 1.4.1 patch comes out on Tuesday, I'll be mainly focusing on taking a look at all my existing published craft to ensure they are brought up to currency and tweaked as necessary.  The monopropellant- and xenon-based ships will be the most effected, like the LV-2 family of landers and the EV-5 'Drifter' variants.

[Beetlecat]

Looking forward to the 1.4.1 iterations! I hope you plan on integrating the expansion parts, as well -- looks of good looking now-"stock" components & variable sizes to integrate!  

[Jestersage]

Another one that I think may affect your building is whether you intend to do pure stock or DLC ships going forward. the EV-2C series (Orion clone) can be done, launched by a single SRB, to a 80x80 orbit, when you utilize the DLC 1.8 parts due to the reduced weights.

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Jestersage said:

whether you intend to do pure stock or DLC ships going forward

I was afraid when someone was going to bring that up, but it is a factor to consider nonetheless.  I've given this substantial thought this past year, especially the past few months when the majority of the features of the DLC were becoming more well known.  I haven't done any catalog craft re-builds yet, I spent most of last night just having fun building an Apollo-Saturn V, a Soyuz, and a Gemini-Titan.

The concerns I have regarding immediately diving into heavy craft redesigns and revisions mainly revolves around the size and scope of the v1.4.1/DLC itself.  If you consider all the features added into KSP by combining the core game updates and the DLC, this was by far the biggest content and feature addition since v1.0.  And we saw four patches come out in a relatively short period (less than two months) after v1.0 was released to address bugs or balance issues (I don't consider 1.0.5 a patch since it was half a year later and delivered more content).  I wouldn't be surprised to see a 1.4.2 patch in the near future to address some of the more minor bugs still present (I've seen several), or to address balance issues.  Adding this many parts to the game there is bound to be more balancing to be done.  But that's just me speculating.

But to summarize where to expect DLC-specific part implementation, the priority will be to reduce part count (with the more obvious example being the EV-2C; @Jestersage you pretty much hit the nail on the head), or to cover any significant performance gaps.  Until I have more time to play with the new stuff to see how it "stacks up" (bad pun ), I don't want to make any promises on what will or will not stay "core game" only or not.

[Marcin_maruda]

Hi! It`s me again. Can I use your crafts in Missions that i will publish here on forum. This could be a great ad for you

Edited March 16, 2018 by Marcin_maruda

[Raptor9]

5 hours ago, Marcin_maruda said:

Can I use your crafts in Missions that i will publish here on forum.

As long as the craft files are properly accredited, that's fine.

[Raptor9]

This weekend has been quite productive.  With the 1.4.1 update and DLC, I haven't enjoyed engineering craft in the VAB like this in a while, so thank you again @SQUAD.
______________________________________

I've made the decision to implement the DLC parts into my catalog, in lieu of remaining purely within the core game set of parts.  That's not to say all craft being updated will include DLC parts; but there will be a mixed bag of sorts.  Some areas will have more heavy DLC integration, while others may have none.  One such example of this is my Rocket Market category.  Some tiers will be void of DLC, some will have a mix, and some will consist almost entirely of DLC parts.  The lifter tiers will be broken down as follows:

Tier 1 - 'Arrow' 1.25m rocket family.  Previously known as the 'Javelin' series, these will be remain "core game" stock.  The only original 'Arrow' launcher that existed prior was the suborbital booster for my EV-1A, but now the naming convention will encompass the entire family.  The original 'Arrow' booster will be added as well, for lofting small satellites of 0.5 tons and below to LKO (up to 200x200 km orbit).  (The small Jeb's Junkyard fins make these craft look more like arrows than javelins anyway )
Tier 2 (NEW) - 'Javelin' 1.875m rocket family.  These will loft the Gemini-analogue to orbit, and are planned to expand into a proper family after I finish updating existing craft.  These will obviously all consist of DLC parts.
Tier 3 - 'Thunder'/'Lightning' 2.5m rocket family.  EDIT: These will all be DLC rockets, I mistook a DLC part for one that was included free in 1.4.
Tier 4 - 'Titan' 3.75m rocket family.  Most of these will remain "core game" stock, however the 'Titan 3P' and 'Titan 4N' will include a couple DLC parts for better performance.
Tier 5 (NEW) - Un-named 5m rocket family, obviously inspired by the real-life Saturn rockets.  I have an idea of what I want to do with these, but aside from casual play with the Saturn V parts, I haven't planned out how the rocket family will materialize, although I have some ideas jotted down.

I'm rebuilding every craft file from scratch, to ensure every part is optimized to my current design techniques and standards; and I'm actually enjoying myself.  There's been a few occasions where I've looked at the guts of an older craft and thought to myself "Why on Kerbin did I do that?" or "Why did I use that part for that purpose?" 

On the SPH side of the house, most of these don't require updates, but I'll be taking a look at each aircraft/spaceplane for improvement as well.  I do plan on re-making the interior of the C7 325R; it's overdue for a revision.  I also want to squeeze a little more performance out of the SR-19 'Valkyrie'.  So much to do, so little time...

Edited March 19, 2018 by Raptor9

[freakneek]

10 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

I'm rebuilding every craft file from scratch, to ensure every part is optimized to my current design techniques and standards; and I'm actually enjoying myself. 

That's Awesome mate!!! The last thing you need is to start getting bored of building.
I am really looking forward to seeing your new craft files!
 

[Jestersage]

Awesome. Can't wait to see the new MOL you will build with the Gemini Capsule.

As for me, I decide to exploit the OP-ness of the Cub verniers for VA+Almaz... borrowing your MOL module side TBH. In fact I will probably stick with Soviet (edit: And China) since a) I manage to build an N1, testing it now (can use a bit more monoprop, as they do not have Reaction wheels) b) Everyone built a Saturn V already... in fact you may want to keep some of the 1.3.1 for non-DLC options. You may as well do a Nova DA lander.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Jestersage

[Saltshaker]

Maybe name the not!Saturn rockets the Jove family in keeping with the theme of larger power? And the Saturn 1C from Eyes Turned Skyward would be nice too.

[septemberWaves]

Or Kronos would perhaps be a good name for the Saturn-style rockets. Speaking of which, are you just sticking with real Saturns, or will you be making designs inspired by some of the potential variants that never got built too? One of my personal favourite alternative Saturns was the stage-and-a-half design using just the first stage, and jettisoning four engines mid-flight to lower the thrust (and recovering them with parachutes). I've always thought that one might be interesting to mimic.

Edited March 20, 2018 by septemberWaves

[Raptor9]

11 hours ago, Saltshaker said:

And the Saturn 1C from Eyes Turned Skyward would be nice too.

I had to do some investigation into what exactly you were referring to.  A lot of interesting concepts in there I'll have to look through when I get more time.

1 hour ago, septemberWaves said:

are you just sticking with real Saturns, or will you be making designs inspired by some of the potential variants that never got built too?

I had planned to do the real Saturns as well as the derivatives that were planned.  Not sure if the stage-and-a-half will be among those since I haven't dove into assembling any of these yet, but I know what you're referring to.  I'm hoping to do a lot more post-Apollo-type stuff than before; but again, I may have an idea on how something will work in my head or on paper, but when I start throwing parts together in the VAB, it doesn't always work out.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Raptor9