Raptor9 Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Three_Pounds said: The offset tool is still limited, even with the option enabled. I forget which parts I connected them with when placing them, because I really wasn't too concerned since I was about to move them anyway to their final positions. However, it sounds like you are hitting the initial limit of the offset tool. If you hold down the Shift key while using the offset tool, it doubles or triples the distance you can move the parts using offsetting. 2 hours ago, Three_Pounds said: Upon further testing it works fine in 1.3.1. Is that the version of the game you're running? I'm running 1.4.4, but the current version of the Gilly Logistics Kit (with those fixed struts) was built in 1.4.3. Edited July 11, 2018 by Raptor9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreePounds Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 7 minutes ago, Raptor9 said: If you hold down the Shift key while using the offset tool, it doubles or triples the distance you can move the parts using offsetting. I've played this game for thousands of hours and never knew this. Blind = blown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Maybe I'm stupid, but to me it looks like the Scarab Cruise Module is either out of balance itself or very prone to even light weight imbalancies. I strapped a MJ2 case onto it and wasn't able to hold attitude while using the Ant Engines. Additional note: Since MechJeb has it's problems with RCS thrusters I try not to use RCS whenever possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted July 11, 2018 Author Share Posted July 11, 2018 After you separate from the 'Thunder 2' upper stage, stage the engines on the cruise module, then cycle action group 3 by double tapping it.. It not only toggles the LV-1R engines, but also ensures the proper "Control From Here" axis is aligned with the thrust vector. Also, since the SAS system is rather retarded, when I'm flying with a craft that has sufficient gimbaling on the engines, as soon as I start my burn I turn RCS off and let the gimbals keep the craft aligned. Keeping RCS enabled when drifting, coasting, or burning with gimbals just wastes RCS needlessly in KSP IMO. Couldn't comment on MJ since I'm unfamiliar with it's function or use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted July 13, 2018 Share Posted July 13, 2018 (edited) On 7/12/2018 at 1:57 AM, Raptor9 said: then cycle action group 3 by double tapping it If I was just able to read... xD On 7/12/2018 at 1:57 AM, Raptor9 said: Edited July 13, 2018 by Jester Darrak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 Since we need a dedicated Relay Satellite for the Scarab, which probe out of your catalogue would you suggest in terms of capability, cost and durability? Or did you even have plans for a Deep Space Network? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted July 14, 2018 Author Share Posted July 14, 2018 @Jester Darrak, I was in the process of designing dedicated interplanetary comms satellites, starting with Duna and Eve, when I went on my KSP hiatus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted July 14, 2018 Share Posted July 14, 2018 Narf... xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestersage Posted July 16, 2018 Share Posted July 16, 2018 (edited) Question: How do you determine which Solar panel to use? Specifically, I am looking a your MOL clone, and I am wondering how you decide to go with the smaller 1x6 panel (aside from, of course, the original one does not have solar panels at all). That got me thinking about the size of solar panel I should have used for my designs. Edited July 16, 2018 by Jestersage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted July 17, 2018 Author Share Posted July 17, 2018 10 hours ago, Jestersage said: how you decide to go with the smaller 1x6 panel (aside from, of course, the original one does not have solar panels at all). I just thought it looked better with the 1x6 versus the 3x2. If you look around on the internet, you will find some MOL concept proposals that did include solar arrays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestersage Posted July 17, 2018 Share Posted July 17, 2018 42 minutes ago, Raptor9 said: I just thought it looked better with the 1x6 versus the 3x2. If you look around on the internet, you will find some MOL concept proposals that did include solar arrays. I was thinking of the gigantic array... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MongooseNX Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 @Raptor9 I've been a long time user of your craft on KerbalX, but just found this forum and your YouTube Channel (Raptor 9), thank you so much for all of your hard work and dedication to not only making great craft, but taking the time to make such great documentation on KerbalX and making them stock so they are usable by all. Fantastic work Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestersage Posted July 21, 2018 Share Posted July 21, 2018 Hey Raptor, would like to ask your opinion: In terms of docking port, when would you use the junior ports, and when should you use the standard ports? Or would it be better to just choose one depends on the looks of one and then have its supporting hardware follow suit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted July 21, 2018 Author Share Posted July 21, 2018 @Jestersage, I generally keep the small docking clamps as grappling ports as a way of attaching smaller pieces of equipment to a spacecraft, as resource transfer "plug-ins", or used in groups to attach trusses for space stations (or my EV-5 truss). The regular 1.25m clamps are my standard crew passage and transfer docking ports, and the large 2.5m clamps are for attaching large orbital assembly modules/spacecraft together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 I wonder If @Raptor9 got bitten by the bug again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted September 3, 2018 Author Share Posted September 3, 2018 @Jester Darrak, unfortunately not. I've tinkered with a few projects here and there over the past month or two, but that's about it. It has, however, given me time to gather some more ideas, so that's good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiriusRocketry Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 @Raptor9 What happened to the SVR-23? Do you still have the brochure, and if so, could you PM it to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted September 4, 2018 Author Share Posted September 4, 2018 @SiriusRocketry, I'm afraid not. I learned to hate the SVR-23's so much I just deleted them from my KSP folder, and when I did my 1.4 update with all the new brochure graphics, I deleted all the outdated ones. Not that they take a lot of hard drive space, but with so many it was becoming a headache to keep them organized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiriusRocketry Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 Can you remember how you launched the SVR-23? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted September 4, 2018 Author Share Posted September 4, 2018 8 minutes ago, SiriusRocketry said: Can you remember how you launched the SVR-23? The theory behind it was to do the opposite of the stereotypical space shuttle configuration. Instead of having the high-gimbal Vector engines on the spaceplane, I put a single Vector on the booster rocket, with fixed-nozzle aerospike engines on the SVR-23 which rode piggyback on the booster. However, this configuration never really achieved a satisfactory level of controllability during ascent to orbit. I never was particularly adept at SSTO spaceplanes, so the SVR-23's were my attempt to get around that by just launching them vertically in a partially-reusable configuration. In the end, the SVR-23 was probably better described as a proof-of-concept prototype than a spacecraft with practical use. Not my best work by any metric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiriusRocketry Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 OK, I was only asking because I was attempting to find the best way of launching a similar plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jestersage Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 (edited) SVR-23 is the "Mk-2 shuttle with 1x Shuttle Liquid Booster beneath, launched like Buran", right? I think it has two problems for you: STS Shuttle inheritly have stability problem in KSP There are not much historical basis for such configuration with a IRL diameter of 3 to 5 meters (technically there is one -- MAKS, which is air launch) What you should do instead is to make it an analogue to the Hermes or LKS shuttle -- make it inline. In fact, I guess that will be my next release (still tinkering with my TKS). I know for a fact that it is capable of reaching a 125k orbit, as I was using your designs before redesigning it to get around such issue. Edited September 4, 2018 by Jestersage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valens Posted September 4, 2018 Share Posted September 4, 2018 10 hours ago, SiriusRocketry said: OK, I was only asking because I was attempting to find the best way of launching a similar plane. From experience with a similar situation, I usually have to tweak the booster (Boreas-R, Twin-Boar-based recoverable booster) thrust during the flight in order to maintain acceptable manoeuvrability, but other than that, its profile is nothing fancy. Using Gravity Turn, I only have to act on booster thrust and roll (180 to 0) during the flight. Now, as is visible in the picture, this version of Boreas-R is specifically designed for greater pitch control (6 vernor RCS for pitch control, 2 for yaw), so RCS is necessary for the flight. Spoiler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptor9 Posted September 9, 2018 Author Share Posted September 9, 2018 @Jester Darrak, bug hit me again...sort of. After 2.5 months of not touching KSP, I'm (temporarily) back to the drawing boards. A couple days ago I started a new project. I know I have a lot of open and existing projects that are still languishing on my hard drive, not to mention I never finished updating all of my legacy craft files for 1.4.x. However, I'll take inspiration wherever I can get it. I use the term "sort of" because when this project is finished and released, I'll probably take another break from KSP until 1.5 is released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester Darrak Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 @Raptor9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts