Jump to content

Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

Raptor9

By Raptor9
in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

 Share

Recommended Posts

Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted
22 hours ago, Invarion said:

Can you give a archive of the pack for 1.5.1 ?

5 hours ago, Invarion said:

Because lot of mod aren't be compatibled for the 1.6

As a point of personal policy I don't make craft available for specific requested versions.  Whatever the version is on a given craft's KerbalX page is the only version I will offer, until the next time I update the craft to improve, refine, or fix an issue.

Please understand that I have (at the moment) 230 craft files on KerbalX, and I actively maintain all of them in working order.  The moment I start posting alternative craft files of different versions, I'm opening myself up to more and more requests to cater to any players wants, and then further questions about how the craft works in that particular version of KSP in contrast to the current version graphics.  If you were to ask a modder to make multiple versions of a mod available, a lot of them would probably give you the same answer.  Different products, but the same principle applies; when you give to one, others will expect the same treatment.

Now as a caveat, I know some modders do make multiple versions of their mod available, but it comes down to how much work and oversight I'm willing to place on myself.  As it stands, due to real-life commitments, I have limited KSP time and I really don't want to open up that can of worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Invarion

Invarion

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Raptor9 said:

As a point of personal policy I don't make craft available for specific requested versions.  Whatever the version is on a given craft's KerbalX page is the only version I will offer, until the next time I update the craft to improve, refine, or fix an issue.

Please understand that I have (at the moment) 230 craft files on KerbalX, and I actively maintain all of them in working order.  The moment I start posting alternative craft files of different versions, I'm opening myself up to more and more requests to cater to any players wants, and then further questions about how the craft works in that particular version of KSP in contrast to the current version graphics.  If you were to ask a modder to make multiple versions of a mod available, a lot of them would probably give you the same answer.  Different products, but the same principle applies; when you give to one, others will expect the same treatment.

Now as a caveat, I know some modders do make multiple versions of their mod available, but it comes down to how much work and oversight I'm willing to place on myself.  As it stands, due to real-life commitments, I have limited KSP time and I really don't want to open up that can of worms.

No problem, and thanks again for all your crafts !

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dragon0072

dragon0072

Posted
Posted

Love the redesigns of the Lightning, HLV-5,  PD-32 and PD-64.    Particularly  like being able to detach the PD-64 and 32 from the LITE stage as you had in your first designs of those vehicles.  I do have a question.  In the HLV-5A you mention needing to top off the Oscar B fuel tanks in the crew module before attempting a landing.  Since you replaced the Oscars with a single tank, do you still need a top off the tanks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
On 1/7/2019 at 8:58 AM, dragon0072 said:

Since you replaced the Oscars with a single tank, do you still need a top off the tanks?

Yes (I need to edit those notes on the OP). This was the main reason I wanted to get away from the stack of Oscar-Bs from the crew module. To maintain better CoM balance, the crew module fuel tanks will drain with the propulsion module. But now you only need to transfer to two tanks (one on each side) instead of a dozen or so, prior to launching the crew module separately.

Plus it reduces part count.  I'll be putting the final touches on the new LV-1 landers today after work; so after I get those updated on KerbalX I'll post a roll-up here of all the significant craft changes recently and the design decisions behind them.

Edited by Raptor9
spelling mistake
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted

07%20Jan%20Review_zps07yuamrx.png

The past week has seen the most significant craft revisions since KSP 1.6.0.  The LV-1 landers obviously needed redone since the legacy Mk2 lander can is being depreciated.  But the new version of the LV-1 looks much better IMO.  I even was able to make the ascent module look even more like the Apollo landers, despite the differences in window layout and the external hatch.  All the other landers of the LV-1 family received similar treatment where necessary, and for the most part only varied in part count +/- two or three parts.  Plus, the external visibility from inside the IVA view is just amazing with these new lander cans. :)

The other half of the major revisions was the LITE reusable upper stage and all the craft derived from it, such as the HLV-5 landers, the PD-32/64 propellant depots, and the EV-2L 'Runabout' crew vehicle.  One design decision I'm trying to remove from my catalog in some places is the overuse of the EAS-4 struts.  They're heavy, add to part count when used to make complex structural-looking meshes, and don't play well when saved on subassemblies.  So along with the Poodle returning to propel the LITE stages, I've also redone the stage as a whole in layout. Compared to the RE-L10 'Poodle', the RE-J10 'Wolfhound' obviously has a higher Isp, even with the 1.6 re-balancing, however the additional mass of the Wolfhound-based LITE negates any performance gains when stacked against the newest Poodle-equipped version.  The mass reduction that went along with the stage revision aided in this as well, but even with the latest version of the LITE the Wolfhound had negligible dV gains when pushing the average payload mass I place on the LITE.  When pushing large payloads that are usually carried by the NITE the Wolfhound is the solid choice, but for smaller in-SOI cargo runs the Poodle is the more economical selection.

This mass difference also had an impact on the HLV-5 revision, which also looks better, performs better, and in the case of the A-model less cumbersome to manage as I explained in the previous post.  I've also reverted the HLV-5A crew module to a monopropellant-based RCS system for better control tuning.  Not as big an issue compared to the past since I now have a more refined monopropllant supply chain to my ISRU systems, and the EV-2L has a hybrid control system as well.  Finally, I've modified the PD-32/64 propellant depots to be a little more common with the NITE and PD-1080, as well as returning the capability to detach the LITE stage from the rest of the depot.  The depots themselves only have minimal RW authority in their OKTO probe cores to maintain a stationary attitude after decoupling, so ensure the attitude is stable with the LITE RCS before detaching.  This increases flexibility by allowing a player to have a fully-operational LITE stage in case no others are immediately available, as well as freeing up the large docking port to refuel any craft that only have that size of a docking clamp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jestersage

Jestersage

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

What's so bad about the new Mk2 lander can? It's a considerable improvement in my opinion, especially because of the weight decrease and rover variant.

I can think of one reason: if one use it as an inline command module, the extra large windows looks odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gapone

Gapone

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Jestersage said:

if one use it as an inline command module, the extra large windows looks odd.

Exactly! On the "new mk2 lander can" pre-release showcase, I can be seen complaining to narrowen the window.

Also, Raptor, why are reaction wheels disabled on most crafts?

Edited by Gapone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, Gapone said:

why are reaction wheels disabled on most crafts?

Because IMO they're "cheaty". In reality, a spacecraft like the Apollo command/service module or the Orion MPCV doesn't have fighter jet levels of maneuverabilty from some magic box in the crew capsule. This is why only small satellites or certain space station modules in my catalog have them working, to emulate their real-life applications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, Gapone said:

This is KSP

Which uses realistic orbital mechanics, with parts inspired by real-life craft, with planets inspired by real-life planets, with Kerbals named after real-life people.

Bottom line, you can play KSP however you want.  I'm gonna play KSP however I want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raptor9

Raptor9

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Jestersage said:

Question: How are the Thunder (and lighting) series different from each other?

1st Stage
- 'Thunder 3' family: standard length core booster with options of no SRB's, 1 pair, or 2 pair
- 'Thunder 4' family: extended length core booster with same booster options as 'Thunder 3' family
- 'Lightning': further extended core booster with 6x SRB's to counter the additional propellant weight (player can remove some, but will suffer TWR penalties with heavier payloads)

2nd Stage
- 'Thunder 3' family: OKTO-controlled upper stage with stability assist, 3.5 dimensions of RCS control (rotation and forward translation only), limited battery life
- 'Thunder 4' family: OKTO2-controlled upper stage with multiple SAS modes, 6 dimensions of RCS control (full rotation/translation), limited battery life, 75% the propellant load when compared to the 'Thunder 3' upper stage, but with more precise payload placement/delivery capability
- 'Lightning': OKTO-controlled upper stage with stability assist, 6 dimensions of Vernor control, fuel cell power generation, dedicated comms antenna, re-usability improvements, almost twice the propellant load of the 'Thunder 3' upper stage, and twice the thrust compared to either 'Thunder' upper stage
_____________________________

EDIT: While I'm here, a quick update on the new surface base modules.  I'm at about a 85% completion status regarding the final testing, before I move on to creating graphics.  There are a couple more small logistics modules I'm putting the finishing touches on in the VAB that I still need to test, but these are primarily to facilitate easier ISRU/propellant refueling on the surface in conjunction with IV-1 mining rigs.  The main set of modules for the bases themselves are finished, as are two of the cargo landers.  I've already finished constructing a small test base on the Mun, as well as an even bigger base on Duna.

The first cargo lander is a revision of the legacy LV-3C 'Bullfrog', however it's been reduced in part count, is more compact, and is less expensive.  It's currently proven to handle all of the new base modules, and is rated for the Mun, Ike, Dres, and Eeloo (if you could get it there).  The brand new LV-3D is a more compact lander than even the new LV-3C, and comes equipped with an inflatable heatshield.  As such, it is well-suited to land base modules on Duna, with a reasonable propellant margin at the bottom to re-position all but the heaviest modules up to 10km away from the initial trajectory in case the atmospheric entry predictions are off.

Landing some of the heavier modules on Moho or Vall is near the upper margins of the LV-3C's TWR and delta-V allowances, so I'm looking into a potential LV-3E  version that may come down the road with more propellant and additional engines.  Additionally, I haven't messed with the really low gravity bodies like Minmus, Bop or Pol, so I'm not gonna say definitively that the base modules or landers would remain stable there until I have time for further testing after uploading all the modules to KerbalX.  I don't want to have these modules stuck in perpetual testing like the previous iterations of base modules.

Edited by Raptor9
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gapone

Gapone

Posted
Posted (edited)

Also the Thunder 3 Max has its second stage under the same fairing as the payload~

One question: some x-planes are very similiar to some not x-planes. What's the diffirence?

Edited by Gapone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jestersage

Jestersage

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 1/14/2019 at 1:33 AM, Raptor9 said:

1st Stage

<snip>

2nd Stage
<snip>

Thanks for the reply. I am trying to guage how to categorize my own rockets. I notice I have so much overlap of my builds it's not even funny, and been debating whether to just plain depreciate and remove some of my builds. Some of the builds exist purely as a replica in terms of look (while keeping my low part count philosophy), while other is what I would actually use.

EDIT: additionally, sometimes I wonder if I built an OP rocket.

Edited by Jestersage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...