Raptor's Craft Download Catalog - Tested & Proven

[Mokmo]

just playing around with your SSTO s in 1.3.1 (they were made for it) and i just can't get your SR-21A out of the atmo. 
I kinda suck at SSTOs.... Per the instructions, i actually have MechJeb fly, heading 90, pitch 15 as soon as i take off. 15 just.... doesn't get up there... So guessing when to switch cycle type isn't obvious

 

[Abpilot]

6 minutes ago, Mokmo said:

just playing around with your SSTO s in 1.3.1 (they were made for it) and i just can't get your SR-21A out of the atmo. 
I kinda suck at SSTOs.... Per the instructions, i actually have MechJeb fly, heading 90, pitch 15 as soon as i take off. 15 just.... doesn't get up there... So guessing when to switch cycle type isn't obvious

 

Maybe your ascent profile is wrong?

[Mokmo]

3 minutes ago, Abpilot said:

Maybe your ascent profile is wrong?

I was working per instructions on the kerbalX page, maybe those are outdated ? 

 

[Raptor9]

2 hours ago, Mokmo said:

So guessing when to switch cycle type isn't obvious

I apologize, after re-reading the ascent profile, you are correct; it's not worded very well when to switch to closed-cycle.  It should say something like this: "After the engines automatically switch to Closed-Cycle Mode, lock SAS mode to Prograde to minimize drag profile".  You shouldn't need to do anything on the ascent in regards to engine switching, assuming the rest of the profile is adhered to.  The rest of the ascent profile should still work since I've performed that same profile in 1.3.1.

I'll add this to my list of many things to revise on the graphics as I update everything.

[Mokmo]

Found my problem, somehow my Mk2 cockpit is pulling a lot of drag once it hits mach 1. I'll run this with a non-modded install, but it seems it's on my side. Your first post is right, if the SSTO can't SSTO, it's probably a mod issue...

EDIT: Seems it was pretty common in 1.3.1... oh well i know what to look for now

Edit2: Got the Phoenix up, Can't get the Valkyrie to pop the trans-sonic stage yet. I have a lot to learn on Spaceplanes

 

Edited April 25, 2018 by Mokmo

[Jester Darrak]

I'd kill to get a few teaser shots of the upcoming revamps, espescially the EV-2C and the Landers. Come on, @Raptor9 feed our needs, please!

[Raptor9]

Ok, here we go.  The first 1.4 craft files are published on KerbalX.  The initial list, current at the time of this post, is below:

- EV-1A 'Skiff'-Arrow 1 (1.4.3 update/revision, Mercury/Redstone)
- EV-1A 'Skiff'-Arrow 3 (1.4.3 update/revision, Mercury/Atlas)
- EV-1B 'Skiff'-Javelin 3 (NEW, Gemini program)
- 'Skiff Sail'-Thunder 1 (NEW, Gemini/Centaur proposal for circumlunar flights)
- 'Kerbin Orbiting Laboratory'-Thunder 1B (1.4.3 update/revision, Gemini/Manned Orbiting Laboratory)
- EV-2A 'Runabout'-Olympus 1 (1.4.3 update/revision, Apollo/Saturn 1B)
- EV-2A 'Runabout'-Olympus 2 (1.4.3 update/revision, Apollo 8 Moon orbital mission with some personal rocket redesigning inspired by Eyes Turned Skyward)
- EV-2A 'Runabout'-Olympus 5 with LV-1A/B landers (1.4.3 update/revision, Apollo Moon landing missions)

Some key sample graphics of the more prominent craft revisons, to include the new Gemini-inspired craft, are below.  As you can see, due to the obvious scale differences of the Making History DLC Munar Excursion Module, I elected to keep the legacy Mk2 lander can on the LV-1 'Frog', modified to have more of the Apollo lineage.  The MEM would have been just too small and out of proportion compared to the descent module for what I had planned.  I would also like to note that the 'Kerbin Orbiting Laboratory' (previously known as the EV-1C) has been moved to the Space Stations section in the OP.     

The next on my list are the rest of the Apollo Applications-inspired LV-1 'Frog' family of landers, and getting the existing Rocket Market launchers updated.  I still need to do updated payload testing to see where their current payload ratings are after their revisions.  After that, it will be the rest of the EV-2 series, including the EV-2B, EV-2C, EV-2L, and accompanying LV-2 landers.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Raptor9

[Jester Darrak]

I think there's a typo. Is it OXTO or OKTO probe core?

[Raptor9]

2 minutes ago, Jester Darrak said:

I think there's a typo. Is it OXTO or OKTO probe core?

That's some serious attention to detail right there.  I'll correct it, it should be OKTO.

[Jester Darrak]

6 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

That's some serious attention to detail right there.  I'll correct it, it should be OKTO.

I'm former German Army Recon, it's a habit. And I drove developers of Battlefield 2 and ArmA 2 mods crazy as tester seeing things noone else would have. xD

[SiriusRocketry]

Are the stock rockets/EV vehicles still gonna be available?

[Raptor9]

16 minutes ago, SiriusRocketry said:

Are the stock rockets/EV vehicles still gonna be available?

By "stock" I assume you're referring to craft files that do not include DLC parts?  I'm afraid not.  I had 205 craft/subassembly files on my KerbalX account, and the last thing I want do is maintain duplicates.  In the future that could lead to confusion when trying to download the appropriate craft files that are intended to work together, then you add the fact that most of them include depreciated parts.  It just increases the amount of maintenance and sorting I would have to do, and I don't want to deal with it.

[SiriusRocketry]

OK, it's a shame that non-MH owners can't use your craft but that is totally understandable. OK.

[Raptor9]

1 minute ago, SiriusRocketry said:

it's a shame that non-MH owners can't use your craft

Believe me, this wasn't a decision I came to quickly or easily.  This was something I gave considerable thought.  In the end, it came down to how much time and effort I was willing or able to dedicate to KSP (including actually playing the game).  Real-life commitments are always a consideration.

[RealKerbal3x]

@Raptor9 I like your Saturn V replica but for the LM (or MM in this case) why didn’t you use the Apollo lander pod? Just wondering.

[Raptor9]

4 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

for the LM (or MM in this case) why didn’t you use the Apollo lander pod?

Because the scale was too far off for me to use it in the manner I had in mind.  The MEM is quite small compared to the Mk1-3 capsule, which in itself is perfectly fine, but when I started building the descent module, that's when the small size really hampered the "look" of the lander.  The descent module had to be big enough to accommodate multiple variants and equipment loadouts in the side equipment bays, which would have made the descent module ridiculously big compared to the MEM ascent module.  One of the main pieces of equipment needed to "ride along" with the descent stage was the rover.

Now imagine how much bigger the rover would have been had I elected to use the Apollo LRV-inspired wheels from the DLC.  The rover would have been larger in width than the MEM itself, not to mention the even larger size of the descent module needed to accommodate such a large rover.  In the image below, you can see how big the real Apollo lander's ascent module was in relation to the rest of the spacecraft, including it's descent module.  And keep in mind the lunar rover would have been folded up inside one of the four equipment bays in the side of the descent module.  Personally, I would have preferred the MEM to be much larger for proper relative scale, and the LRV wheels much smaller, but these are the parts we have.  My designs have always prioritized function over appearance, and in this case, I decided to "dress up" the Mk2 lander can like the Apollo LEM for use instead.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Raptor9

[RealKerbal3x]

10 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

-snip-

 

Well, I understand that. Form always follows function.

When the pics of the MEM were first revealed I did note that it looked a bit small though. And the rover wheels don’t really fold up enough to be useful.

[Shaun]

On 5/1/2018 at 8:26 AM, Raptor9 said:

Ok, here we go.  The first 1.4 craft files are published on KerbalX.  The initial list, current at the time of this post, is below:

- EV-1A 'Skiff'-Arrow 1 (1.4.3 update/revision, Mercury/Redstone)
- EV-1A 'Skiff'-Arrow 3 (1.4.3 update/revision, Mercury/Atlas)
- EV-1B 'Skiff'-Javelin 3 (NEW, Gemini program)
- 'Skiff Sail'-Thunder 1 (NEW, Gemini/Centaur proposal for circumlunar flights)
- 'Kerbin Orbiting Laboratory'-Thunder 1B (1.4.3 update/revision, Gemini/Manned Orbiting Laboratory)
- EV-2A 'Runabout'-Olympus 1 (1.4.3 update/revision, Apollo/Saturn 1B)
- EV-2A 'Runabout'-Olympus 2 (1.4.3 update/revision, Apollo 8 Moon orbital mission with some personal rocket redesigning inspired by Eyes Turned Skyward)
- EV-2A 'Runabout'-Olympus 5 with LV-1A/B landers (1.4.3 update/revision, Apollo Moon landing missions)

Some key sample graphics of the more prominent craft revisons, to include the new Gemini-inspired craft, are below.  As you can see, due to the obvious scale differences of the Making History DLC Munar Excursion Module, I elected to keep the legacy Mk2 lander can on the LV-1 'Frog', modified to have more of the Apollo lineage.  The MEM would have been just too small and out of proportion compared to the descent module for what I had planned.  I would also like to note that the 'Kerbin Orbiting Laboratory' (previously known as the EV-1C) has been moved to the Space Stations section in the OP.

     

     

The next on my list are the rest of the Apollo Applications-inspired LV-1 'Frog' family of landers, and getting the existing Rocket Market launchers updated.  I still need to do updated payload testing to see where their current payload ratings are after their revisions.  After that, it will be the rest of the EV-2 series, including the EV-2B, EV-2C, EV-2L, and accompanying LV-2 landers.

Beautiful work! Just a question though, how do you present your ships like that? Is there a mod that takes blueprints?

[Raptor9]

11 hours ago, Shaun said:

Beautiful work! Just a question though, how do you present your ships like that? Is there a mod that takes blueprints?

Kronal Vessel Viewer generates craft renders from the VAB/SPH, and places them in your Screenshots folder in KSP.  I just copy the renders onto a template I made from scratch on Microsoft Paint, and edit everything as necessary.  When I started the graphics a few years ago, I intended them to be like blueprints; but I thought the full color renders looked better than the skeleton outlines I originally played around with, so I kept the dark blue background and turned the graphics into brochure-style prints instead.
_____________________________________

EDIT: 'Thunder 3' and 'Thunder 4' series rockets updated on KerbalX

Edited May 4, 2018 by Raptor9

[Jester Darrak]

Since it's probably the most used rocket (at least in my career), what will change for the Lightning?

Are you planning on adding a dedicated liquid fuel transport module to the HLV-5 series?

Will there be a 5m pendant to the LITE and NITE upper stages regarding purpose and appearence?

Will we see EV designs based on 5m parts?

Edited May 4, 2018 by Jester Darrak

[Raptor9]

5 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Since it's probably the most used rocket (at least in my career), what will change for the Lightning?

Very little.  The Vernor thrusters on the first stage have been removed since their limited use didn't justify their cost IMO.  And the LITE upper stage's Poodle engine will be replaced with the new RE-J10 Wolfhound.  The payload rating has been increased from 25 to 30 tons for LKO insertions, and the payload rating has doubled from 5 to 10 tons for delivery to low Munar orbit and then returning the LITE to an 80km LKO.

5 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Are you planning on adding a dedicated liquid fuel transport module to the HLV-5 series?

Afraid not.  This may change down the road when I start operations in/around Laythe, but at this time no.  LF+O-based systems are the focus of my ISRU/Depot architectures, so nukes aren't part of it.  Not to say that I've eliminated their use entirely, I still keep a few reusable EV-4's around, in fact I'm thinking of retrofitting one of them into an Ike space station.  My recommendation is to use the HLV-5B, with only a little oxidizer loaded (maybe 25%?), and transport a full liquid fuel load to orbit that way.

5 hours ago, Jester Darrak said:

Will there be a 5m pendant to the LITE and NITE upper stages regarding purpose and appearence?

Will we see EV designs based on 5m parts?

Possibly?  I haven't really given it much thought.  At this point in time, I don't have many plans for the 5m parts outside of Saturn rocket-inspired designs.  But that's because I'm focused on upgrading my existing craft files before I dive into those.  There are a lot of things I want to finish designing and publish first, like the EV-7, the rest of the EV-6 kits I had sitting on the shelf, my probe/sat revamp project I need to do graphics for, etc.  I will say there is a 3.75m NITE-based depot, the PD-1080 'Dromedary', on that list of craft files to publish; similar to how the PD-32 and PD-64 'Camel Hump' depots were based on the LITE.

[Jester Darrak]

I was finally able to have a short look into MH (new abreveation is "must have"!) and with the new panels I see a lot of visual improvements towards probes and stations coming.

Regarding HLVs carrying only LF I might try using the "cargo" as propellant and the HLV tank as LF carrier, maybe the missing oxidizer makes it durable enough.

Edited May 4, 2018 by Jester Darrak

[Jester Darrak]

I'm not sure if you already knew, but when sorting by cross section you are still able to select the vanilla MK 1-2 capsule. I think the proportions of the older can better fit space race era space craft, although the textures are nowhere near that crisp.

[Jestersage]

By the way, how do you test LKO? Do you just send a dummie test load to 200K? 

[Raptor9]

16 minutes ago, Jestersage said:

By the way, how do you test LKO? Do you just send a dummie test load to 200K? 

Pretty much.  I just use ore tanks since the mass can be fine-tuned.  If the payload can just barely make it to 200x200km Kerbin orbit, than that payload mass is the posted payload rating.  If it has plenty of fuel left, I add more ore and test again.  If it doesn't make it, I reduce the ore load and test again.