FletcherDragon

The service bay is inconsequential to the functionality of the craft. Rather than go digging into code which i'm just not comfortable with i'll use a solid piece even though it makes EC a little tight. The aircraft does now have its original grunt!

Wow it was that simple? attached to a buggy part? all this time and effort for that. I just exchanged the mk3 service bay for a mk3 service tank which is simply a configurable tank and the problem goes away. even with multiple open and close cycles of the main bay. This issue never used to occur with the order I attached these parts in the past., so it is a new issue with the current version of the mod. I will bring it up with them next opportunity. Thankyou very much for that. I cant tell you how frustrating this was. I will also update the build on kerbalX just because I love this plane so much.

I have switched the root part to a core fuel tank and once again reassembled the plane making sure all nodes are attached properly and bays are closed before launch. Bug persists. As suggested I uploaded the CRAFT to KerbalX, never heard of it before but looks pretty good. I went through the trouble of creating a payload similar in weight and function to the one which I discovered this bug with using just stock parts so the only mod needed is Mk3 expansion. Though my game does have more mods in it such as IFS, KIS, KAS, USI-LS which use other resources like B9, community resources and so on. I'm still very novice at modding so its a rather arduous process still to make everything function together. https://kerbalx.com/FletcherDragon/Gryphon-Type4

Oh really? I don't even have to check to know that it is the root part. that's interesting. I'll change that next time I touch it. If you wanna have a go with it I'm happy to share a .craft of it somewhere

I've tried to rectify any improper node attachment as best as I could by simply rebuilding the entire aircraft from ground up. The cargo bay is pretty simple. one tail section, one long cargo bay section attached to a mk3 service bay. the problem persists. All tests concerning this issue with my aircraft begin at the spawn of the aircraft. not loaded in-flight, not opened and/or closed during flight. While this is a partial solution, it kinda defeats the entire purpose of a cargo bay in the first place. Additionally, payloads I create often with KPBS are rather irregular in shape and cant be effectively shielded with a nose cone. particularly if the bay is packed, nosecones often clip with the front mk3 tail section and tend to invoke the kraken. It is not a practical solution. As for the rest. protecting from heat and antenne breakages. I can't tell if this does or doesn't work simply because with this severe drag problem the aircraft is so lame it has difficulty breaking the sound barrier. yet alone exiting the atmosphere.

To whoever may have experience with this kind of problem. I have recently encountered a problem in the 1.8.x versions of KSP in which a Mk3 spaceplane (stock + mk3 expansion) was struggling to break 300m/s with 11 tonnes stowed. When in previous 1.7.x versions the craft had little issue with a 40 tonne to orbit payload. This took some time to uncover as to why the plane lost so much performance over the update and it turns out that the stock mk3 cargo bay parts are no longer shielding any contained parts from aero forces during flight regardless of open or closed state. Because this is a problem with broken stock parts I already contacted KSP support without thinking about how fundamentally even basic mods can change the functionality of the entire game. I still have yet to determine if this is a stock or a modded issue. What could possibly cause stock aero shells to not perform their intended function? It is hard to depict just how much drag is coming from within the craft where it should not. So you may have to take my word for it when I say that the longest drag indicator is coming from a clamp-o-tron Sr just inside the MK3 tail section which is on the front of this aircraft body.

Very much agreed. I signed up just to watch mods update.. However... literally the only reason I touch Github is to grab USI-LS when the version changes.

Spacedock is so specialised for kerbal mods. Because of this mod makers don't always announce updates on it because it has far less exposure to the masses. Its far more likely to reach more people on curse than spacedock. But of course I can only guess at the mod makers motivations.

The mod history on Spacedock is far more comprehensive. I am using version v 3.12.1.5. the most recent version doesn't work. https://spacedock.info/mod/175/Interstellar Fuel Switch

I'm fairly sure the previous version of IFS is for 1.8. I only rolled back the mod version not the game version. I'm not smart enough to do any of that super technical stuff all I know is that when I throw them together and boot it up there aren't any noticeable problems running on v 1.8.1

No. I never use or install tweakscale. It works.. or rather, should work without it. the current update seems broken. I rolled back to the previous version and it has no problems at all.

I am having a similar problem as well with no stock parts having switch types. Though I have Mk2 / Mk3 expansion as well and have noticed that ONLY adapter sections which change from one node to two are switchable but none of the normal inline sections or single inline adapters are. Edit. Removing B9 part switch has no effect.

Would like to see tanks for Planetary Base System mod Building mining rovers with PBS parts look good and use so few parts AND can be reconfigured easy with KIS

Wait wait wait wait.. OK OK, how about we switch the thought process a little bit here for a moment. Originally I was debating weather a spaceplane was or was not an SSTO because it dropped some small auxiliary fuel tanks on the way up. it was then brought up that engine shrouds or fairings of some kind being detached does not count as multi-staging because they did not contain fuel or equipment at any time. If we all agree that this hypothetical plane that used drop tanks made its way into orbit is not an SSTO, Then lets send it on a hypothetical mission. This vessel makes an inter-planetary journey to Duna lets say and makes a safe landing, utilities onboard facilities or base facilities to refuel, Do science! Get funds! Etc Etc, and makes a return trip to the orbit of Duna and back to Kerbin. The ship has ample power to return to orbit of Duna without the use of droptanks... all hail the NERV rite? Is this hypothetical space plane still a TSTO now that it has returned to Duna's orbit in a single stage AFTER having climbed out of kerbin's gravity well leaving tanks behind..? Am I thinking too hard? I think I am... Its far too late to be thinking~~

I've never actually ever considered doing that before! sounds like some really good plans. And also I wasn't really bothered . I just though bird'dd be fun to have bragging rights. Spaceplanes are cool either way weather they have one or more stages IDC~

I've never had much trouble with drop tanks at all. I've popped a couple on the runway during takeoff before but unlike staging large pieces of a vertical rocket which more often than not end up turning my ships inside out. Drop tanks on planes I build always seem to function pretty well. They usually only carry enough fuel to get to get me up to 10k and about 600 to 700m/s which really helps reduce the overall size of the plane without sacrificing its ability to make it to and from any of the kerbin moons.

So far.. Yes you are but that wasn't really the intention. I was making fun of the 'bigger is better' kerbal mentality. Oh. I find that adding drop tanks as the very last components after the plane itself has already been constructed doesn't really change the aerodynamics. because drop tanks are only carrying the fuel for accent which is used up first. Then again the small mass of my planes also have small drop tanks and the COM doesn't really change position that much at all. Here is an example of what I make. This one is my most recent, it can get itself from the surface of Kerbin to the surface of Minmus and back without refuel, The two short cargo bays hold a Dart rocket motor each giving it VTOL capabilities on smaller bodies. And in addition to all that its designed to tow a planetary base or station module on interplanetary missions and return by itself if its first refueled in Kerbin orbit. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=899240618 Lots of functionality crammed into a soberly proportioned package.

Funnily enough most of my planes don't actually have any payloads besides heaps of kerbals. So I guess that does mean drop tanks are extra stages. ehh.. I thought it'd just be cool to say that I'm good at making SSTO's but guess not cos I need drop tanks and stuff.

Yeh~ you're absolutely right. I still have yet to learn how to think before opening my big fat mouth. But I still had to ask anyway because it wasn't really obvious to me. I always sorta thought that the stage fiction was the determining factor of the craft stage number.

I have a simple little question about space plane design that I think might inspire some discussion around here today, it may be obvious for some but for people like me it really isn't, which is why i'm asking. Because I'm one of those weirdos who doesn't enjoy building rockets as big as they can be! I prefer more compact -pocket sized rocket- spacecraft. In order to do this many of my spaceplanes incorporate drop pods in their construction to assist with accent. Basically just a fuel tank on a decoupler bolted to the belly of the aircraft which is jettisoned when empty, usually while still in the upper atmopsphere My question is to ask you out there weather or not drop pods affect the inherent SSTO nature of a spaceplane or not. Given that hitting the stage function would eject the pods giving the vehicle more than one stage, it does not really change much about the spaceplane's configuration. Drop pods are actually used by fighter jets IRL when traveling long distances, its pretty far fetched to think about a fighter jet with drop pod fuel tanks as a two stage vehicle. don't you think? I want to know if you think that drop pods would make a spaceplane multi-stage?

I originally removed it because it added a bunch of redundant and empty part tabs in the VAB which is rather annoying. It sounded like it was dev tools or something which I have no interest in. but since its mandatory I'd love to be able to atleast be rid of them some how since i'll never use them. yes I know they are for other USI mods but I don't actually want to use any of those. Also the text box fixed itself too. whatever was going on with it. IDK...

CobaltWolf You're right though. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your hardware~ I've got plenty of extra beef in my rig and these VAB crashes still happen pretty much without fail. I haven't actually -quit- a game of 1.1 since it was released. it just crashes and I CBF to start it up again.

OK so after a little bit of playing around and testing I forced the kerbals to consume resources now, I have to manually change the settings in the config file because the GUI doesn't work. When in flight opening the GUI reveals only a blank window that flashes from grey to white every second precisely with the game clock. still showing no information about vessels. The same thing occurs when looking at the KSC. Blank grey window that flashes with every second of the game clock. Only when inside the VAB does the GUI display anything and even thin its just a whole lot of zero's In space blank GUI KSC only moments later.

This bug really is becoming quite irritating~ Glad I'm not the only one experiencing it. I spend more time just loading the game after a crash than actually playing it before it crashes again. Just like everyone else in this post.. Most of my crashes happen while manipulating parts in the VAB/SPH regardless of the size of part or complexity of construction, It can take 5 parts before a crash or 100.. it just happens without warning and no crash dump file is generated. Running Win7 home with gen 4 Core i5 and 8 GB DDR3 RAM on Nvidia 650 GTX 1GB VRAM. In addition my game just hung while attempting to launch a new ship from the VAB. Every clickable item or option was greyed out, no progress was able to be made. Windows Task manager was needed in order to close KSP. despite it saying it was running perfectly well.