blackheart612

Well, nobody is required to be active. Some things are just more important! Honestly too lazy to put it on and learn github, I did want it before but now is just, not impossible but a very distant possibility. Well, the biggest problem really is that I dont know its ins and outs. Pros and cons of how powerful it is I guess.

Actually, I forgot to ask if the error is made by APP, it's true. Make sure you only have APP when you test again @RobertaME Usually the case is it's not APP's fault. What everybody said is right. It's just how KSP works. And it's not made for far. It helps you slow down a lot by deploying it and increasing engine thrust. I found it to be the optimal way to use it.

Do you have pictures if they are visual? It will most likely help me identify the problem since I can't test if I can duplicate the issue right now.

Added to FAQ now since I noticed this has been a recurring question: Let me know if this is not the case for you. For you to love something I wasted time on - is not a waste of time anymore! I hope you enjoy Anyway, is it gamebreaking? Does the part not load? Some of the cockpits have a very old problem that I am in debt now. Was bumped 2 months ago but I keep on pushing it back for other stuff. I suspect it's that. You have any in-game problems with it?

Not sure yet tbh, I don't think any part exists in that shape so might need its own either way. But at least having a radial cockpit makes me have a reason to not make another Mk1 bulkhead cockpit

Personally, I've thought about this and you've reminded me. At some point I wanted to add it and forgot. Even more chance of it being added when I get the time. BTW Nice clipper but I'm more of a Corvette person (I don't have the rank yet though)

The more people who want it the more I perceive it as important. And the more important I think it is the higher the chance it'll be made first instead. So don't be too pessimistic about it.

This is an old discussion, the implementation I chose was a 0.625m radial attachment which acts as the node so I it should work on stock or mine or whatever cockpit you have.

It's relatively simple, there are three layers from top to bottom, the bottom is the chassis which connects everything. Any part with a chassis will connect to another chassis. Middle part platforms are where the top parts are attached and covers the chassis. You basically just start with the pod, get a platform then chassis and go from there. The nodes will guide the way... probably.

Truth, NK-12 is a lot more powerful than the Allison T56 in terms of output but T56 has better power to weight ratio (which is the overall performance). In Airplane Plus, T56 has both better power and weight though, but it's limited on its speed. In reality T56 is scaled up a bit in power because KSP parts are heavy and I want it to be able to carry heavy cargo. NK-12 is mostly used on bombers and not cargo so it's got speed instead to balance it out. Edit: The speeds are all based in real life too in some ways

Alright, I took these for testing, I have to narrow this down somehow. Since you said all of them tend to have a top speed of 290m/s and that maximum speed of piston engines are about 200m/s which is already fast, I took the liberty of picking per "category" of my engines instead, or how early they are on the tech tree. Since it's nothing specific, I assume anything I pick is fine. First I took the 9J "Baron" Rotary Engine which struggled to go up to ~50-60m/s+, the engine cut off at nearly ~130m/s [The craft is Aeris 1A from Kerbal X] Second and up next on pre-modern, I took the RR "Marlin" Engine which has good performance at certain altitudes to "simulate" a supercharger or whatever - it's rather fast, and the power is front-loaded, it tapers off so fast at high speeds and cuts off at ~180m/s, the engine just simply stops. At sea level, the results are lower. You can dive above 200m/s but the engine stops. [The craft is Stallion from Kerbal X] Third is the RR K56 "Titan" Turboprop Engine, extremely front-loaded, it takes off with 4x of it, in fact, I think even with one of these would pretty much do the same thing to an aircraft with smaller size. The engine stops at ~290m/s pretty spot on, this one is on a dive. It sustains ~170-180m/s crusing and can never get there with normal circumstances. [The craft is Dodo Heavy from Kerbal X] Notes: The KP-12 "Bear" Kontraprop Engines can maintain ~270-280m/s cruise, these are based on the engine of Tu-114 and Tu-95 I honestly don't know as much as the others do in terms of these kind of things but I can't say I know nothing. I still based them off somewhere, not just guesses. First off, the numbers seem to be off, other than the fact that you may have been exaggerating for hyperbolic purposes and I misunderstood it - you might wanna check if you're using something like FAR since the curves are made and tested on stock, results may vary. Though it is a fact that my testing was in no way standardized too. The variation helps provide data for different applications though. Now before I say the mechanics behind some considerations on why they have deviations in accuracy to reality - I want to tell you that I agree if people complain, there must be something wrong, what I need though is a good amount of dissatisfaction to the current mechanics compared to those who are satisfied. Because in the end, where people are more comfortable with will stay or change, you know what I'm saying? So a lot of these engines are front-loaded in power, they have higher initial curves and taper off at the end. The reason is because the curves are speed and atmosphere based. This is seen in two ways - take off speed, tight maneuvering speed. In order to not lose much on maneuvering, the power is "front-loaded" so you can do more ksp-like maneuvers, except more limited. The jet engines use delayed thrust response for slower take-off but I tested it back then and props can't have it because it's much like a jet like lag on controls for obvious reasons. Some engines are "pseudo-2.5m" engines too, which affects this as well. We can use K56 or KP-12 which are treated with something close to those kinds of performance but the size is 1.25m. You can use these as tractor propellers because of how simple engines work in KSP - just a thrust transform and curves, with airflow resource. No complicated machinery limiting the usage and all that jazz. They're offset with their weight instead, they're quite heavy for non-cargo usage. It's difficult to use but eh, people exploit what they gotta exploit so it's fine. A lot of the engines, well all of them will inevitable compared to the jet engines. And the consequence is that they're just inferior when your goal is to finish the missions. This is plays a big part on the performance too. The bottomline ends up above the aforementioned considerations, that the props are good enough to do the job, cheap, but not as powerful as jets. Now, I gotta say that jets in KSP are really fast too, just the weasley could get to Mach 1.5+ if you wanted to when it's not even supposed to surpass supersonic proper at cruise speed in terms of the aircrafts that used it irl. Though KSP's jets are a bit OP, they're kind accurate too. In comparison, my engines are a bit more OP than that, and less accurate if you actually take a closer look, and the reasons are stated above. But the tests I've exhibited so far doesn't stray too far from the intended "realistic enough" range in my opinion. If the people say otherwise, I'd be happy to tweak it though. Really, it's just quicker on accelerating is the most obvious deviation I implemented I can see - this difference in maneuvering is what really sets it apart from KAX for good reason. KAX really gets it spot on in realism though, I'm nowhere that level and don't intend to be too accurate as well. I don't know where to put this but I just remembered this, like I said, an "engine" is defined by curves and intake resource. You have a top speed you want and you want to either accelerate so slow you never get there so you don't exceed it or reach/exceed that and slow down afterwards- you gotta choose. If you nerf the acceleration, you'll never get that top speed. If you put a hard mark on the top speed, the engine cuts off - this was a major problem before and a lot of people complained so I boosted the acceleration to get to the top speed instead, and slowed down the engine after that. Edit: Uhhhh, regarding the sliding doors, you mean remove the other side of the cylinder? I'm actually bad without visualization but I'd put it in the list to be honest, as you know, I don't develop non-major changes much anymore due to time constraints Also, I really need you to be specific on parts when you have issues. Which part has z-fighting? KSP itself haf z-fighting parts. And since I based them off of those parts, well, they're "intended features" let's say. Very stockalike!

I haven't been implementing entry cost. I didn't know. I updated it now. If you know how to specify the path on mainTextureUrl you can choose not to put it on blackheart/Flags instead. Basically, having the right path, you can put the flag image anywhere. It's just there to not mess up the squad folder and easily delete everything when you don't want the mod anymore. I wouldn't recommend a different resolution for each sticker, 256x160 is the standard resolution for KSP companies and stuff.

Is Entry Cost an actual game mechanic now? It wasn't a problem before. I'll change it if it were the case, I haven't been in career a while.

Do you only have AirplanePlus and Grounded installed? Something is up with your install, I tested grounded on 1.7.2 and I guarantee it runs. It's outdated in spacedock because I decide it's outdated. It should be compatible now when you check it again. I'll need to see your folder structure to make sure you installed it correctly.

Hmmm, I can't really be sure, have you both tried with grounded only installed? Or checked if the download isn't broken? Usual mod issues are interference by other mods. I really can't see how this one can break, technically since I don't use plug-ins. If you're both sure it doesn't work with only grounded installed and is sure that the download isn't broken, we'll explore the issue further.

If they don't post here, I won't be informed otherwise. I also need specifics unless all of them have the issues? Maybe on some parts I intended them to be really powerful too. So I need some more information than this if possible.

There is none but I can help you if you're confused?

Jognt is right, this can't be done without being structurally unsound. Thus, you won't be able to do this sadly. I haven't had complaints recently, which posts are these? Do you have an issue with them? APP does go hand in hand, and is still very much grounded by realism. Basically I just made more powerful engines because keptin said he wasn't planning to make more powerful ones. This doesn't mean that my engines are absurdly powerful though, nor are they as accurate as KAX. I just did the best I can to make it feel right. There were issues on the flaming out before and I've kind of resolved them for higher end engines already.

I mean I want to add parts but I just don't have the time like when I can't be sure tbh, maybe 2 years ago now when I started this? I do pour my time in whenever there's time and in fact, I make time whenever something needs to be done (like gamebreaking stuff or new parts that can improve existing features). I said I'd devote my time to multimedia like a year ago, probably. But KSP modding, well, it's supposed to be free and that's fine and I'm thankful for my only patron right now, which I won't have problems if he drops because I'm not adding new stuff (except on grounded) [So sorry if there's lack of new stuff @theonegalen I'd understand if you left! ]. So basically, I focus on other multimedia fields that give me income (which is 2D commissions) and it takes as much time as possible to produce a quality one as well... But yeah, just don't have all the time in the world, but I'm not leaving the mods to die either.

Yes, I read them, but I don't guarantee they will be put on. So just drop your - I mean your friend's suggestion

I don't know what to say, it was supposed to be cut content because I thought it's redundant to the KSP DLC parts, it's easily doable even if I don't put the part in, to be honest. I don't remember anymore, I think KAX already has harrier jets? I know some popular mod had it so I had no reason to make it back then. I gotta check this, I haven't tested it in a long time, do the 1.5m cabins really not have any EVA points?

There's nothing wrong with asking for an update, it's not like it's getting spammed. I think it's fine so far, I'm using it in my own game during Grounded tests. Though I made test parts on the recent development but I feel like they're useless so I might not release them. I cut out a lot of parts too in development. I also tested the rotors on the Kitty VTOL engine, and apparently the mirroring technique I use messes up the rotor axes. I wanted to updated as soon as I can when these were, I thought, a much needed change but it turns out they are either doable easily without it. Basically here's one of those test parts that;s going to be cut: What do you mean propellers will break? I don't think so? You can put the grounded vehicles in a plane no problem, they fit Size 2 cargo bays upwards, and connected vehicles don't collide with each other too.

All steering is decided by KSP, I can't set it, it's automatic. I wonder why I didn't upload. Well at least it's there. That tweet photo looks cool!

The rear part? Yes, I've thought about it. So far I have absolutely no idea how to implement it without breaking into a new bulkhead. Remember that we're stuck with what stock has in APP, in fact, I already pushed it with Mk3sX series but it still obeys the tradition of everything. The back of the current cockpit is exactly Mk3S1, forming a window out of it will make it smaller than Mk3s1 and mk3s0 is the next in line which will be way smaller. Making it the end instead, like a tail fin could work too but basically the usage of it is just for that, making a cessna, not modular. Thus I left it out. I know a lot of people have a lot of requests but I follow some kind of implementation rule and I want to maximize part usage aside from making it close to the real ones. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. If I find any way and I get back to that set, perhaps it'll be on the pack one day. But right now, that's the explanation.

Release 5.0 This one won't get legacy support, sadly. There is a new part that uses Breaking Ground rotors and I'm thinking of changing the hitch to Breaking Ground modules. That said, I've worked on the update and finally polished it. I'm hoping for a close to perfect patch since I seldom update Grounded. I've tested a few times and fixed what I saw were issues and added new parts to make driving in the ground have some purpose. I haven't added any way to connect vehicles. Which is actually essential but I know with the new Breaking Ground robotics that's easy to do. As well as using KAS to attach pipes. I hope you all enjoy, here is the changelog and some screenshots (also available on OP, I will update crafts once uploaded): Added Place-Anywhere Rotating Illuminator (uses a rotor function, speed of rotation can be set through the rotor RPM) Added G1 Convert-O-Tron 65 System Module (Convert-O-Tron, Radiator, Battery, based on a car's engine setup) Added G1 Drill O'Matic Junior Mining Excavator Kit (Drill-O'Matic, Ore Storage, Radiator) - Fixed issue where Modular Platform Cap, Modular Platform Cap Half is not switching textures Fixed issue where G1 Service Command has wrong normals on Black version Fixed all wheel suspension to now show visually in action, and better spring adjustments Fixed Chassis Hybrid Cell having animation modules when there are no animations - Lowered Center of Mass for all parts that can be put above platforms to help lower vehicle Center of Mass Widened the placement of wheel colliders to help avoid roll overs Reduced TR-1L 22.5" Ruggedized Vehicular Wheel suspension travel distance to help avoid roll overs Updated for 1.7.x Breaking Ground I've used @cineboxandrew 's particles because I'm lazy. And @damonvv has donated me a breaking ground dlc which will really help in future development of this and Airplane Plus. I'd like to extend my thanks here. And though I seldom update, I'm just busy doing other art stuff. Again, enjoy for everybody using Grounded.