ZooNamedGames

Fix the early landing gear

32 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

This has been an issue for a while now but at this point it's starting to upset me because it's an issue that others have pointed out and yet still remains. That being the early landing gear the LY-01 and the LY-05 (mostly the LY-01). For those who don't want to open KSP to look which those are, they're these;

LY-01 Fixed Landing Gear.png
LY-01
 
LY-05 Steerable Landing Gear.png
LY-05
 
 
These parts used to have an issue of becoming easily overstressed and exploding but now they just seem to collide with everything even at tiny amounts of speed. I've seen this happen especially with my Chase aircraft I've been designing. For those interested in resolving my Chase aircraft problems you can look in the spoiler.
 
Point of my problems being that the parts are behaving very unreliably. More like a part from a mod pack rather than the stock game.
 
 
 
 
 
161V0Um.png
Updated version of the aircraft Chase 1120
 
P5hHrF1.png
Earlier version 1100 however landing gear remain in the same position (rear gear moved forward slightly).
 
Craft file-
Despite the file being 1.1.3 I have flown it in 1.2 and aside from the landing gear spontaneously exploding without reason it works fine.
 
 
 
Edited by ZooNamedGames
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the suggestion and feedback needed for the stock, as-is fixed gear is to change the tooltips to advise a strict weight limit of 5T.  Do that, and I find they work pretty well.

In career flow, I like the way they come in early and are a bit fragile and need a little extra care.  Pretty soon, you get the first retracting gear and everything can be larger, more robust, more reliable.  It's part of the flavor in gameplay shifting as you go through the progression.  In sandbox - I understand they can feel a bit useless.  

And I know this forum can be a bit ruthless in shooting down people's suggestions - hopefully I'm just illustrating how some might find them not broken and needing to be fixed, that changing them could in fact break their current role :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fourfa said:

IMO the suggestion and feedback needed for the stock, as-is fixed gear is to change the tooltips to advise a strict weight limit of 5T.  Do that, and I find they work pretty well.

In career flow, I like the way they come in early and are a bit fragile and need a little extra care.  Pretty soon, you get the first retracting gear and everything can be larger, more robust, more reliable.  It's part of the flavor in gameplay shifting as you go through the progression.  In sandbox - I understand they can feel a bit useless.  

And I know this forum can be a bit ruthless in shooting down people's suggestions - hopefully I'm just illustrating how some might find them not broken and needing to be fixed, that changing them could in fact break their current role :)

But I'm a sandboxer. It should serve a visual need once you pass it in carrer . I want fixed gear that won't explode when a feather touches it. Visually, fitting that need is solved by using this lower end gear.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

But I'm a sandboxer. It should serve a visual need once you pass it in carrer . I want fixed gear that won't explode when a feather touches it. Visually, fitting that need is solved by using this lower end gear.

Mmm, I feel like a better solution in that case would to have a second set of fixed gear in the game - heavier, but capable of surviving more stress. The lighter set would still be useful for smaller  (<5 tons), so more options, everyone's happy. :) 

 

EDIT: Also, is that Chase craft fully loaded with fuel? If so, I'm impressed it can take off at all - the LY-1/5 struggles with many Mk1 craft, let alone Mk2 craft. :wink:

Edited by GluttonyReaper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GluttonyReaper said:

Mmm, I feel like a better solution in that case would to have a second set of fixed gear in the game - heavier, but capable of surviving more stress. The lighter set would still be useful for smaller  (<5 tons), so more options, everyone's happy. :) 

 

EDIT: Also, is that Chase craft fully loaded with fuel? If so, I'm impressed it can take off at all - the LY-1/5 struggles with many Mk1 craft, let alone Mk2 craft. :wink:

That's what I'm thinking. Albiet a second part is a bit overkill. Just have a reinforcement upgrade so it doesn't shatter as easily. 

The Chase is fully fueled and in 1.1.3 takes off and flies perfectly fine; explodes on landing though which I'm hoping to improve. In 1.2 it's gear shatters on physics load. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as I understand this it's a physics engine problem. The fixed gear just don't have enough headroom to bounce around and support a load of more than 3-5 tons (ymmv) your potential solutions are...

A. Make squad hire @Shadowmage
B. have scalable or at least bigger variations of the fixed gear for planes bigger than a cessna
C. Just slap a warning label on the gear and tell users to "get gud" (not recommended)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

as I understand this it's a physics engine problem. The fixed gear just don't have enough headroom to bounce around and support a load of more than 3-5 tons (ymmv) your potential solutions are...

A. Make squad hire @Shadowmage
B. have scalable or at least bigger variations of the fixed gear for planes bigger than a cessna
C. Just slap a warning label on the gear and tell users to "get gud" (not recommended)

Or have them not flex and have the physics and colliders of the retractable gear. Retractable has worked since they're first introduction. Why not use them for the base? Just remold with their physics and mechanics as the base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Or have them not flex and have the physics and colliders of the retractable gear.

We had a whole thread about this back during the big wheel fix you can't simply turn the flex off, it just won't work, the physics won't behave how you expect. Even in real life fixed wheels have flex its just in the tires not some hydraulic strut.
 

1 hour ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Retractable has worked since they're first introduction. Why not use them for the base? Just remold with their physics and mechanics as the base.

Retractables have worked because they have more room to flex.

Look this is simple even large fixed wheel planes in real life have larger wheels to take advantage of the tire's larger air cushion. You can't honestly expect tiny castor wheels to support a cesna so you can't expect little cessna wheels to support a big aircraft moving at takeoff and landing speeds either.

Edited by passinglurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, passinglurker said:

We had a whole thread about this back during the big wheel fix you can't simply turn the flex off, it just won't work, the physics won't behave how you expect. Even in real life fixed wheels have flex its just in the tires not some hydraulic strut.
 

Retractables have worked because they have more room to flex.

Look this is simple even large fixed wheel planes in real life have larger wheels to take advantage of the tire's larger air cushion. You can't honestly expect tiny castor wheels to support a cesna so you can't expect little cessna wheels to support a big aircraft moving at takeoff and landing speeds either.

I still don't see why having the wheels function as a solid fixed (non-flexing) base is a problem. 

The Chase isn't that big. Besides they're the only fixed wheels available.

Hell its modeled after a Cessna 172. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't agree, even although I suffer from the same problem when building early career aircraft.

The difference is that I understand why I'm suffering from this.

Remember what the counterparts might be of these "early" landing gears. I imagine aircraft undercarriages of world war 2 aicraft.
Many of them were wooden, and plenty of them were wooden and simply reinforced. The LY-01/05 state of the art seems comparable with said undercarriages.

The LY-01 and LY-05 simply have reasonable stress limitations. Do you add any more fuel or science experiments to the necessary setup of command pod + fuel tank + single juno, wings and control surfaces then don't be surprised when your scootmobil gear breaks on a level 1 runway puthole bump.

What to do? In the very early career scenario?

If the wheels fail when spawning on the runway then your to heavy. So reduce weight! Can be done by simply draining fuel from the tanks in the SPH.
On the early crew report/ temperature reading missions you don't need a full fuel tank to get there and back  to the KSC as they're closely located. So take some fuel out of your fuel tanks to reduce weight further.
Or add more wheels if under 30 parts. If not do the above, upgrade the SPH or unlock better parts.

You can also put the wing incidence on a angle with the rotate tool on the wings in the SPH. This way the aicraft already makes lift when rolling at lower speed and thus reduces gear stress.
This is especialy useful if your gear tends to break just before or at takeoff or if you can't manage to touch down softly enough.

I would recommend a WW2 design like a spitfire.

With 2 wheels at the front raising the nose to a fixed point (prevents pivoting at takeof)
This way the rear wheels touch down first at lower speeds spreading the touch down impact if you were to have a center gear made of LY-01 or 05.

This also further adds the lifting effect because you automatically have a positive nose up attitude. You are also more likely to spread the total vessel weight between front and back opposed to a aicraft design with a center undercarriage and a single nose gear.

Oh yeah, takeoff and land from the grass next to a level 1 runway. Or land on the tarmac next to the runway near the facilities (without crashing into them:P)
 

Edited by Razorforce7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Razorforce7 said:

I don't agree, even although I suffer from the same problem when building early career aircraft.

The difference is that I understand why I'm suffering from this.

Remember what the counterparts might be of these "early" landing gears. I imagine aircraft undercarriages of world war 2 aicraft.
Many of them were wooden, and plenty of them were wooden and simply reinforced. The LY-01/05 state of the art seems comparable with said undercarriages.

The LY-01 and LY-05 simply have reasonable stress limitations. Do you add any more fuel or science experiments to the necessary setup of command pod + fuel tank + single juno, wings and control surfaces then don't be surprised when your scootmobil gear breaks on a level 1 runway puthole bump.

What to do? In the very early career scenario?

If the wheels fail when spawning on the runway then your to heavy. So reduce weight!
Or add more wheels if under 30 parts. If not do the above, upgrade the SPH or unlock better parts.

You can also put the wing incidence on a angle with the rotate tool on the wings in the SPH. This way the aicraft already makes lift when rolling at lower speed and thus reduces gear stress.
This is especialy useful if your gear tends to break just before or at takeoff or if you can't manage to touch down softly enough.

I would recommend a WW2 design like a spitfire.

With 2 wheels at the front raising the nose to a fixed point (prevents pivoting at takeof)
This way the rear wheels touch down first at lower speeds spreading the touch down impact if you were to have a center gear made of LY-01 or 05.

This also further adds the lifting effect because you automatically have a positive nose up attitude. You are also more likely to spread the total vessel weight between front and back opposed to a aicraft design with a center undercarriage and a single nose gear.

Oh yeah, takeoff and land from the grass next to a level 1 runway. Or land on the tarmac next to the runway near the facilities (without crashing into them:P)
 

I'd accept it being wooden or whatnot but considering that it's the only source for fixed gear as a sandboxer, that becomes moot.

Either give alternatives or fix the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@ZooNamedGames

So your hell bent on needing a replacement?
Not sure how broad your spectrum of acceptable alternatives is.

But I just gave you (several)  Just saying since you reply to the "wooden'' undercarriage part of my reply.
I actually gave you "plenty" of ideas on how to fix your early career issues past that part.

If these ideas are totally useless to you then I rest my case. If I see your aircraft picture all my ideas are implementable and probably solve your issue.
But I get the feeling you stopped reading past the "wooden undercarriage" part. Sorry if my post was to long for you.

Edited by Razorforce7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Razorforce7 said:

@ZooNamedGames

So your hell bent on needing a replacement?
Not sure how broad your spectrum of acceptable alternatives is.

But I just gave you (several)  Just saying since you reply to the "wooden'' undercarriage part of my reply.
I actually gave you "plenty" of ideas on how to fix your early career issues past that part.

If these ideas are totally useless to you then I rest my case. If I see your aircraft picture all my ideas are implementable and probably solve your issue.
But I get the feeling you stopped reading past the "wooden undercarriage" part. Sorry if my post was to long for you.

I've got a model already in place. I don't want to add things that arnt realistic because of one part's faults. 

Im trying to get it as realistic as possible within the frame of stock KSP and having to bend over backwards because of one faulty part and the lack of a replacement or a fix (after many complaints and demands). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that they blow up in physics warp, rendering my plane unusable, however, in my career game I have unlocked the smallest retractable one, which seems to be less volatile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TS, I solved the problem of your airplane. Lower spring setting to 0.5. Gear doesn't explode anymore and perfectly capable of landing with a modest descent rate.

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I still don't see why having the wheels function as a solid fixed (non-flexing) base is a problem. 

KSP's wheel code literally can't comprehend a wheel that does not flex the wheel code would have to be rewritten (again)

7 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

The Chase isn't that big. Besides they're the only fixed wheels available.

Yes it is that big, and nothing is stopping people from adding more wheels to accommodate bigger planes cause there is no way in moho you're gonna get a single set of magic fixed gear that can support everything you put on top of them. Not with the current wheel code anyway.

7 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Hell its modeled after a Cessna 172. 

No you see this is what you think you made
X2Rsnm9.jpg?1
And this is what you actually made
xAq6v4S.jpg

Bigger Heavier planes need bigger wheels that simple

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

KSP's wheel code literally can't comprehend a wheel that does not flex the wheel code would have to be rewritten (again)

Yes it is that big, and nothing is stopping people from adding more wheels to accommodate bigger planes cause there is no way in moho you're gonna get a single set of magic fixed gear that can support everything you put on top of them. Not with the current wheel code anyway.

No you see this is what you think you made
X2Rsnm9.jpg?1
And this is what you actually made
xAq6v4S.jpg

Bigger Heavier planes need bigger wheels that simple

It's what I modeled it after. I make shortcuts and alternatives to make it and work I'd like to point out to you, your example still uses fixed gear. The purpose of the Chase is to provide a Cessna like vehicle that's capable of carrying crew or cargo as well as being reliable, and realistic to normal flight mechanics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ZooNamedGames said:

It's what I modeled it after. I make shortcuts and alternatives to make it and work I'd like to point out to you, your example still uses fixed gear. The purpose of the Chase is to provide a Cessna like vehicle that's capable of carrying crew or cargo as well as being reliable, and realistic to normal flight mechanics.

Except what you assembled probably masses more than an Antonov an-2 which is why the tiny cessna landing gear aren't working. If you say made upscaled versions of the gear through config file duplication/editing they would have more flexing room allowing the wheel code to handle the weight. What you are trying to do instead insisting that those tiny wheels support those heavy parts cause it "looks right" is not realistic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, passinglurker said:

Except what you assembled probably masses more than an Antonov an-2 which is why the tiny cessna landing gear aren't working. If you say made upscaled versions of the gear through config file duplication/editing they would have more flexing room allowing the wheel code to handle the weight. What you are trying to do instead insisting that those tiny wheels support those heavy parts cause it "looks right" is not realistic

Yet I can build something far bigger in 1.1.3. Something per say, the size of a Antanov-225 that would operate perfectly fine as far as not exploding on the runway. Suddenly 1.2 changes it so they're effective as a paperweight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Azimech said:

TS, I solved the problem of your airplane. Lower spring setting to 0.5. Gear doesn't explode anymore and perfectly capable of landing with a modest descent rate.

THIS.  Thanks to this comment, I tried playing with LOWER than default spring settings, and all of a sudden it really does work much better.  Thanks for this!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fourfa said:

THIS.  Thanks to this comment, I tried playing with LOWER than default spring settings, and all of a sudden it really does work much better.  Thanks for this!

I intend to test it. He may be the hero of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that a larger fixed gear would be good, but the current ones should stay as they are.  Larger ones could use bracing and that stick thing for suspension instead of it being integrated into the wheel well.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Rath said:

I think that a larger fixed gear would be good, but the current ones should stay as they are.  Larger ones could use bracing and that stick thing for suspension instead of it being integrated into the wheel well.

That'd I'd be greatly appreciative of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/03/2017 at 7:28 PM, fourfa said:

In sandbox - I understand they can feel a bit useless. 

I routinely fix one small wheel below my spaceplanes' tails, so I won't rip off the engines when pitching up too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

One improvement you could make is add brakes to LY-05. Often times my designs call for two small wheels in the rear and a single in the front. The 'single' front gear looks hideous if it has to be two LY-01s just for the brakes. LY-05 seems to support weight better (well, unsurprisingly since it's a compressive load instead of tensile) and I think we should be able to use the LY-05 as main gear and a less rigid wheel in the front.

Edited by MustaKotka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now