Page 325 of 410 FirstFirst ... 225275315323324325326327335375 ... LastLast
Results 3,241 to 3,250 of 4091

Thread: [0.22] B9 Aerospace Pack / R4.0c / New pods, IVAs, engines, fuselages & structures

  1. #3241
    *Munches on popcorn and watches the fireworks.*

    I'm over here pretty much waiting on KW and B9 to finish myself. Lots of interesting talk about wheels and those new parts look like they took a page out of LLL's playbook.

    Then took that page, slapped it on a copy machine, and hit the 'Blow Up to 200%' button. Not sure if 'staple' option was selected as well but I digress. They look nice and sci-fi.

    The biggest bother I've had with B9 parts is getting proper gear alignment on some of the angled undersides. A few radial 'undercarriage adapter' parts would make a simple, and sweet addition to the collection being sported here. See here for what I mean. The 'bulges' house the gear rather than stapling them to the hull itself. I could see two benefits from them.

    1: You could attach the gear without worrying about the gear housing interfering with the insides of cargo bays. (I encountered this with the stand alone Mk IV parts. The upper portion of the gear bays extended up through the floor of the Mk IV cargo bays.)
    2: If the gear are mounted to a Gear Adapter, and you need to move the gear around CoM, you can move the entire set just by grabbing the gear adapter.

    Though, maybe some of the new parts can double for that. Depends on the shape. I know I ended up doing that when I was building a C-130esque design a month ago. Used Firespitter fuel tanks and tail sections for their rounded features and managed to get them to attach after an hour fighting with them. Mounted the gear to those, and had myself a K-130 parachute probe dropper.

    The pain was finding Point of Rotation for the aircraft. Odd how center mass isn't when it comes to gear and the point of rotation.

  2. #3242
    Random question.

    If I am not using FAR does it matter what which of the B9 intakes I use for a large cargo carrying SSTO? I can't seem to notice a difference between any of them right now.

    I will probably start using FAR once B9 is updated for .23 but as of right now I am not still.

  3. #3243
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer bac9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    253
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by AdmiralTigerclaw View Post
    The biggest bother I've had with B9 parts is getting proper gear alignment on some of the angled undersides. A few radial 'undercarriage adapter' parts would make a simple, and sweet addition to the collection being sported here. See here for what I mean. The 'bulges' house the gear rather than stapling them to the hull itself. I could see two benefits from them.

    1: You could attach the gear without worrying about the gear housing interfering with the insides of cargo bays. (I encountered this with the stand alone Mk IV parts. The upper portion of the gear bays extended up through the floor of the Mk IV cargo bays.)
    2: If the gear are mounted to a Gear Adapter, and you need to move the gear around CoM, you can move the entire set just by grabbing the gear adapter.

    Though, maybe some of the new parts can double for that. Depends on the shape. I know I ended up doing that when I was building a C-130esque design a month ago. Used Firespitter fuel tanks and tail sections for their rounded features and managed to get them to attach after an hour fighting with them. Mounted the gear to those, and had myself a K-130 parachute probe dropper.

    The pain was finding Point of Rotation for the aircraft. Odd how center mass isn't when it comes to gear and the point of rotation.
    There is no point in adding parts like those as they will only provide vertical gear attachment from one fixed angle around the hull (not to mention it's not the best idea to add extremely specialized decorative parts). It's entirely possible to make nice looking "bulges" with 1.25m cylinders and existing endpieces, which I did on Strugatsky sample craft, I think. It's also impossible to make a "bulge" part with integrated wheels at the moment: as KSP has no proper mirroring, so only way to make that work is using two separate manually mirrored part types (in which case you won't even be able to perfectly align the wheels).



    Quote Originally Posted by British_Rover View Post
    Random question.
    If I am not using FAR does it matter what which of the B9 intakes I use for a large cargo carrying SSTO? I can't seem to notice a difference between any of them right now.
    I will probably start using FAR once B9 is updated for .23 but as of right now I am not still.
    SABRE intake is facing roughly seven degrees down from your direction, which makes it better for high-altitude gliding where you can't ever stay level if flying aligned with your velocity vector. Other than that, nope, stock SSTO is all about intake air numbers.
    Last edited by bac9; 23rd December 2013 at 15:53.

  4. #3244
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer Eskandare's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    292
    As I wait for B9's update (He's busy with that, other things he's doing for Squad, and his personal life), meanwhile I've decided experiment with conventional KW engines to put stuff into space.





    72 tons is not too bad. I'll have to try and rebuild my 3 orange tank monster.

  5. #3245
    Quote Originally Posted by bac9 View Post
    This is largely a physics issue and not something that can be solved on the side of a part model or a config, so I can't really help here.

    Wouldn't reducing the sideways 'grabbiness' of the wheels help? In the same way RoveMax Model 1 wheels will slide vs. teh TR-2L Ruggedized wheels will grab and cause rovers to do stupid things?

  6. #3246
    I got a message from careo today. He fixed exsurgent engineer and recompiled the dll for .23. You can download the DLL from the link below. This should fix all problems with the sabre and the turbojets.

    Here is what he wrote:

    I've fixed the slight breakage in the code for 0.23 and pushed the updated source to https://github.com/careo/ExsurgentEngineering , and checked in the DLL to go with it for good measure https://github.com/careo/ExsurgentEn...ngineering.dll .

  7. #3247
    Quote Originally Posted by dtobi View Post
    I got a message from careo today. He fixed exsurgent engineer and recompiled the dll for .23. You can download the DLL from the link below. This should fix all problems with the sabre and the turbojets.

    Here is what he wrote:

    I've fixed the slight breakage in the code for 0.23 and pushed the updated source to https://github.com/careo/ExsurgentEngineering , and checked in the DLL to go with it for good measure https://github.com/careo/ExsurgentEn...ngineering.dll .
    Link is broken. Sounds great though
    'mercia.

  8. #3248
    Warmongererer Deathsoul097's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Area 11
    Posts
    1,060
    Blog Entries
    7
    Wow! Bac, that looks AMAZING! I am going to create some cool stuff with this! (AKA: Giant space battleships and super-carriers)
    Danger Kerman - "Oh, 'Danger' is your middle name, huh? Wuss, it's my first name!"

    (This is legitimately a name that can be generated within the game XD)

  9. #3249
    I'm pretty sure that this is somewhere on the forum but if you could add/make a S2 Wide rear ramp piece, that would be beyond amazing.

    I feel like i should say that by far this is one of the best mods for KSP I have used, as far as the range, quality, and overall awesomeness of the parts its rivaled by very few.

    Can't wait to see all the new parts i didn't know i needed.

  10. #3250

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •