FletcherDragon

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About FletcherDragon

  • Rank
    Curious George

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. 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!
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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~~
  15. 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~