SuicidalInsanity

I did have a WIP fighter style cockpit model at one point that got superseded in favor of something else. I might still have it somewhere; If I can find it, you might get your wish, CrisK.

Work slowly progresses on Mk3 stuff: WIP engine for heavy/superheavy planes, should also help with landings. 2.5m jet engine, with working thrust reverser.

@StevieC; With the wing root chines, there are a few things I can try to strengthen them for the next update. For a more immediate solution, you could try adding some struts or moving the landing gears inward. Alternatively, I would recommend getting the Kerbal Joint Reinforcement mod, which gets rid of the floppy rocket problem found in stock KSP. If I remember Porkjet correctly, the RCS looking things that are on the R-71 cockpit and originally the MK2 cockpit were supposed to be cameras or similar. That said, it wouldn't be difficult to add RCS functionality to them. Hmm. Perhaps I should add a 1.25m RCS nosecone to complement the mk2 ones as well...

@juanml82; For Mk3, right? Easy enough. The rapier clone will be useful; I just have to figure out a decent looking model for it. @ABZB; Perhaps; I can see a mk2 electric engine being fairly useful. I'm not so sure about mk3, mainly because the low thrust of ion engines doesn't seem to be the best choice for superheavy spaceplanes, but maybe some sort of heavy MPDT or VASiMR engine might work... Regardless of what form they might take, it does raise the question of power generation. I could try making some solar panels in aerodynamic housings suited for spaceplanes. Alternatively, hacking together a halfway decent mk2 nuclear reactor shouldn't be too hard, and would give an excuse to use the new stock radiator parts.

@Rath; Maybe? It depends on how much free time I have in the coming weeks.

@MelancholyFlapper; Sure. I had planned on doing Shuttle style OMS pods (thrusters + RCS), plus a bunch of mk3 RCS blocks anyway, so no worries.

Got the VTOL engines working: They are proving to be quite fun to use. Also, for those who want it, I have a Dev release of the Mk3 stuff up on Github. Very very WIP; everything is functional, but almost certainly unbalanced in regards to part weights, costs, tech tree location, and so forth. Parts, models, textures and so forth are subject to change without warning etc. To be honest, I haven't made much progress on mk3 stuff of late; I've been working on mk2 stuff instead. I do still intend to make all the mk3 parts I said I would, it just might take a little while.

@Kweller; Try deleting the Mk2 expansion from your Gamedata and doing a fresh install.

True. I threw the fans on the fronts mainly as eye candy - I was thinking something along the lines of the turbine detail on the stock engine nacelle part. I guess the player gets something pretty to look at in the editor or when their plane suffers a rapid unplanned disassembly.

@Kerbas_ad_astra; Thanks! I'll implement this in the next update. @Kweller;The engine FX is not supposed to to be present when off and on launchpad. Why it's happening, I don't know, I've never seen this behavior on my test copy of KSP - does the stock turbojet have a similar issue? Are you running any FX mods that might have a compatibility issue? @Reiver; 1) Yeah, that cockpit is finicky, which is why I ultimately added the top hatch - kerbals can enter through the bottom hatch, but leaving through the bottom I found to be hit or miss. I'll most likely be reworking the model somewhat for the next update. 2) I'm depreciating the old clunky J.Edgar engines come next update for nicer, more usable models, and the engine that takes the place of the rear mount VTOL engine will have a 1.25m attach node on the end for primary jet engines, tails, etc. 3) When I originally make the mk2 lab I made it half the weight for half the efficiency. This didn't quite end up as intended, so a rebalance of the mk2 sci lab is in progress. 4) The Rontgen was always something that I'm less than totally happy with. Cnceptually, it was an end game engine to allow exploration of more planets with aircraft. In practice, it seems, the balance of it is still a little off. I can't really make it any heaver, but I can take another look at the velcurve and atmo curve. Alternatively, I can make default its usage of Enriched Uranium, giving it a finite flight time before it becomes a mildly radioactive dead weight. 5) With the base mod, the universal tank has small tankage for the main fuel types, removing oxidizer and not getting more LF is in this case no different than trying the same thing with a FL-T800; the ability to toggle between fuel types is added with IntersetellarFuelSwitch, which is included with the mod as an extra.

I had a some spare time, which resulted in these: Radial, Mk2 fuselage, and Mk2-1.25m VTOL jet engines; with LF/O rocket VTOL engines planned. Much nicer looking that the old J. Edgar engines, which raises a question; IMO the J. Edgars are sorta clunky, so my thoughts were to depreciate them and replace them with the new ones, so: Would people prefer to have these engines supplement, or replace, the current H-VR 'J. Edgar' VTOL engines?

@Hazelnut; I can't replicate the navball bug - tried with multiple crafts, different revert scenarios (from runway, in flight, post crash). No idea whats causing it. The ESTOC and MATTOCk use the same velcurve and atmcurve as the RAPIER, and I've seen similar behavior with the RAPIER. I think the top speed listed is the theoretical maximum before atmosphere density thrust reduction? As for the science lab, I can buff it a little, but I might need to increase the weight slightly in turn, since at present it has half the science capacity for half the weight as the 2.5m lab.

@iLikeRovers; There's a mk1 inline cockpit dorsally mounted near the aft of the plane. Its easiest to spot on image 7.

@Kweller: I'll consider it, but IRL stuff has drastically cut into my available time for modding, so...maybe? On that note, I'll be posting a dev release version of the mk3 expansion stuff here, probably in the next few days, so that people can play around with the parts I currently have, rather than wait a month or so for a 1.0 release.

@Kweller; One of the things that is happening for the next update is a visual overhaul of some of the parts to make them look better, clean up texture seams, etc. The cockpits are included in that overhaul, so the texture issues you identified will be taken care of. @Hazelnut; Do you mean the HS-X cockpit? I can take a look, see if I can replicate the bug. As for the rapier-like engines, do you mean the ESTOC or the MATTOCK?

My first K-prize entry (1.04) The airframe is a modified version of the spaceplane I attempted the Eve SSTO challenge with. 1260 tons, no jets, only rockets, can carry 150 tons of payload to Kerbin orbit. Craft is all stock parts, but I was using FAR, not sure if that disqualifies it.

My attempt: Just a few hundred dV more needed. I might have done better with a better flight profile. The main problems is packing enough fuel onto a plane to get a high enough fuel fraction, especially with KSP tank weights being what they are - that plane is ~320 tons dry.

@ sober667: Xenon tankage I can add in easily enough. Cargobays with integrated solar panels I don't think I'll do, if only because they would render obsolete the stock ones. That said, I have considered adding a radial solar panel or two meant for space plane use, since currently the only options for solar panels with aeroshells are the fairly small SP-L 1x6 and the SP-W 2x3. @robson1000: Yes, you did. I'll fix the alignment in the next update.

No problem; I already have plans for doing some of both

Good news, everyone! After a bunch more poking at the Mk2 science lab and trawling the forums looking for information, I've gotten the science lab working again. An update with the fix will be up on Kerbal stuff momentarily.

@DiamondHawk427;Can you be more specific or post an output_log?

Testing this on my test copy of 1.02, with M2X version 1.4.3, I was unable to replicate the error, the lab worked as it should. M2X Version 1.4.5 for KSP 1.03, on the other hand, I can replicate your error, and after two hours of experimentation, I'm no closer to discovering why. The only thing I've managed to discover so far is that in 1.03, KSP apparently really dislikes the Module Sciencelab being on or added to any part other than the stock science lab. I'll keep poking at it, but I don't know how long it'll take to solve.

@CptRichardson; Ah, side pods. Those open up some possibilities, and some design questions. Ore tanks concept WIP:

@Eskandare; Coincidence; I didn't know about your nuclear stuff until a few days ago. A shame it took me so long to find out about them; they look like they would be quite fun to use. @LitaAlto;Technically, yes. The old NTR and Project Pluto research gave me some inspiration back when I was making the Pluto NTR. I needed a name for it, so I used Pluto as a working name, which stuck. Of course, later, when I'm making a NTJ which is much closer to the original PP spces, and need a name, Pluto is already taken... I suppose I could switch the names, so Rontgen becomes the NTR, and Pluto becomes the jet, but that might result in some confusion. @*Aqua*; Becoming stock would be nice, but that is ultimately Squad's decision. As for a ramp, I was considering several possible variations for my upcoming Mk3 expansion pack, but I never thought about one for Mk2. That said, it shouldn't be all that difficult to adapt a design for the mk2 form.

@CptRichardson; Aren't janky deathtraps in the spirit of KSP? Or theres always the Inline cockpit, I suppose. Since I haven't started modeling engine bits yet, in light of the point you raised, I'm guessing radial attach retros would be a preferable option?