Jump to content

neistridlar

Members
  • Content Count

    770
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

745 Excellent

About neistridlar

  • Rank
    Submariner

Profile Information

  • Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. You must not be familiar with the conventions for version numbers. It is not a regular decimal number, the period is simply a deliminator to separate major and minor versions. So 1.2 came out a long time ago. And 1.9 came before 1.10. 1.99 will come before 1.100 etc.
  2. I know about it, and it is my go to tank for this, but I rarely fill it more than half full
  3. I'll have to disagree. I've played a bunch with restock, which has equivalent sized RCS thrusters. I found myself using them as main thrusters for tiny comsats, where tiny thrust is a desirable feature for accurate orbital insertions. I also found them more than adequate for smaller 2.5m craft as well. Sure I could have docked them without RCS, but it,s so much more convenient, and realistic for that matter with RCS. It's also convenient for fine orbital adjustments. The light weight and low thrust make them very suitable for such applications, not to mention more realistic than for instance v
  4. Thanks to @Commodore_32 for reporting bugged TCS nodes. It turned out they were simply backwards. New release is now available on Github. Also thanks to @Lisias which cleaned up the configs and bulkheads a bit.
  5. If someone want to put it on CKAN and manage it without my involvement, I'm not oposed to that*. But I'm not interested in investing any of my own time to make it happen. *in fact I don't think I can deny any one making a "CKAN edition" of NAP, and posting puting it on CKAN, given the licensing I'm using.
  6. Interesting. I have yet to try out 1.10. Just to rule things out, have you tried it on a clean install? Has anyone else seen this issue (or not seen it)? I can't promise I will look at it soon, but I will probably get around to it eventually.
  7. Feel free to use any of my models, and good luck!
  8. I use primarily Blender for the modeling (Though I also use Fusion 360 to create reference models for some parts). For the texturing I use Incscape to lay out the panel lines and other "mechanical" details, like windows. Then I export it to GIMP where I apply weathering and more "organic" details.
  9. I'm unsure what exactly you mean, but it should work just fine both on it's own, and side by side with APP. I will take that into account.
  10. So, I've been meaning to do this for about a year now: https://github.com/neistridlar/Neist-Airliner-Parts/releases For those that have cloned the repository within the last year there should be nothing new here I think. However for those that find that sentence intimidating, there is now an easier way to get the latest and greatest. I think this is what is "new": B73 cockpit added 12NCS-B73 added CS22 cockpit added 12NCS-CS22 added A38 cockpit added 18NCS-A38 added 50PC added 37-50AD Added Adapters now have proper textures Some IVAs
  11. I'm unable to work on it for now, due to mental health issues. I'm still thinking about it now and then though. I did consider these options when I designed the parts, however the current solution was the best I could come up with, while still maintaining the stock "lego" feel to my liking. I do have plans for a few more engines. CFM56 is certainly a candidate for 1.25m, though APP has one, so I have been looking for other candidates. Also have some plans for this, two nose cones, one with passengers and one with "shark mouth" opening for cargo, and cockpit, structural
  12. I've longed for this feature many a times for my spaceplanes. I rarely find myself with the perfect oxidizer/liquid fuel balance once in rocket mode. Being able to dump the excess would increase the available Delta-V. Dumping the remaining propellants can make reentry easier as well.
  13. With regards to classes, I think the original classes (pre hoppers) is mostly fine. Those that bother me the most are jumbo and sea plane, and to some extent supersonic. The issue I have is the openness. With enormous variations in speed, size and range, it is very difficult to compare and judge. For supersonic I'd put a roof on passenger capacity of say 64. Prohibit supersonic jumbos (and any other category). Also limit seaplane to say 40 seats. As for sub categories, I don't particularly like it. I think it's good enough as has been done previously, with judges giving a comment on what
  14. I do like this Idea. Maybe er vold divide the ckasses into tiers. Say turboprop/small regional is tier 1, medium regional and dra plane tier 2, and jumbo and supersonic tier 3. You would have to have at least one plane "approved" before they could move on to the next tier. Agreed. Only thing is I'm not sure the mk1 needs the price increase as well. IIRC it wil end up as the heaviest pr. Seat, which means the kppms will suffer, especially for long range aircrafts, as the fuel/mass fraction gets quite high on those. Might need to build a few "benchmark"-aircraft by those rules, ju
  15. Yup, we definitively need something like this. Though believe it or not the current queue would only loose 1 or 2 planes with a 6 plane limit (just from looking over it quickly). Though there have certainly been points in time where it would have cut down the queue more. By my count there is ~50 unique contestants in the queue currently, with ~110 submissions between them. I feel like a limit of 3 might be necessary to keep things manageable. This does sound intriguing. However, I do fear that it will be too complicated for a lot of forum users to comply with the rules, judging by how
×
×
  • Create New...