• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1386 Excellent

About blackheart612

  • Rank
    Aerospace Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

4344 profile views
  1. @Horus Oh, so you meant that the nodes are upside down (and also on the part catalog). They're upside down on the catalog as they are, as I remember, the 'right' orientation for everything else to function. I'll relate the nodes here. The rotors were mostly, if not only, made for surface attach and the nodes are I think relics of the firespitter parts as I was trying to make it look like the configs of FS. The nodes can be fixed by removing the negative (-) sign on the node configs but the upside down issue will persist. It's upside down because if I reverse it, the surface attachment will be upside down, which is what it is actually made for. With surface attach, it will always be right side up. So unless you really want to attach it to that node for some reason, use surface attach. Also it's made for the SPH, not VAB but who am I to dictate, I'll reverse the nodes on the next release for you. That's the most I can do with that.
  2. You mean existing crafts are upside down? Might be the craft file.
  3. @sashan I'll look into it. Thanks. @Horus I couldn't replicate this, I just tested right now with the same version, helicopter rotors are upright. Is this the only mod you have? Probably not Airplane Plus. @skyesfox Either you didn't extract all of the files, or you deleted firespitter. It's with every package I have and a dependency of the mod.
  4. @qromodynmc Did it ever have Duplex-Cyclones? o.O Anyway, it's simpler that way so it's modeled like that. I can make a curvier one and have an alternative model if it's actually possible, though. @Polestar The DC-3 Cockpit is pretty much the same as the Size 2 Cockpit in terms of design so it's very unlikely I'll make one, but I'll look into the landing gears and we'll see. @Deszeraeth Definitely agree with the landing gears, I want short landing gears with larger wheels for KSP and I'm going to make it happen. I might just focus on that most for the next update. So there's my plan. @memeconnoiseur Also going to look at the things I'll say I'll look into and jam in some more parts, background fixes and patches, all the usual stuff. @commanderbunbun There are threads around the Add-on Development to help you in the configs. atmcurves are a bit complicated but simple too. Usually helps if you have a curve editor in unity. This is mainly how it is inside the curve: key = (atm value) (thrust multiplier). atm value states the pressure of atmosphere, related to altitude and thinness of air. Thrust multiplier, well, multiplies the base thrust, decreasing and increasing it. x1 means it is as it is.
  5. Release 19 So I decided I'd release before I go instead of make a landing gear which will probably take a lot of time. The update took long enough as it is and if I make new parts, it's going to take longer to test them as well. The newer parts are well tested at this point and there is no rush so it's the perfect time as I go again. Then I'll work on new parts as I get back. Feel free to post here if you got issues. Here's the changelog also on the OP: Added Size 2 Viewer's Cockpit II based on B-29 Superfortress Added MK1 Supersonic Cockpit based on Bell X-1 Added K-3350 "Tempest" Radial Engine based on the Duplex-Cyclone of B-29 Added Tail Connector Size 2A and 2B, upsized Tail Connectors which connect to Size 2 Added Short Tail Connector Size 2A and 2B, also connecting textures with Size 2 - Increased deployment speed of S.P.O.I.L.E.R to closely match real deployment speed - Fixed Mk2/Object 1.44 Non-Commercial Cockpit having no hatch Fixed Mk2/Object 1.44 Non-Commercial Cockpit reorienting on revert to launch --- --- Videos also on OP: Also, one new craft on OP. It's the Airbus. Enjoy! -- @TMasterson5
  6. @memeconnoiseur I did say I wouldn't like dependencies before so it's not that it's completely impossible but it's the least of my priorities. If ever, it would be an optional config but packed with the release. But it's a possibility at this point. Probably not before, but I'm willing to try new things provided I polished the mod through and through. @Hs.Panda RW is indeed reaction wheels. As well as cycle wheel mode. It's from KSP and the twinblade has it due to the fact that it's meant to not have tail rotors. But if you are hovering, simply throttle up or down to go their respective directions. If you happen to be losing power or can't take off, your craft is too heavy. The recommended weight (which is not stated but are in the configs) as I suggested for the twinblade is ~6.0t And for people who were asking about Thr State and Thr Key: Thr State (default) means that the rotors will refer to the throttle in your navball and will copy it. 100% is to +15 collective, and 0% is to 0 collective. Thr Key starts from 0 collective and the effect of your throttle key is permanent and will not return to 0 unless on hover. If you keep pressing increase throttle, it will go up to +15 collective and will stay there unless changed. Keep pressing decrease and it will go to -15 as maximum. Since Thr Key starts from 0 collective everytime you are in hover, it is best used with hover to avoid losing power from translation of hover to increase of collective. -- Further tests had me fix some more issues with the cockpit. Issues before which are persistent with new cockpits as well as the missing airlock for the MiG 1.44 Cockpit. I'd release soon but I'm trying to make more landing gears. The problem is I'm going again this December 8 until 10. Back in action as soon as I can and going from there, a guaranteed release. Hopefully in time for a two month late supersonic anniversary release. I made a test craft to test the new parts, released the Machbuster ~7000m and achieved Mach ~1.06. But only got up to ~9,900m compared to Chuck Yeager's 13000m. But I concluded that pretty good.
  7. @memeconnoiseur The work isn't that much despite the difficulty of cockpits and engines compared to other parts, but my main problem is I got stuff to do in real life (not that much anymore). Probably going to end once I get my license and back from it again. About past December 10 probably. @Cratzz I'd like to focus on the mod itself for now. It's one of the biggest reasons why I am not doing any mod compatibility patches of my own for now. I'm easily distracted and like I said, takes my focus off the things that I need to put in. Not to mention I think some more useful patches would be better done first If I do so. You're free to take it off the real plume, I don't mind. @Lan_Morehell As I said above this sentence, I don't have any added mod compatibility for the mod. Made and tested with stock + firespitter. Though most of the parts work well with FAR and I made efforts fixing the cockpit collider holes for FAR but no configuration for it. I am interested but like I said, I got more to do (I haven't even fully tested and applied the new engine curve and air intake curve I have in mind to all engines). If there are people who'd like to make configs for FAR, that's fine anywhere in the forums. Making wings compatible with FAR is more complicated than usual, iirc, and requires measurements of the model itself. Takes some time compared to other mods in terms of making compatibility. -- Anyway, back to developing, tested and finished the parts as well as added two more parts, Size 2 Booms. They look similar with the booms of the Mk1 and I'm thinking of making short booms for Size 2 as well. For people who use a custom config for Tweakscale, it might not be a problem but this is a custom made Size 2 Boom with its own texture and texture switch connecting to the black stripe alternative of the size 2 parts. Only needs a few more testing and if I do implement a short boom for Size 2, got to test that as well. Once done, might be set for release! Oh, and the engine cowling works nicely now.
  8. @memeconnoiseur Looks interesting, I'll look into it. If I make that engine, might be (for now) the last engine as well as probably going to slow down making parts. I really, really want to further optimize the engines (further cut-offs than right now, just better performance curves over all) But that's a LOT of engines to tweak but probably going to end up in just one small looking update. -- Anyway, speaking of technicalities, so far testing with both new cockpits have gone well, as well as a working performance curve for the new "Tempest" engine. Just need some polishing with the config small data and visuals, as well as finalizing textures and hopefully capable of releasing when I can. I am sporadically getting more time so no waiting for new year, should be able to release an official 1.3.1 update soonTM But not very very soon
  9. @kcs123 I have tried searching for blueprints for the engine and the aircraft that could have it but I couldn't find one. I base my models on blueprints to get precise measures and make it exactly like the thing. @commanderbunbun That suggests you probably have messed with the dry and wet mode of the ModuleEnginesFX as well as the EFFECTS part of the config or the .wav it is referring to in my own folder. The two modes have different curves and EFFECTS have a specific line for the sound and where it is located. Either you misspelled anything on the line, the sound isn't where it is supposed to be, or you use a custom sound file not supported by ksp.
  10. @qromodynmc Certainly possible for a 1.25-0.625 cockpit, @Murican_Jeb As said before, I'm going to stick to stock part sizes for now. @qzgy I have no popular electric engine to base on both for dimensions of the part and for performance configuration. But yes, I was planning to. Perhaps when I get enough data but so far, I can't.
  11. @qromodynmc Well, it was a pretty long time. I'm not sure if I understand it the way you want to say it, but is it a sharp angled bubble canopy? If that's the case, I could make one on one condition, it's going to be a 1.25-0.625 bubble canopy just to add variety. Anyway, more testing. The scale of the kerbals compared to real life aircraft is starting to become an issue. Size 2 is a little bit too big for comfort, resulting in major adjustments just to be able to see from the IVA. So it takes a much longer time to finish IVAs of Size 2 and another reason why I'm hesitant to make Mk3 cockpits. Another thing is I tend to duplicate the real life setup in the game.
  12. @memeconnoiseur Well, I did set off for a month, and despite passing the exam for license, still got more things to do before actually getting it and came out of town and back. Missed out on a few games so I play other games as well. Though, I don't have any reason to abandon this, I really like making stuff. In fact, I've been working on silently so as to not get everybody's hopes up. I used to work faster so I update occasionally, now, as I am doing other things simultaneously, I'm going at a relatively slow pace. Another issue is the parts all aren't complete for teasing. But if you want updates, I hope it's fine that I have the window title on the screenshots as I forgot to fullscreen when I took the shots. Here's what's mostly done, I have to polish the mesh, fix and test IVA, further refinement of configs, should be done soon. Least done is another cockpit, no IVAs but the mesh for it is done and I'm planning on working on it next. And the engines on that - K-3350 "Tempest" Radial Engine. Based on the the Duplex-Cyclone itself. Complete two row radial from front to back as well as some experimental cowling. The cowling is actually throttle based instead of the heat. I have yet to figure out a proper way of implementing a heat system for these engines. They tend to cool down when they are really high up. Might require some modification of a lot of performance related stuff in the config. Sound's done and all, but as I said, configs and performance are far from done. But since it looks like I owe people an update, there it goes (sorry again for the windowed mode screenshot). I'm not too active, but I'd like you to know that I put input in when I have the time so don't worry about it.
  13. @BlueDragon1504 I forget what Spitfire I based it on, it's probably MkXIV. 5 Bladed, Griffon engine. It's faster than the Bf109. With regards to OP-ness, it's @AshyBoy that's closer, except the engine is not exclusive to F4U and there were faster planes which had the engine with them. @Salvator The landing gears follow the same principles as the stock landing gear which doesn't deploy. That's the only way to mirror parts properly. @RadiantShadow They only have weak stationary thrust, you need to use the runway to gain some lift and power. @DodoOnTheMün If you're using latest Airplane Plus, must be a plug-in problem. Never have I been able to duplicate this issue. @jonathanmoon @kcs123 It's legacy compatible with the right plug-in version, though I'm not sure which version introduced the payloads tab. If it hangs on the payloads, remove all the parts with doors and ramps in them (see part deleter's guide on zip).
  14. @h0yer I was on hiatus for a month, yes, it's fine, especially since the license is GPL as well so you're free to do as you please