Jump to content

8bitsblu

Members
  • Content Count

    73
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About 8bitsblu

  • Rank
    Scramjet Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I can't seem to get my tailhook to function correctly. So far I've been forced to land without a tailhook, which is possible, but a bit of a close call. when I toggle the tailhook, the game says the tailhook's deployed, but there's no animation and the hook remains static. It seems to have no effect on the arresting wire as well. Sometimes it seems to register for a second and the wire bends, but is static and doesn't affect the aircraft. It's especially weird because the catapult and carrier works fine. Am I the only one with this issue? Is it a compatibility thing? I don't think I'm using an
  2. Everything's working fine for me except that animations aren't symmetrical. Also it seems like extending the leading and trailing edges greatly increases drag while not increasing lift. Don't know if that's something new or just me.
  3. Yeah I do agree that the Scramjets need to be updated a bit. I also agree that "scramjet only" intakes are a bad idea, I've never liked the thought of implementing that. I will probably be reworking the appearances and stats of the scramjets once I finish the chine parts. Honestly I kind of want to give the whole mod a visual revision.
  4. So I've installed the 1.1 version of firespitter and the animations still aren't working in my game. Propellers do produce thrust, but they make no sound or animations. Is this a problem anyone else is having?
  5. I'm having an issue with animations not working. When I use firespitter propellers neither the animations or the sound plays. Is this an issue with 1.1 or did I install incorrectly?
  6. Alright so I've tested this mod in 1.1 and it looks like it mostly checks out. Except for the XE404, which is now ittybitty for some reason. Scramjets are confirmed to work fine, I havent checked the XE303 since there isn't a 1.1 version of firespitter out yet but it looks like it actually aligns better in the editor now, so that's a plus. The new parts aren't ready yet, but I'll work on a compatibility release to make sure everything's peachy with 1.1.
  7. This is probably a dumb question but does anyone know if we should upgrade to Unity 5 for KSP v1.1? I figured that I probably wouldn't but I want to be sure. Even if it's not needed would anyone recommend upgrading anyways? Is the UI and methods for setting up mods similar?
  8. The download has been updated and the mod is back up!
  9. Holy excrements it's been a while. Sorry everyone, college gets in the way of everything. Anyways I'll be reuploading the mod to SpaceDock and linking it in the OP. Also hopefully in the next update I'll be adding hypersonic fuselage parts (with sexy chines) possibly along with a new engine that'll be a blend of the F-22's F119 engine and the F-35's F135 engine. It'll have 2D thrust vectoring along with slightly higher thrust than the J-404 Panther. It'll be optimized for supercruise for all of those people out there who like to go places fast and still be able to pull a 180 degree turn in a h
  10. [quote name='Lego8_bit']is this mod compatible with 1.0.5 ???[/QUOTE] It should be. honestly I haven't tested it yet in my own game but I don't think any changes were made in this update that would really affect these parts. You might need a later version of firespitter though as the current one is a bit outdated. If everything works fine then I probably won't update till 1.1. I'm thinking that there might be some issues when that update comes.
  11. I know it is. I even stated it in the text "Closely based on the USA Tri-Service aircraft designation system." Not just the Air Force uses it either, all three branches do. It's not exactly the same, however. Some letters are changed to better fit KSP. For example, under the real life system "S" stands for "Anti-Submarine Warfare". Plus in the real-life version the ordering of the letters doesn't matter, whereas in my system it does.
  12. A while back I decided to create my own system of aircraft naming based on real-life systems. Does anyone else do this? This is my method: Instell Inc. Aircraft Classification System Closely based on the USA Tri-Service aircraft designation system. Name format is [Prefix][VT][PM][SM][TM]-[Number][Name] Vehicle type always goes before mission, prefix goes before everything. Mission type isn't necessarily needed. For instance if you have a spaceplane that carries cargo to orbit, it would be fine to designate it "S-123" or "SC-123". Status Prefix (ex: XF-23, YF-35B): G=Permanently Grounded
  13. - - - Updated - - - I can't say I'm familiar with that. Care to elaborate?
  14. My next projects are going to be a nuclear turbojet and a ducted fan for VTOL aircraft. The nuclear turbojet will be my first Mk.2 sized part, and the ducted fan will have Mk.1 and Mk.2 part types. I'm also considering making the nuclear tubojet able to gimbal downwards for VTOL as well, to compliment the ducted fan, or maybe make a separate engine with that capability. - - - Updated - - - Sorry, I don't think I'll make this change. I don't know what math you've been doing, but the sources I used to make this engine placed the top speed range at Mach 12 to 24. The engine already has a slight
×
×
  • Create New...