[1.12.x] Mk2 Expansion v1.9.1 [update 10/5/21]

[CrisK]

@123nick: What.

...I'm definitely going to have to try that.

In other news I've made decent progress on new stuff, so I hope to have update 1.5 out in a fortnight or so. As a teaser, I'll just leave this here:http://i.imgur.com/z6vXIDx.png

If you created the fighter jet cockpit just for me, then thank you. :sticktongue:

[snekposter]

I think I have a bug with the rontgen jet engine, or the rcs piece with mk2 profile, or maybe some stock nonsense with cargo bays and radiators.

http://webm.host/4da24/

When I close the cargo bay, the rcs block overheats and explodes.

[SuicidalInsanity]

I'm not 100 percent sure, and I'll need to do some testing, but I think it's a stock bug; I've had satellites explode in the cargo bay of a SSTO I was testing a while ago, which I think was stock, when I toggled the cargo bay, and I've seen others report similar.

[SuicidalInsanity]

Update 1.5 is finally up, grab it from KerbalStuff.

Version 1.5

=================

-New Part: 'Pegasus' Fuselage VTOL Engine

-New Part; 'Siddeley' Fuselage VTOL engine

-New part:'Jumpjet' Radial VTOL engine

-New Part: fighter cockpit

-New Part: Mk2 tail boom

-New Part: Mk2 reactor

-New Part: 'Spirit' Mk2 Ion Engine

-Mk2 Science Lab rebalanced - increased weight to 2.5, max science to 500

-Mk2 service bay fixed: Should now shield parts correctly

-Model rework: HS-X cockpit retextured

-Model rework: R-71 cockpit retextured

-Model rework: Inverter tank retextured

-Model rework: SC-TD dropship cockpit canopy enlarged, front hatch removed

-model rework: 'Rontgen' atomic jet remodeled

-IVAs reworked, windows adjusted

-Interplanetery Launchpads MM patch added - science lab workshop compatibility

-Near Future Electric MM patch NFE reactor functionality on the Mk2 reactor

-New Engine FX

-J. Edgar VTOL engines move to legacy folder pending final depreciation in ver 1.6

Note: The J.Edgar engines are being depreciated. They are included with version 1.5 so any craft that has them won't break, and can still be loaded, but the engines will be removed in the next update.

[DavidBowman]

All my yesss!!!

[Reiver]

Hm, I will have to investigate whether I can rebuild my Dropship with the new VTOL engines.

(I guess I should set up an imgur account so I can share screenshots of the poor thing... sigh. Wish my Steam copy of KSP would still let me do screenshots, that tool was so handy. )

Edit: That fighter cockpit made me realise what I'd been looking for for a while: a 1.25m to Mk2 inline air intake without the central 1.25 bit, which you could then insert your own parts into - be it more fuel, a Mk1 cockpit, or whatever else. The intakes would jut along the 'sides' of the central part, but allow for very short (Like, decoupler short!) transitions without ruining aerodynamics or the opportunity for air intakes.

Is this madness? I can't tell.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Reiver

[Logan.Darklighter]

Just so you know, CKAN no longer recognizes your parts pack in it's list. You may want to fix that.

[SuicidalInsanity]

I've updated the .netkan, so CKAN compatibility should be back as soon as the pull request goes through.

[Prototype516]

I don't understand what all these tweakables on the Pegasus VTOL Engine are.

Edit: Never mind. I figured it out.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Prototype516

[TheHengeProphet]

I think there is a minor graphical glitch with the new cockpit. It seems there is a small ring of un-textured area around the glass. Might just be me. Will endeavor to post screenshots when I can; however, seeing as it is only about a pixel wide, it would require several to do.

[TomatoSoup]

I love your mod and I think that it gives the Mk2 system some much deserved love. The Mk2 profile engines make some really nifty designs possible, like this one of mine. https://imgur.com/a/TgvIr It needs the next tier of research so that I can put the gimballing engines on it. As is, once it gets too empty it pivots due to the center of mass moving up. Handles like a dream, though.

Although I've gotta ask! Why did you remove the lower hatch on the dropship cockpit instead of making that the primary hatch? It could have been so handy!

[Reiver]

Because the angles (and tendency to be pointing towards the ground) makes it very prone to accidentally being blocked despite what looked like decent ground clearance.

I should try that things IVA out again, come to think of it... now the capsule is bigger I wonder if it's got a better view downwards

[Grumman]

I've being adding parts from this mod piecemeal, and just got up to the first engine, the Pluto. It's definitely handy to have a nuclear rocket in the Mk2 form factor without the ridiculously long and back-heavy shape that comes from using the Mk1<->Mk2 adapter sections, but the exhaust FX could use some work, I think. The exhaust starts too far up the nozzle, I think, and there's some noticeable jaggies at the edges of the exhaust plume.

[Reiver]

Hey, speaking of. Why is the fighter-type engine so... pointy? The nose looks a little extreme. Was there a reason?

[SuicidalInsanity]

@TheHengeProphet; I'll take a look at it

@TomatoSoup; Reiver nailed it. The lower hatch was originally the only hatch, but because of the vagaries of how airlocks work in KSP, it didn't work very well, and never consistently. So I added the top hatch. At that point, you'd still get the 'hatch obstructed' message, but could manually EVA kerbals from the top hatch, but not the bottom, and they could enter through the bottom or the top. I decided that was silly, and simply got rid of the problem at its source.

@Grumman; I haven't really done engine FX before, so a little room for improvement is to be expected. I'll clean it up for the next update

@Reiver; Fighter-type engine? You mean the 'Vector' turbojet? Its pointy because I based the model on the Pratt & Whitney F-119's engine housing.

[ABZB]

https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/1080/MK2%20KSPI%20Integration if anyone is interested

[Reiver]

Gah! Brain-typo. Braino? Whatever

I meant the fighter-type cockpit is somewhat excessively pointy. Is there a reason?

The engines look lovely. Though I would note in passing I find it a little odd that the VTOL thrusters are built to operate at optimal thrust at Mach 1.7 alongside the Wheezely; I guess making their own thrust curves to be optimised for low speeds and altitudes is a bit too tricky? Likewise, I feel the MkII Ion engine is either not showing its stats right, or a little insane - is it really meant to be an order of magnitude more thrust and twice the ISP? That... doesn't seem right, even with the dramatic electricity demands.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Reiver

[SuicidalInsanity]

@Reiver;Fighter cockpit does make more sense. As for its pointyness, I blame watching too much Cowboy Bebop around the time I was modeling it - one of the ships in it has a long pointy cockpit, and the fighter cockpit ended up looking similar.

The VTOL thrust curves being optimum at mach 1.7 because I wanted the Siddeley to be able to pull double duty as a main engine if players wanted to build Harrier/ Yak-38 style aircraft. Similarly with the Jumpjet, since it too can function as main engine, although I suppose I should reduce its power slightly given its size. The Pegasus is solely the result of copying from the Siddeley cfg and not thinking to change the thrust curve. It'll be fixed next update. Since the Pegasus isn't designed to be used to propel something at trans-mach speeds anyway, I don't think its much of a problem for now, though I'm sure someone will figure out how to use it as a main engine in some sort of crazy sideways flying brick or something.

The Ion engine could probably use a little tweaking. For its current stats, I looked at the stats for the NFP engines and used those as a baseline - in particular, the Hi-SNAP engine (2.6 thrust, ~11000 isp, ~45Ec/s, ~.25 tons) - and extrapolated what a larger engine's stats might be from those.

[Reiver]

VTOL: Hm. I would argue that the Harrier was subsonic, and the Yak had something closer to a thrust-vectored main engine and then a pair of boosters at the front, which is probably best represented by shoving an actual turbojet on the back if folks so desired supersonic flight. Then you could rig up a thrust curve that's optimised for low speed & low-mid altitudes, and caps out just around the sound barrier - plenty fast enough to poodle around with as a VTOL, but if you're trying to VTOL your spaceplane you'll be wanting a supporting Rapier or something, and leaves VTOLs being balanced while doing what they want to do most - lots of thrust!

If you did this, I'd suggest running the same curve on all the VTOL engines, so you don't get weird thrust imbalances as altitude climbs. It's a little gameish, but probably simplifies an awful lot of a hard bit of design work to start with.

Cockpit: I guess I can see it. That said, it looks like it had a 'normal' nose curve going on, then suddenly tapers out to make it longer still, which isn't generally how the Kerbal stuff goes. Were it to continue to blunt, I think it'd be more American-ish.

The Ion engine: I understand that NFP does things a bit differently to stock. I'd suggest considering how much surface area you're throwing around vs the stock Ion's rear panels, and going with that - preferably at similar ratios of thrust & ISPs (which, let's be fair, are already pretty fantastic), because Ion engines scale linearly with surface area - there's no 'economy of scale', because the limitation is ion pressures within the engines themselves.

I've been continually tempted by another engine, too, though I guess it wouldn't technically need to be a MkII: the turborocket!

It's a turbojet that burns fuel and oxidizer to heat inflowing air without relying on the air for an oxygen source. Picture a turbojet, but burning Oxgyen alongside its LiquidFuel and thus running on Duna and Eve before one unlocks the nuclear jets...

It'd make a nice stepping stone to the nuclear rockets and rontgen, but like I say, there's nothing stopping it from being a Mk1 part (Unlike your more exotic MkII designs here, which are wholly logical in needing the 'extra space' for their use). I'd assume this is outside the scope of your parts pack? But then, you've got little surface-mounted jets these days, and they're not technically MkII either... Just a passing thought.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Reiver
holy duplicated posts, batman!

[Svm420]

Please don't change that cockpit. Long and sleek is better for aerodynamics than short and blunt. Plus cowboy bebop!

[Logan.Darklighter]

Plus cowboy bebop!

You noticed that too, eh?

Seeya Space Cowboy!

[TheHengeProphet]

I suppose that cockpit does kinda resemble the Swordfish. I rather like it... If you ever replace it with a more "standard" fighter cockpit, I'll have to make sure to keep the current model as a separate part!

[ABZB]

The ion engine has a typo - "exhaustDamage = flase"

[shynung]

I'd suggest an MM config to make it compatible with Community Resource Pack. This way, if CRP is installed, the nuclear rocket drinks liquid hydrogen instead of liquid fuel.

Just my 2 cents.

[Grumman]

I'd suggest an MM config to make it compatible with Community Resource Pack. This way, if CRP is installed, the nuclear rocket drinks liquid hydrogen instead of liquid fuel.

Just my 2 cents.

Do not do that. Community Resource Pack does not change the stock nuclear rocket, and so it shouldn't do it to the Pluto either.

On the plus side I've got a nice line of SSTOs using a few of your parts: