Fengist Posted October 21, 2015 Author Share Posted October 21, 2015 Just one example (look at the version history): http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Mk2_Liquid_Fuel_FuselageIt certainly wasn't as big a spread of Mk2 parts back then (that came later with SP+'s integration in 0.25), but the original Mk2 profile is C7's creation.Once again RIC, your wisdom and knowledge of KSP is unquestionable. I do stand corrected. Be damned if I remember them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 [...]And before we go this direction, yes, my sub was inspired by a real-life design. However, I seriously doubt anyone will find a way to take mine on a cruise to the Bahamas. Now, should I build a REAL submarine and incorporate a lot of the designs used in the Migaloo, then try to sell it... it would be a serious legal matter.Darn it, now I want one of those. I guess I'll just have to be happy with a KSP version of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fengist Posted October 22, 2015 Author Share Posted October 22, 2015 Darn it, now I want one of those. I guess I'll just have to be happy with a KSP version of that. With my modding skills, it's a poor facsimile. But it's way better than what you had... nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colmo Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 The Mk2 parts have had their profile changed - that was one of the changes in their transition from Spaceplane+ parts to full Squad stock parts. They're now symmetrical, top to bottom. It's why B9 Mk2 parts don't actually match, afaik, they were made for the old C7 profile.Mk3, fyi, is all Porkjet - the old C7 Mk3 parts were awkwardly shaped and thus scrapped. There were many mods based on the old Mk3 parts too - all superseded now.I never really saw a resemblance - B9 was always futuristic, whereas PorkJet has tended to stockalike. Both are fantastically talented artists, and I've enjoyed the fruits of their labour.Still haven't tried the sub...so little time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalstarwars333 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 These make great platforms for large research bases on kerbin. You can just put several of the fueled clipper hulls, some fuel cells and/or solar panels and/or rtgs, some wheels, and whatever research stuff you want! It's awesome! And it's great for landships! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7499275 Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Any tips or ideas how to launch a cargo ship capable of hauling rovers and such to Laythe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fengist Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 Any tips or ideas how to launch a cargo ship capable of hauling rovers and such to Laythe?Other than strapping it down on top of a RoRo? I just make the parts dood. How you guys get them into orbit is up to you. But I have seen it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalstarwars333 Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 I just want to make a landhsip with these. the NAS doesn't work though...plus anything over about a 4 or 5 inch gun dwarfs the parts. the bigger 12, 14, 15, 16, and 18 inchers are as wider or wider than the hull parts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fengist Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 I just want to make a landhsip with these. the NAS doesn't work though...plus anything over about a 4 or 5 inch gun dwarfs the parts. the bigger 12, 14, 15, 16, and 18 inchers are as wider or wider than the hull parts!That's up to the guys who make NAS. Have you installed tweakscale? The hulls can get.... much bigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kagame Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 A most excellent pack. Turned a fighter addict like me into a salty sea dog! =P A couple of requests:"Ships of the Line" update:- High-temperature tolerance parts (ca. 3600 degrees) painted in Structural Panel grey for your rather large BDArmory crossover demographic.- Crewtanks in both 1 and 2 scale (the paddlewheeler parts don't count) so I can actually make a battleship superstructure without laughing at the tininess of the paddlewheel parts for something as big as a 4x battleship (or, for peaceful uses, an ubercruiseliner.) Also, 1/2 height structural parts for gun stairstepping.- Galley, lido deck?- Command Bridge part that's like a taller cargo superstructure. - Enable debug (e. g., the Buoyancy slider) on the floaties.- Why is the foc'sle deck a crewtank? This doesn't make it TweakScaleable. You wouldn't like me when I see something that isn't TweakScalable. - Crazy bonus part: Pool deck piece, because don't you want to swim in water while sailing over the sea? =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fengist Posted October 23, 2015 Author Share Posted October 23, 2015 A most excellent pack. Turned a fighter addict like me into a salty sea dog! =P A couple of requests:"Ships of the Line" update:Thanks, glad you like it. But you might not in a moment.- High-temperature tolerance parts (ca. 3600 degrees) painted in Structural Panel grey for your rather large BDArmory crossover demographic.My parts are for civilian use. I have no plans to make anything compatible with BD. Though I have considered a battleship grey texture for the hulls. However, if some brave individual wants to dive in and make a modulemanager .cfg to make these parts more survivable with BD, I'll be happy to put it in the OP.- Crewtanks in both 1 and 2 scale (the paddlewheeler parts don't count) so I can actually make a battleship superstructure without laughing at the tininess of the paddlewheel parts for something as big as a 4x battleship (or, for peaceful uses, an ubercruiseliner.) Also, 1/2 height structural parts for gun stairstepping.Easier said than done. When you tweak a part with a door, you end up with a stinking huge door that looks horrid.- Galley, lido deck?I'm not quite sure how a galley would fit in unless you're referring to TAC. A Lido? Making water outside of water? Beyond my skills atm. Well, it is and it isn't. I could come up with a model but flotation? That's another thing.- Command Bridge part that's like a taller cargo superstructure. I've considered that. When/if I ever get around to reworking buoyancy for ships I'm looking at some much, much larger stuff. In particular, things made with FreeShip. Right now, pointy bottom hulls do not float in stock code very well.- Enable debug (e. g., the Buoyancy slider) on the floaties.They have no buoyancy module to them. They're just a stock part.- Why is the foc'sle deck a crewtank? This doesn't make it TweakScaleable. You wouldn't like me when I see something that isn't TweakScalable. Again, doors. I had a very early request to add in crews quarters and when I was afloat, many, many years ago, my berth was right above the foc'sle. Thus, a foc'sle with crews quarters.- Crazy bonus part: Pool deck piece, because don't you want to swim in water while sailing over the sea? =PSee the lido response.But thanks for the input but sorry, sometimes, the answer is no. And in one post, you found most of the things I've already said no to in this tread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thatdude253 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 But thanks for the input but sorry, sometimes, the answer is no. And in one post, you found most of the things I've already said no to in this tread.It took me a moment to realize this wasn't just a list of requests that had built up for a while. Wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOneBritishGuy... Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 Speaking of requests, do you actually have any plans to deal with the 1000m restrictions in the future aside from the configurable 'safe depth' at that depth. It feels so un-KSP to be restricted to the upper kilometer of water, even if it's a technical problem. In other words, I'm not sure if it's even possible to do anything about the depth issue, but considering what KSP modding has been able to accomplish so far I say it wouldn't hurt to look into a way around the currently existing issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fengist Posted October 26, 2015 Author Share Posted October 26, 2015 Speaking of requests, do you actually have any plans to deal with the 1000m restrictions in the future aside from the configurable 'safe depth' at that depth. It feels so un-KSP to be restricted to the upper kilometer of water, even if it's a technical problem. In other words, I'm not sure if it's even possible to do anything about the depth issue, but considering what KSP modding has been able to accomplish so far I say it wouldn't hurt to look into a way around the currently existing issues.It's a real simple problem. The planet's collider simply doesn't exist below that depth. Or... it may exist but you won't see a terrain and you'll smack into it. I won't say it's impossible but I will say it's way beyond my skills and... I really shouldn't have to fix what they've left undone. If they didn't intend for anyone to go below the surface they shouldn't have made it even possible to submerge stock (yes, you can. It just takes a lot of mass per volume and a lot of thrust straight down.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturmgeschutz Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 It is a need to launch torpedoes i have!Great mod! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOneBritishGuy... Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 It's a real simple problem. The planet's collider simply doesn't exist below that depth. Or... it may exist but you won't see a terrain and you'll smack into it. I won't say it's impossible but I will say it's way beyond my skills and... I really shouldn't have to fix what they've left undone. If they didn't intend for anyone to go below the surface they shouldn't have made it even possible to submerge stock (yes, you can. It just takes a lot of mass per volume and a lot of thrust straight down.)That's a shame. Either way, I might look into this and see if I can come up with anything myself. If I do, you'll be the first to know . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalstarwars333 Posted October 26, 2015 Share Posted October 26, 2015 That's up to the guys who make NAS. Have you installed tweakscale? The hulls can get.... much bigger.Thanks, glad you like it. But you might not in a moment.My parts are for civilian use. I have no plans to make anything compatible with BD. Though I have considered a battleship grey texture for the hulls. However, if some brave individual wants to dive in and make a modulemanager .cfg to make these parts more survivable with BD, I'll be happy to put it in the OP.Why the heck, would you make a ship mod, and not anticipate people making death machines from them? Also, carriers are by their nature a weapon of war, so you've kind of already become a bit of a hypocrite...course though, the ship parts do make excellent platforms to cram research stuff on to... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fengist Posted October 27, 2015 Author Share Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) Why the heck, would you make a ship mod, and not anticipate people making death machines from them?Ummm, because... THERE ARE NO ENEMIES IN THIS GAME! (warmonger)Also, carriers are by their nature a weapon of war, so you've kind of already become a bit of a hypocrite...course though, the ship parts do make excellent platforms to cram research stuff on to...And not all of them...http://freedomship.com/And thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_aircraft_carrier Edited October 27, 2015 by Fengist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fengist Posted October 27, 2015 Author Share Posted October 27, 2015 (edited) And for you maritime addicts who've been wondering where InfiniteDice has been hiding, here's a very early video of what he's been working on: From the R&D DepartmentAnd, as for what I'm working on... Buoyancy. Since Dice is pretty busy of late, I've decided to take a look at an even better revamp of KSP buoyancy. Currently, the Submarine Pack is using Firespitter's Buoyancy and the Maritime Pack is using bent laws of physics whereby all the parts are super light. Firespitter's buoyancy was only designed to make float planes. While it does work, it leaves a lot to be desired.We all know that V shaped hulls provide great buoyancy, at least on earth. In the Kerbol system, they're more like a lever. They'll either roll to starboard or port. No buoyancy code fixes that. None. So, before I can begin to produce 'real' boats (and sail boats), buoyancy needs to be fixed. So I went in search of answers. I didn't like what I found. One of the things people have complained about in the past was that my parts and Better Buoyancy don't always like each other. I've found out why.I took a look at Ferram's code and ummm. Well, ok then. If that's buoyancy then I can understand why there's a problem. Ferram tries to calculate the volume of a part in order to determine how well it floats. But there's a slight problem. His volume calculations assume that everything is a square. He multiplies the height of the part, by the width and the depth in order to come up with a volume. I dunno bout you guys but I hardly EVER see or use a perfectly square part. The comments in his code even state that he knows these calculations are way off but claims they work. Ok, let's find out.Here's some examples of some rather large boat parts I'm working on and some volume calculations I ran.Dice has allowed me to use some code he has that calculates the volume of a part based on all of the triangles in it's mesh. So let's compare some part volumes:10/27/2015 11:59:26 AM: Actual Volume: 5881.33510/27/2015 11:59:26 AM: BB Volume: 5909.129Ok, that was a center hull piece which is pretty squared off. His calculations aren't terribly different from reality. Now, let's take a look at a pointy bow part:10/27/2015 11:59:27 AM: Actual Volume: 3972.70510/27/2015 11:59:27 AM: BB Volume: 20888.03Ummm quite a difference there. Now if you were going to calculate the density of that part based on it's volume and mass, and then calculate how well it would float, you'd end up with a cork. Attach those two parts together and you'd have one half sunk and the other bobbing around on the surface.Now this is just my opinion, but before you can claim to have improved things, shouldn't your calculations at least be in the ballpark?Next problem I see. His calculations have nothing to do with the mass of the part. Mass only affects the drag. Instead, he again determines how deep a part sinks in the water based on it's size, gravity and ocean density. So if you have a cargo ship with 100 tons of ore in it, and you offload that ore to another ship, your buoyancy doesn't change one bit. You still ride just as high or just as low in the water. Now call me silly but, according to Wikipedia - In science, buoyancy is an upward force exerted by a fluid that opposes the weight of an immersed object. So, how can you calculate buoyancy without mass?Ok, so I've firmly decided. Buoyancy needs a REAL update. Whether I can pull it off or not is another question, but I'm off to play in the water. Edited October 27, 2015 by Fengist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalstarwars333 Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Ummm, because... THERE ARE NO ENEMIES IN THIS GAME! (warmonger)And not all of them...http://freedomship.com/And thishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_aircraft_carrierThe merchant carriers were supposed to be a make-do thing until sufficient escort carriers were available. they were still weapons of war. Also, you can make an enemy. Also, kollaborative warfare. Also, landships, and just cool looking battleships in general. Also, why am I trying to get on your bad side? Also, I now fell dumb for doing so. Also, I've said also way too many times now.- - - Updated - - -*reads a bit more of article* well, they were weapons of war and​ money making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beetlecat Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Oooh! Time for the kerbinside air races to put down some water (above and below the surface) courses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fengist Posted October 27, 2015 Author Share Posted October 27, 2015 The merchant carriers were supposed to be a make-do thing until sufficient escort carriers were available. they were still weapons of war. Also, you can make an enemy. Also, kollaborative warfare. Also, landships, and just cool looking battleships in general. Also, why am I trying to get on your bad side? Also, I now fell dumb for doing so. Also, I've said also way too many times now.- - - Updated - - -*reads a bit more of article* well, they were weapons of war and​ money making.Oh, you're not on my bad side at all. And explaining yourself is just dandy. The answer is still no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalstarwars333 Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 On the warmonger part: (holds up pencil with white eraser on it with two x eyes and a straight mouth with the bottom of it and the mouthh and eyes colored blood red with a red pen) This is what happens to those who make war on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smjjames Posted October 27, 2015 Share Posted October 27, 2015 Hey Fengist, read todays devnotes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colmo Posted October 28, 2015 Share Posted October 28, 2015 (edited) Hey Fengist, read todays devnotes! I'll just leave this here...There are no stock parts that change buoyancy (unless you count burning fuel...). However, if you somehow do manage to make a neutrally-buoyant craft, you certainly could "fly" around under water. And mod parts that create/destroy resources to change buoyancy, say, will totally work. So...yeah. Subs. Of course, subs have been around in mods for a while, same with boats. And due to the very changed buoyancy system (which is fully configurable, mind, and uses dragcubes for drag and to help compute volume) those mods may well need updating.I have to admit I've spent a bit of time making and testing seaplanes (on my off time)--they're just plane (hehe) fun. Wings certainly do work underwater, so you can make hydrofoils too.Yes, keels will work. As for buoyancy's background, it started as a small thing I had been working on for the early 1.0x patches but didn't have time to finish. It's really the last bit of the aero overhaul, using the existing systems we built for that. Edited October 28, 2015 by colmo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts