blackheart612

[1.4.x-1.6.x] Airplane Plus - R26.0 (A lot of fixes) (Mar 21, 2019)

Recommended Posts

Pretty sure it was as I described it in an older version. It must have gotten patched and I didn't notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yes, it was, even there is a mod to add a radial hatch to it, still working: Mk1-Cabin-Hatch. And this explains why 1.5 size cabin have not a hatch - its prototype was old mk1 cabin.

Edited by Frankenshtine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I made a few fixes to some parts, mainly the drone-like cargo 'cockpit' which didn't have a working ModuleCargoBay due to a missing entry, and two other parts where I tweaked the ModuleCargoBay numbers. All three have some cleaning done to remove bits that were unneeded or weren't supposed to be there.

Feel free to use it for your own games. @blackheart612 feel free to use it for the shipping cfgs.

// Fixes to AirplanePlus ModuleCargoBay Modules.

@PART[mk1cargodoorjr]:AFTER[AirplanePlus]
{
	@bulkheadProfiles = size1			// Remove srfAttach profile since it can't be srfAttached.
	@MODULE[ModuleCargoBay]
	{
		@lookupRadius = 0.8				// Reduced radius while still covering the whole part interior. May offer ever so slight performance improvement? (Before: 1.5)
		!nodeInnerForeID = dummy 		// Removing entry due to node being undefined and unneeded.
		!nodeInnerAftID = dummy			// Removing entry due to node being undefined and unneeded.
	}
}

@PART[mk1dronedoor]:AFTER[AirplanePlus]
{
	@bulkheadProfiles = size1			// Remove srfAttach profile since it can't be srfAttached.
	@MODULE[ModuleCargoBay]
	{
		%lookupCenter = 0,1.875,0		// offset the center of the lookupRadius into the bay itself to be able to cast rays from it.
		@lookupRadius = 2				// Increased the radius to cover the interior better. (Before: 1.5)
		!nodeOuterAftID = dummy			// Not needed since this part has no open end.
		!nodeInnerAftID = dummy			// Where we're going.. We don't need Nodes.
	}
}

@PART[passengeroor]:AFTER[AirplanePlus] // That partName though!
{
	@bulkheadProfiles = size1			// I'm starting to see a pattern here.
	MODULE								// Can't uncomment the existing one, so we'll add a new one.
	{
		name = ModuleCargoBay
		DeployModuleIndex = 0			// Hold the oor! HOLD THE OOR!
		closedPosition = 1
		lookupRadius = 0.8				// *sucks thumb* - About this much? - Confirmed, plenty of Radius.
	
		nodeOuterForeID = top
		nodeOuterAftID = bottom
	}
}

 

Edited by Jognt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything I've tried has worked in 1.7.1 & 1.7.2, but I have trimmed a fair number of parts I don't use out of it (like wing parts since I use B9 procedural wings).  Primarily, I've kept cockpits, engines & cargo bays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kodu_1722 said:

Does this mod work on 1.7.1?

Yes it does. I've also posted fixes for the cargo bays (especially the drone-like one as it didn't work, at all) on this page.

Mods like this that primarily add an x amount of parts will usually work just fine regardless of KSP version. It's the mods that hook into code and stuff that need to be checked when KSP updates :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am having an issue with the prop engines - these state that they are getting intake air but they flame out due to oxygen starvation seconds after startup.

It is as if they have a small initial store of air but it never gets replenished - they will run for over a minute at just above idle, but only a couple of seconds at full throttle.

Has anyone else encountered this? I've tried reinstalling the mod with no effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Strait_Raider said:

I am having an issue with the prop engines - these state that they are getting intake air but they flame out due to oxygen starvation seconds after startup.

It is as if they have a small initial store of air but it never gets replenished - they will run for over a minute at just above idle, but only a couple of seconds at full throttle.

This turned out to be a compatibility issue with FAR 1.15.11.0

The updated version, FAR 1.15.11.1, seems to fix this problem.

https://github.com/dkavolis/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/releases/tag/v0.15.11.1_Mach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Regarding on suggestions, what about adding the a dorsal cargo door to the Size 1.5 Cargo Bay?

Anyone agree?

EDIT : As well something like a Size 1.5 jet engine, such as a GE TF39, CF6, GEnx, Rolls-Royce RB211, Trent 500 or a Pratt & Whitney JT9D and a Size 1.5 Rear Cargo Door?

Edited by FahmiRBLXian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, williamhall531@gmail.com said:

Hi, I love this mod, its super useful. But I have a question, do you happen to take part suggestions? just uh... asking for a friend...

Yes, I read them, but I don't guarantee they will be put on. So just drop your - I mean your friend's suggestion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, blackheart612 said:

Yes, I read them, but I don't guarantee they will be put on.

Which means the next update adds in only fixes or some (Or many?) parts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FahmiRBLXian said:

Which means the next update adds in only fixes or some (Or many?) parts?

I mean I want to add parts but I just don't have the time like when I can't be sure tbh, maybe 2 years ago now when I started this? I do pour my time in whenever there's time and in fact, I make time whenever something needs to be done (like gamebreaking stuff or new parts that can improve existing features). I said I'd devote my time to multimedia like a year ago, probably. But KSP modding, well, it's supposed to be free and that's fine and I'm thankful for my only patron right now, which I won't have problems if he drops because I'm not adding new stuff (except on grounded) [So sorry if there's lack of new stuff @theonegalen I'd understand if you left! :P ]. So basically, I focus on other multimedia fields that give me income (which is 2D commissions) and it takes as much time as possible to produce a quality one as well... But yeah, just don't have all the time in the world, but I'm not leaving the mods to die either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, blackheart612 said:

Yes, I read them, but I don't guarantee they will be put on. So just drop your - I mean your friend's suggestion

cool, so I want to build a B-36 Peacemaker, but the main limiting factor is the cockpit. So I was wondering if you could make a cockpit based on the B-36. Preferably in 3.75m form 

picture for effectImage result for B-36

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed in a recent experiment that the bulkheads on the MK1 cargo bay and Service Modules get in the way if you try to use them facing opposite to create a double sliding door.

Is there any way the bulkhead on the "open" side could be removed to allow this usage?

Here is an image with a use case interfered with by the bulkhead in question:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y1lFSZyBP-v2wfBNh-WVl9Dv1x8VIJLJ/view?usp=sharing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I've noted the complaints about the power curves.  Do you want me to take a look at them.

I would favor fun over realism, and only enough realism to improve the fun.

I know that people who want a higher level realism will go for the KAX engines, and we should tell them to do so for their engines, and point out that the rest of the Airplane Plus parts work great with the KAX engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Ruedii said:

I noticed in a recent experiment that the bulkheads on the MK1 cargo bay and Service Modules get in the way if you try to use them facing opposite to create a double sliding door.

Is there any way the bulkhead on the "open" side could be removed to allow this usage?

Here is an image with a use case interfered with by the bulkhead in question:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y1lFSZyBP-v2wfBNh-WVl9Dv1x8VIJLJ/view?usp=sharing

Sure, technically it can be done. It would look weird and not-structurally-sound in 95% of use cases though :/

To be honest, it took me a second to realize what you meant since it just looks 'reinforced' to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ruedii said:

I noticed in a recent experiment that the bulkheads on the MK1 cargo bay and Service Modules get in the way if you try to use them facing opposite to create a double sliding door.

Is there any way the bulkhead on the "open" side could be removed to allow this usage?

Here is an image with a use case interfered with by the bulkhead in question:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y1lFSZyBP-v2wfBNh-WVl9Dv1x8VIJLJ/view?usp=sharing

Jognt is right, this can't be done without being structurally unsound. Thus, you won't be able to do this sadly.

14 hours ago, Ruedii said:

BTW, I've noted the complaints about the power curves.  Do you want me to take a look at them.

I would favor fun over realism, and only enough realism to improve the fun.

I know that people who want a higher level realism will go for the KAX engines, and we should tell them to do so for their engines, and point out that the rest of the Airplane Plus parts work great with the KAX engines.

I haven't had complaints recently, which posts are these? Do you have an issue with them? APP does go hand in hand, and is still very much grounded by realism. Basically I just made more powerful engines because keptin said he wasn't planning to make more powerful ones. This doesn't mean that my engines are absurdly powerful though, nor are they as accurate as KAX. I just did the best I can to make it feel right. There were issues on the flaming out before and I've kind of resolved them for higher end engines already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, blackheart612 said:

Jognt is right, this can't be done without being structurally unsound. Thus, you won't be able to do this sadly. 

I haven't had complaints recently, which posts are these? Do you have an issue with them? APP does go hand in hand, and is still very much grounded by realism. Basically I just made more powerful engines because keptin said he wasn't planning to make more powerful ones. This doesn't mean that my engines are absurdly powerful though, nor are they as accurate as KAX. I just did the best I can to make it feel right. There were issues on the flaming out before and I've kind of resolved them for higher end engines already. 

It's more an issue of the speed/power curve.  Specifically the propellers pull you too fast.  I've heard complaints on other threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ruedii said:

It's more an issue of the speed/power curve.  Specifically the propellers pull you too fast.  I've heard complaints on other threads.

If they don't post here, I won't be informed otherwise. I also need specifics unless all of them have the issues? Maybe on some parts I intended them to be really powerful too. So I need some more information than this if possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, williamhall531@gmail.com said:

is there a way to make this mod work with tweakscale?

It's already workedwith Tweakscale. Tested and guaranteed.

If not, first check for a Tweakscale patch hidden somewhere inside "Patches" in form of a Configuration (.cfg). I remember seeing a Tweakscale patch for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/8/2019 at 7:18 AM, blackheart612 said:

If they don't post here, I won't be informed otherwise. I also need specifics unless all of them have the issues? Maybe on some parts I intended them to be really powerful too. So I need some more information than this if possible. 

All of them tend to have a maximum speed of 290 m/s which is way too high.

Maximum speed of piston engines are about 200m/s.  This is world record speed, but it's really only a little inching over the actual production military planes.   A civilian plane would be typically much slower.  

Physics-wise this is because piston engines just don't handle high speed intake air very well.  The engine intake manifold looses efficiency long before the propeller becomes the primary limiting factor.

Maximum speed of turboprops are much higher.  Their turbo-crank powerhouse can actually continue creating torque at supersonic speeds, but the propeller blades just can't deliver it. 

Large turboprop planes can go as high as 240m/s (no where near the 290m/s) this is the maximum cruising speed of the Tupolev Tu-114 airliner.  The fastest turboprop powered production plane. This plane had 4 of the largest turboprops ever built.  It is also the largest and most powerful civilian turboprop plane ever built, weighing in at over 90,000kg dry and having over 4x11,000kW of engine power.

Experimental turboprop planes have gone faster.  The XF-84H hit a full 278m/s.  However, not even the engine configuration could be considered "production."   It was also known to give a constant sonic boom off of it's propeller, even at idle, knocking ground crews unconscious on occasion.   It also had a 30 minute ground spinup time before takeoff, which could be heard 25 miles away.  10 out of the 11 test flights ended in forced landings.    Let's just say, it doesn't qualify as a production engine configuration.    This insanely impractical nature of the plane was needed just to get 38 more m/s, only a 15% gain.   Still getting back the US claim on the world record from the Soviets. was probably worth it for some in the US military even if it was no where near a production plane. 

If you want more detailed accurate information The KAX engine pack author knows a LOT about this kind of stuff.  The reason nobody complains, is they just use that pack for more realistic engines.

On 7/7/2019 at 8:27 AM, blackheart612 said:

Jognt is right, this can't be done without being structurally unsound. Thus, you won't be able to do this sadly. 

I was thinking of only removing the bulkhead on the side the door closes into, not both sides, obviously.  However, making a separate "Dual Sliding Door" one for a longer one might be a more structurally sound looking option for one twice as long.  It would basically look like the configuration I had with the center bulkhead removed. A similar, shorter cargo bay could be made from the Service module.  I'd even recommend making that a part variant of the standard cargo bay, as often I run into a problem with the cargo bay sliding door being too long when it opens, and messing with my design.

The other option is to make the "remove open side bulkhead" a tweakable switch for this configuration.

I know it's just cosmetics, but I understand things have to look logical, and removing both bulkheads would look plain weird.  Having the bulkhead removed with nothing attached also would look weird.

BTW, I noticed some Z-Fighting between a few of your parts.  Do you want me to report them as I find them?  I'm using the Mesa drivers which tend to be an order of magnitude more sensitive to Z-Fighting, due to strong favoring of 16bit Z Values to save computation cost, and lacking non-standard surface-dominance routines to prevent z-fighting.

Edited by Ruedii
Moar detail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Ruedii said:

All of them tend to have a maximum speed of 290 m/s which is way too high.

Maximum speed of piston engines are about 200m/s.  This is world record speed, but it's really only a little inching over the actual production military planes.   A civilian plane would be typically much slower.  

Physics-wise this is because piston engines just don't handle high speed intake air very well.  The engine intake manifold looses efficiency long before the propeller becomes the primary limiting factor.

Maximum speed of turboprops are much higher.  Their turbo-crank powerhouse can actually continue creating torque at supersonic speeds, but the propeller blades just can't deliver it. 

Large turboprop planes can go as high as 240m/s (no where near the 290m/s) this is the maximum cruising speed of the Tupolev Tu-114 airliner.  The fastest turboprop powered production plane. This plane had 4 of the largest turboprops ever built.  It is also the largest and most powerful civilian turboprop plane ever built, weighing in at over 90,000kg dry and having over 4x11,000kW of engine power.

Experimental turboprop planes have gone faster.  The XF-84H hit a full 278m/s.  However, not even the engine configuration could be considered "production."   It was also known to give a constant sonic boom off of it's propeller, even at idle, knocking ground crews unconscious on occasion.   It also had a 30 minute ground spinup time before takeoff, which could be heard 25 miles away.  10 out of the 11 test flights ended in forced landings.    Let's just say, it doesn't qualify as a production engine configuration.    This insanely impractical nature of the plane was needed just to get 38 more m/s, only a 15% gain.   Still getting back the US claim on the world record from the Soviets. was probably worth it for some in the US military even if it was no where near a production plane. 

If you want more detailed accurate information The KAX engine pack author knows a LOT about this kind of stuff.  The reason nobody complains, is they just use that pack for more realistic engines.

I was thinking of only removing the bulkhead on the side the door closes into, not both sides, obviously.  However, making a separate "Dual Sliding Door" one for a longer one might be a more structurally sound looking option for one twice as long.  It would basically look like the configuration I had with the center bulkhead removed. A similar, shorter cargo bay could be made from the Service module.  I'd even recommend making that a part variant of the standard cargo bay, as often I run into a problem with the cargo bay sliding door being too long when it opens, and messing with my design.

The other option is to make the "remove open side bulkhead" a tweakable switch for this configuration.

I know it's just cosmetics, but I understand things have to look logical, and removing both bulkheads would look plain weird.  Having the bulkhead removed with nothing attached also would look weird.

BTW, I noticed some Z-Fighting between a few of your parts.  Do you want me to report them as I find them?  I'm using the Mesa drivers which tend to be an order of magnitude more sensitive to Z-Fighting, due to strong favoring of 16bit Z Values to save computation cost, and lacking non-standard surface-dominance routines to prevent z-fighting.

Alright, I took these for testing, I have to narrow this down somehow.

Since you said all of them tend to have a top speed of 290m/s and that maximum speed of piston engines are about 200m/s which is already fast, I took the liberty of picking per "category" of my engines instead, or how early they are on the tech tree. Since it's nothing specific, I assume anything I pick is fine.

First I took the 9J "Baron" Rotary Engine which struggled to go up to ~50-60m/s+, the engine cut off at nearly ~130m/s [The craft is Aeris 1A from Kerbal X]

Second and up next on pre-modern, I took the RR "Marlin" Engine which has good performance at certain altitudes to "simulate" a supercharger or whatever - it's rather fast, and the power is front-loaded, it tapers off so fast at high speeds and cuts off at ~180m/s, the engine just simply stops. At sea level, the results are lower. You can dive above 200m/s but the engine stops. [The craft is Stallion from Kerbal X]

Third is the RR K56 "Titan" Turboprop Engine, extremely front-loaded, it takes off with 4x of it, in fact, I think even with one of these would pretty much do the same thing to an aircraft with smaller size. The engine stops at ~290m/s pretty spot on, this one is on a dive. It sustains ~170-180m/s crusing and can never get there with normal circumstances. [The craft is Dodo Heavy from Kerbal X]

Notes: The KP-12 "Bear" Kontraprop Engines can maintain ~270-280m/s cruise, these are based on the engine of Tu-114 and Tu-95

I honestly don't know as much as the others do in terms of these kind of things but I can't say I know nothing. I still based them off somewhere, not just guesses. First off, the numbers seem to be off, other than the fact that you may have been exaggerating for hyperbolic purposes and I misunderstood it - you might wanna check if you're using something like FAR since the curves are made and tested on stock, results may vary. Though it is a fact that my testing was in no way standardized too. The variation helps provide data for different applications though. 

Now before I say the mechanics behind some considerations on why they have deviations in accuracy to reality - I want to tell you that I agree if people complain, there must be something wrong, what I need though is a good amount of dissatisfaction to the current mechanics compared to those who are satisfied. Because in the end, where people are more comfortable with will stay or change, you know what I'm saying?

So a lot of these engines are front-loaded in power, they have higher initial curves and taper off at the end. The reason is because the curves are speed and atmosphere based. This is seen in two ways - take off speed, tight maneuvering speed. In order to not lose much on maneuvering, the power is "front-loaded" so you can do more ksp-like maneuvers, except more limited. The jet engines use delayed thrust response for slower take-off but I tested it back then and props can't have it because it's much like a jet like lag on controls for obvious reasons.
Some engines are "pseudo-2.5m" engines too, which affects this as well. We can use K56 or KP-12 which are treated with something close to those kinds of performance but the size is 1.25m. You can use these as tractor propellers because of how simple engines work in KSP - just a thrust transform and curves, with airflow resource. No complicated machinery limiting the usage and all that jazz. They're offset with their weight instead, they're quite heavy for non-cargo usage. It's difficult to use but eh, people exploit what they gotta exploit so it's fine.
A lot of the engines, well all of them will inevitable compared to the jet engines. And the consequence is that they're just inferior when your goal is to finish the missions. This is plays a big part on the performance too. The bottomline ends up above the aforementioned considerations, that the props are good enough to do the job, cheap, but not as powerful as jets.

Now, I gotta say that jets in KSP are really fast too, just the weasley could get to Mach 1.5+ if you wanted to when it's not even supposed to surpass supersonic proper at cruise speed in terms of the aircrafts that used it irl. Though KSP's jets are a bit OP, they're kind accurate too. In comparison, my engines are a bit more OP than that, and less accurate if you actually take a closer look, and the reasons are stated above. But the tests I've exhibited so far doesn't stray too far from the intended "realistic enough" range in my opinion. If the people say otherwise, I'd be happy to tweak it though. Really, it's just quicker on accelerating is the most obvious deviation I implemented I can see - this difference in maneuvering is what really sets it apart from KAX for good reason. KAX really gets it spot on in realism though, I'm nowhere that level and don't intend to be too accurate as well.

I don't know where to put this but I just remembered this, like I said, an "engine" is defined by curves and intake resource. You have a top speed you want and you want to either accelerate so slow you never get there so you don't exceed it or reach/exceed that and slow down afterwards- you gotta choose. If you nerf the acceleration, you'll never get that top speed. If you put a hard mark on the top speed, the engine cuts off - this was a major problem before and a lot of people complained so I boosted the acceleration to get to the top speed instead, and slowed down the engine after that. 

 

Edit: Uhhhh, regarding the sliding doors, you mean remove the other side of the cylinder? I'm actually bad without visualization but I'd put it in the list to be honest, as you know, I don't develop non-major changes much anymore due to time constraints :( 

Also, I really need you to be specific on parts when you have issues. Which part has z-fighting? KSP itself haf z-fighting parts. And since I based them off of those parts, well, they're "intended features" let's say. Very stockalike!

Edited by blackheart612

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Ruedii said:

All of them tend to have a maximum speed of 290 m/s which is way too high.

I do not recognize this at all. Most og them don't even reach  200m/s in my experience. @blackheart612 you might want to have a look at the kitty turboprop. If you have e rediculus amount of them you can reach 270m/s IIRC, but normally it only goes ~150m/s.

 

If anything I think the civilian turbofans should have their "cuttoff" stretched to match 0.85-0.9, as they now will not even run above mach 0.7, eventhough most jetliners cruise between mach 0.7 and mach 0.85. What I would propose is they keep their current curve up to mach 0.6ish, but taper off more slowly, so that you can reach the higher speeds with good designs.

Edited by neistridlar
Stupid phone keyboard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.