blackheart612

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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, qromodynmc said:

I dont think i've seen any other than few design prototypes or 3d drawings.

Honestly the reason i want them is not military oriented, i just want to have one good electric motor design i could use on small private planes, drones etc. it doesnt even have to be tilt rotor, that's why infernal robotic exist.

Isn't the tilt roter on the buffalo mod an electric one.  You need the generator for it but that might work for you.

Share this post


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

 

@MD5Ray01 It depends, if the craft is really light and it suddenly goes vertical really fast, it tends to flip (even with normal jet VTOLs, unless with massive SAS). If you are ascending slowly and it still does it, then it must be another factor.

 

 

It turns out it was the power ramp-up that was causing the looping (I had ramped it up to 4000 thinking I'd need a lot of power, but after a quick test with the lower amount of 2000, it seemed fine).

 

Now, if only there were a way to get rid of the bug that causes the hover toggle to drop the RPM drastically when it's toggled on.

Edited by MD5Ray01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@MD5Ray01 There are no more RPM drops on the latest version, or at least it's minimal. If you're experiencing power problems (dropping altitude when switching to hover), you might be over the recommended load. I actually didn't put it in the description but I have it in the configs and a few posts back. The KV3-117 "Twinblade" Coaxial is around ~6.0t.

Edited by blackheart612

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blackheart612 said:

@MD5Ray01 There are no more RPM drops on the latest version, or at least it's minimal. If you're experiencing power problems (dropping altitude when switching to hover), you might be over the recommended load. I actually didn't put it in the description but I have it in the configs and a few posts back. The KV3-117 "Twinblade" Coaxial is around ~6.0t.

That explains things.  It looks like I have to go to the classic helo setup in order to run the chopper (which weighs in at about 7 tons since I switched around some armaments).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2017 at 8:08 PM, dundun92 said:

AARS adds USAF and USN refueling systems. 

I didn't know about that pack. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I am not sure if this has been asked yet, but is there a plan to implement RPM at all? I think it would be a wonderful idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice there's a poll for what parts we want to be added next. I certainly appreciate the smaller fuel tanks (btw, can we have a FLT-100-size liquid fuel tank? Thanks), but what I think we're lacking is a Mk1 nuclear jet engine. Like the one from Mk2 expansion but Mk1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any plans for RealPlume configs? I'd like to see these engines with pretty plumes and sounds. Btw love this mod!

EDIT: Sorry, I read through and found that people could do it, but you wouldn't.

Edited by Scout1218

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Fireheart318 said:

I notice there's a poll for what parts we want to be added next. I certainly appreciate the smaller fuel tanks (btw, can we have a FLT-100-size liquid fuel tank? Thanks), but what I think we're lacking is a Mk1 nuclear jet engine. Like the one from Mk2 expansion but Mk1

small nuclear jet engines are kind of impossible from logical perspective. Porkjet had one jet but it was quite big as expected.

If we wanted a small nuclear jet then it'd be like this; one heavy nuclear generator + seperate nuclear jet engines, so you'd need to carry generator to make engines work. This is my opinion though.

Share this post


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

small nuclear jet engines are kind of impossible from logical perspective. Porkjet had one jet but it was quite big as expected.

If we wanted a small nuclear jet then it'd be like this; one heavy nuclear generator + seperate nuclear jet engines, so you'd need to carry generator to make engines work. This is my opinion though.

But from a coding(?) perspective, it's just swapping a couple of values and resources, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another part I would like to see added would be like the mk2 half to 1.25 adapter and the mk2 half to mk2 adapter all in one. (mk2 half with a flat bottom and a raised mk2 adapter section to give the part a more slanted profile) It'd be great for underslung intakes and mk2 cockpits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, XOC2008 said:

Another part I would like to see added would be like the mk2 half to 1.25 adapter and the mk2 half to mk2 adapter all in one. (mk2 half with a flat bottom and a raised mk2 adapter section to give the part a more slanted profile) It'd be great for underslung intakes and mk2 cockpits.

You mean like the 2.5-1.25 adapters?

I like what you're suggesting, but I think the top/bottom should be curved like a normal Mk2 fuselage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fireheart318 said:

You mean like the 2.5-1.25 adapters?

I like what you're suggesting, but I think the top/bottom should be curved like a normal Mk2 fuselage

Exactly. And that would work too I would imagine. I just figured that bit of flat area would be good for a surface mounted intake. Either way, my MiG 1.44 needs this part. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, XOC2008 said:

Exactly. And that would work too I would imagine. I just figured that bit of flat area would be good for a surface mounted intake. Either way, my MiG 1.44 needs this part. :wink:

Flat area for making sure [insert part here] is aligned right, or for cosmetic reasons?

For the former, you just have to clip the camera inside the vessel and attach the part to the front of the part

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fireheart318 said:

Flat area for making sure [insert part here] is aligned right, or for cosmetic reasons?

For the former, you just have to clip the camera inside the vessel and attach the part to the front of the part

Oh, purely cosmetic. Haha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I edited maxThrust of the kitty turboshaft but it's still the same ingame. Other engines in the mod can still be edited. Am I missing something? There's only one Part.cfg as far as I can tell. 

Edited by the_machemer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, the_machemer said:

I edited maxThrust of the kitty turboshaft but it's still the same ingame. Other engines in the mod can still be edited. Am I missing something? There's only one Part.cfg as far as I can tell. 

The maxthrust doesn't do too much to affect the performance of the engines because they are still governed by the atmosphere and velocity curves in the cfg files, so you would have to understand how to change those for anything to make a real discernible difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose I should have, to go with my previous suggestion, added in "How about a MiG 1.44 cockpit for the mk2 cross section?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, XOC2008 said:

The maxthrust doesn't do too much to affect the performance of the engines because they are still governed by the atmosphere and velocity curves in the cfg files, so you would have to understand how to change those for anything to make a real discernible difference.

Well I've edited it for some other engines in the mod and stock game, and as far as I can tell it has the effect of proportionately reducing thrust in all atmospheric situations. In the editor, it also reflects my changes by displaying the new number that I've given it. In the case of the Kitty turboshaft, my edit of maxThrust has no effect what so ever and the editor still shows the original number. That is what I'm referring to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@the_machemer Probably because the stationary thrust's max thrust is x0.1. For all of the engines. If you change that, you probably would see a difference.

@Fireheart318 I look at what's the more relevant part to add-on with it, always been cockpit though, and Mk1 requests too, most look similar which is a problem. I'm open to misc part requests.

@XOC2008 Finally, a suggestion that's not Mk1! I might do that, along with the Mk2H-Mk1 slanted request.

Anybody know a popular electric prop engine?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Blackheart, I really like your mod. I've been using it for a fair while now, and I have an impressive collection of replica warbirds and fighter jets for my Kerbals to mess around in. 

I have two requests. I would like a cockpit to which I can attach wings above where the seats are, e.g. like a Cessna. I'd also like a small piston engine which is more geared towards civil aviation. 

Thanks again for your awesome mod.

Fhgo088.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you plan on making a cockpit, based off the B-1B "Lancer" Supersonic Heavy Strategic Bomber's Cockpit?

Edited by Vonnmillard
Spelling Error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, thank you for this beautiful mod.

I recently tried to setup mods for a new campaign, and I thought about using Airplanes Plus. Among other mods, I wanted to use were Unmanned Before Manned with Community Tech Tree and B9 Aerospace Core. I’ve found the patch for CTT by Three_Pounds (thank you!), but I don’t like how the parts from this mod are assigned to the tech tree. Airplanes Plus engines are completely outclassed by the stock engines by the time you get them, and you even encounter some of the early piston engines when you already have supersonic flight from stock parts!

That’s why I’ve written my own set of config files to make engine progression smoother and more fun, based on the config by Three_Pounds (thanks again).

You can grab them HERE if you want to take a look. Simply unzip all .cfg files from the archive to any directory inside your GameData folder. It shouldn’t produce any errors if you don’t have any of the mods, but be careful with breaking existing saves, as with any other mod. These configs are provided as is… you know the drill.

The idea is to start with early piston engines and gradually improve efficiency and power. You don’t get “Juno” until Aviation, and “Wheesley” is pushed to Subsonic Flight. I also reshuffled cockpits a bit to spread them as much as was sensible through the tree. Helicopters are now more accessible as well, with the simplest turboshaft engines coming in Aerodynamics, and more variants in Advanced Aerodynamics and Heavy Aerodynamics. One thing I pushed back was engines for convertiplanes, both for AP and B9, because there seems to be a specialized node for them down the tree. Small landing gear is another thing pushed back to keep the rustic look to my planes early on.

You can find more detailed information under the spoiler.

ENGINES
Tech                        | Node Cost | Efficiency (Isp) | Thrust          | Engines
===================================================================================================================================================================
 + START                    | 0         | < 5000 sec       | 25 kN           | AP early engines: 9J "Baron"
 + EARLY AVIATION           | 4         | < 6000 sec       | 20-25 kN        | AP early engines: "Vortex", "Count", "Spud"
 + STABILITY                | 18        | < 6000 sec       | 25-35 kN        | AP pre-modern: "Tornado", "Whirlwind", "Silver Crow", "Divine Wind"
 + AVIATION                 | 45        | 5800-6500 sec    | 20-50 kN        | AP early: "Cyclone"; AP pre-modern: "Bumblebee", "Marlen", "Kraken"; Stock: "Juno";
 + AERODYNAMICS             | 90        | ?                | 50/5  kN        | AP turboshaft: RR K250 "Maverick", RR K250-S Control
 + SUBSONIC FLIGHT          | 90        | 8500-11000 sec   | 40-190 kN       | AP modern: "Predator", "Kitty", "Titan", "Bear"; Stock: "Wheesley"; B9: TFE731 Turbofan
 + ADVANCED AERODYNAMICS    | 160       | ?                | 50-100/12 kN    | AP turboshaft: "Hawk", "Twinblade", "Hippo", "Beluga", KV2-117A Control
 + SUPERSONIC FLIGHT        | 160       | 4000-9000 kN     | 15-150 kN       | AP modern: "Tiger", "Cheetah"; Stock: "Panther"; B9: D-30F7, 
 + EFFICIENT FLIGHT SYSTEMS | 160       | > 12000 sec      | 360 kN          | Stock: "Gollath"
 + HEAVY AERODYNAMICS       | 300       | 12600 sec/?      | 180-200/100 kN  | AP modern: "Lotus"; AP turboshaft: "Gemini", K73-S Control; B9: CMF59
 + HIGH ALTITUDE FLIGHT     | 300       | 4000 sec         | 130 kN          | Stock: JX-4 "Whiplash"
 + SPECIALIZED FLIGHT STS.  | 500       | 4800-10000 (275) | 60-70 kN        | AP modern: KT6C "Kitty" Turboshaft; B9 VTOL Engines
 + HYPERSONIC FLIGHT        | 500       | 275-340/3200 sec | 153-180 kN      | Stock: "Dart" Toroidal Aerospike, RAPIER
 + EXPERIMENTAL AERODYNAMICS| 500       |                  |                 |
 + AEROSPACE TECH           | 1000      | 4500-4800/285-340| 160-800 kN      | B9: F119, SABRE M, SABRE S
 + AEROSPACE COMPOSITES     | 1000      |                  |                 |
 
 COCKPITS
Tech                        | Node Cost |
===================================================================================================================================================================
 + START                    | 0         |
 + EARLY AVIATION           | 4         | Stock: Mk1 Retro
 + STABILITY                | 18        | AP: M1/0 Caged Inline
 + AVIATION                 | 45        | AP: Mk1 Viewer's I, Mk Business, Mk1 Caged Inline
 + AERODYNAMICS             | 90        | AP: Mk1 Non-Commercial, Mk1 Inline Non-Commercial, Stock: Mk1, Mk1 Inline, Mk1 Crew Cabin, Mk1 Viewer's II
 + SUBSONIC FLIGHT          | 90        | 
 + ADVANCED AERODYNAMICS    | 160       | AP: Size 2 Viewer; Stock: Mk2, Mk2 Inline, Mk2 Crew Cabin
 + SUPERSONIC FLIGHT        | 160       | AP: Size 2 Droopnose, Size 2 Non-commercial
 + EFFICIENT FLIGHT SYSTEMS | 160       | AP: Size 2 Commercial, Size 2 Crew Cabin
 + HEAVY AERODYNAMICS       | 300       | AP: Mk3 Cargo; Stock: Mk3, Mk3 Passenger Module; B9: Mk5, HL
 + HIGH ALTITUDE FLIGHT     | 300       | AP: S2 Reusable Pod; B9: Mk2b, Mk2b Intake
 + SPECIALIZED FLIGHT STS.  | 500       |
 + HYPERSONIC FLIGHT        | 500       | B9: S3 Hypersonic
 + EXPERIMENTAL AERODYNAMICS| 500       |
 + AEROSPACCE TECH          | 1000      |
 + AEROSPACE COMPOSITES     | 1000      |
	 OTHER CHANGES
 ===================================================================================================================================================================
 AEROBRAKES moved to AERODYNAMICS
 Small landing gear moved to Aviation
 KS-H1 moved to START 
 B9 procedural wings moved to ADVANCED AERODYNAMICS
 B9 VTOL air intakes and nose cones moved to SPECIALIZED FLIGHT SYSTEMS
 Stability node science cost raised from 8 to 18 to bring it in line with similar nodes

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.