Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

Here's a few ideas I had for new spaceplane parts, as well as a few suggestions for the current ones. And I know some of these suggestions are inside of mods, but I would like them in the base game for stock builds.

New parts:
A bigger Goliath - 3m Goliath anyone? But seriously, bigger engine, more thrust, for those heavy payloads... or just to get a tiny payload moving ridiculously fast. 
A bucket reverser 1.25 meter engine - Buckets are kool.
A 1.8 meter engine - not as small as the J-20, but not as big as the J-90. A middle road jet engine. 
1.8 meter aircraft parts 
Bigger FAT-445 Aeroplane Main Wings - Two new sizes actually. One wing is better than 50 wings glued together after all. 
Size 2 rounded fuselages
Size 3 rounded fuselages - Or parts to make the mark 3 parts round. 
Pegasus XL styled Fuselage - Basically, a place to hold rockets and a place to tail fins to stick up inside of the fuselage
New landing legs in many different styles - Including but not limited to, F-16 style, where they go 90 degrees (About) from the fuselage, C-17 style, Hidden inside a hump that attacks to the Fuselage, and WW2 fighter style, wheels that go up side ways instead of forwards or backwards. 
Aircraft heat shielding - For when you're going 1400+ M/S and things are getting a little toasty. Basically what I'm picturing is little body conformed wing like structures that you can click on to the aircraft's nose and belly, or anywhere else really. 
Aircraft antenna - Resistant to both heat and air speed.

Edit parts: 
J-90 Goliath Pylon removable option - An option to remove the pylon from the engine so that when it's inline with the body like a tri-jet config, it looks cleaner.
Engine Nacelle Pylon option - Option to add a pylon on to the part
Shock Cone Intake animation - An animation that moves the cone foreword or backwards depending on if above or below Mach 1. Plus manual option to move cone forward or backwards.
J-404 Model switching - New models that mimic some other jet engine nozzles, such as the F-22, the F-15, the Su-37, and the X-31
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the Goliath for my Pegasus style launchers, but that isn't really an effective launch method for me for the un-modded game. Other than that I've never found a use for the Goliath, its fuel efficiency is insane, but its the rapier has comparable thrust across higher speeds. So I'm intrigued what you're building that a larger version of the Goliath would be useful for in the unmodded game. Do you take it to orbit?

In my fantasy Laythe has enough landmass and biomes to make a non orbit capable science plane worthwhile, (I'm thinking mk3 with deployable rover, science front end and isru powered by 8 Goliaths in a dream role for them) but that's not the game we have...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 7:27 AM, GoldForest said:

A bigger Goliath - 3m Goliath anyone? But seriously, bigger engine, more thrust, for those heavy payloads... or just to get a tiny payload moving ridiculously fast.

If by ridiculously fast you mean just above mach 1... I barely use the goliath as it is. I don't see the point. To me the point of larger versions of engines is to reduce part counts and make the game run smoother. In the rare cases where goliaths are used, how many do you use? 2, 4? A larger variant does almost nothing, saving 1-3 parts.

On the other hand, I have many designs that use up to 40 rapiers or rapiers+whiplashes... 2.5m variants of these engines could reduce that to 10, and save 30 parts

Quote

A bucket reverser 1.25 meter engine - Buckets are kool.

Purely cosmetic... meh, could be an alternate model, but I'm not so excited about it

Quote

A 1.8 meter engine - not as small as the J-20, but not as big as the J-90. A middle road jet engine. 
1.8 meter aircraft parts 

I could go for these.

Quote

Bigger FAT-445 Aeroplane Main Wings - Two new sizes actually. One wing is better than 50 wings glued together after all. 

Indeed, although I'd prefer bigger Big-S wing parts rather than bigger FAT-455 parts.

I'd also prefer if there were larger modular wings (still with fuel storage), see below for a reason why

Spoiler

This could benefit massively from larger wing parts:

g1NViFt.png

Many times i've thought about rescaling the Big-S wings

 

Quote

Size 2 rounded fuselages
Size 3 rounded fuselages - Or parts to make the mark 3 parts round. 

Umm wouldn't a size 2 rounded fusalage just be size 2, 2.5m tanks? If you mean 2.5m LF only tanks: I agree. mk3 parts made round are just 3.75m parts. Are you asking for 3.75m LF only tanks? a mk3 cargobay slightly wider in the middle?

Quote

Pegasus XL styled Fuselage - Basically, a place to hold rockets and a place to tail fins to stick up inside of the fuselage
New landing legs in many different styles - Including but not limited to, F-16 style, where they go 90 degrees (About) from the fuselage, C-17 style, Hidden inside a hump that attacks to the Fuselage, and WW2 fighter style, wheels that go up side ways instead of forwards or backwards. 
Aircraft heat shielding - For when you're going 1400+ M/S and things are getting a little toasty. Basically what I'm picturing is little body conformed wing like structures that you can click on to the aircraft's nose and belly, or anywhere else really. 
Aircraft antenna - Resistant to both heat and air speed.

I don't understand what you want for the pegasus, I don't see what the different landing leg styles would add to the game.

Aircraft already have heat shielding in the form of higher heat tolerance for certain parts (compare the heat resistance of the Big-S wings to the FAT-455 wings, for example)

For the antenna, look at the com-16S

 

Quote

Edit parts: 
J-90 Goliath Pylon removable option - An option to remove the pylon from the engine so that when it's inline with the body like a tri-jet config, it looks cleaner.
Engine Nacelle Pylon option - Option to add a pylon on to the part
Shock Cone Intake animation - An animation that moves the cone foreword or backwards depending on if above or below Mach 1. Plus manual option to move cone forward or backwards.
J-404 Model switching - New models that mimic some other jet engine nozzles, such as the F-22, the F-15, the Su-37, and the X-31

I could og for the pylon removal/placement. Animation of the shockcone would be cool but add nothing to gameplay.

Model switching... could be nice for aesthetics, but I see no need for a F-22 style nozzle, as that's for stealth/war, and that is not something base KSP should address (mods can do that just fine)

20 hours ago, Chris Hopkins said:

I do like the Goliath for my Pegasus style launchers, but that isn't really an effective launch method for me for the un-modded game. Other than that I've never found a use for the Goliath, its fuel efficiency is insane, but its the rapier has comparable thrust across higher speeds. So I'm intrigued what you're building that a larger version of the Goliath would be useful for in the unmodded game. Do you take it to orbit?

In my fantasy Laythe has enough landmass and biomes to make a non orbit capable science plane worthwhile, (I'm thinking mk3 with deployable rover, science front end and isru powered by 8 Goliaths in a dream role for them) but that's not the game we have...

For laythe, on occasion I've built modular Mk3 cargobay SSTOs for taking payloads to/from orbit/land on laythe, and a suborbital seaplane for exploring. Even so, given laythes small size, ballistic flight tends to be more efficient thanks to oberth effect, low orbital speed, and reduced drag. Even in real life, going fast all the time can be competitive:

The XB-70 Valkyrie program initially planned to have the bomber fly subsonic to the target, then "dash" to high supersonic speeds over the target... then they realized something...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_XB-70_Valkyrie#New_designs

Quote

Engines able to cope with higher temperatures and widely varying intake ramp air speeds were also under development, allowing for sustained supersonic speeds.[16]

This work led to an interesting discovery: when an engine was optimized specifically for high speed, it burned perhaps twice as much fuel at that speed than when it was running at subsonic speeds. However, the aircraft would be flying as much as four times as fast. Thus its most economical cruise speed, in terms of fuel per mile, was its maximum speed. This was entirely unexpected and implied that there was no point in the dash concept; if the aircraft was able to reach Mach 3, it may as well fly its entire mission at that speed. The question remained whether such a concept was technically feasible, but by March 1957, engine development and wind tunnel testing had progressed enough to suggest that it was.

Try to circumnavigate Laythe with a whiplash plane skimming high across the atmosphere, or a goliath powered plane, chugging along with efficient engines low in the atmosphere. Look at the differences, and ask yourself if the goliath is worth it. I like them for thrust reversers, for maneuvering on the ground... wheesley are nearly as good. Thats why some of my designs have a wheesley on the front of a stack (thrust reversed), and a panther or whiplash on the back (panther if I'm aiming at super cruise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Purely cosmetic... meh, could be an alternate model, but I'm not so excited about it

A bucket reverser is used to reverse the direction that the engine pushing, it would be nice to have a more powerful engine with the ability to reverse thrust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you want it as a distinct part, not part of the model of the goliath/whiplash engines?

I don't think the game engine would handle that properly.... it would not be simple to add as far as I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get bigger wings. Right now the biggest is pathetically scaled to the mk3 parts. Once we have larger wings, larger engines to lift those wings, would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2019 at 6:44 AM, KerikBalm said:

If by ridiculously fast you mean just above mach 1... I barely use the goliath as it is. I don't see the point. To me the point of larger versions of engines is to reduce part counts and make the game run smoother. In the rare cases where goliaths are used, how many do you use? 2, 4? A larger variant does almost nothing, saving 1-3 parts.

On the other hand, I have many designs that use up to 40 rapiers or rapiers+whiplashes... 2.5m variants of these engines could reduce that to 10, and save 30 parts

I suggested a bigger Goliath for the reason you said, reduce part count. I realize that you can hide multiple Goliaths inside each other to get more thrust, but this has some problems. Part count for one. And if one of those goliaths happens to break off due to stress or some other reason, it takes out all the other engines and your wing, effectively killing your plane. As for how many I use, 2 to 8, depending on the size of the plane I'm building. I like to build non-space planes. And real life engines get bigger and bigger while using the same fuel and even producing more thrust. 

But you talking about the rapiers does give me another idea. 2.5m rapier engine. 

 

Quote

Purely cosmetic... meh, could be an alternate model, but I'm not so excited about it

I agree, it would be just cosmetic, but I would still like it. 

Quote

Indeed, although I'd prefer bigger Big-S wing parts rather than bigger FAT-455 parts.

I'd also prefer if there were larger modular wings (still with fuel storage), see below for a reason why

I think we would just like a rework of all the wings. Some parts don't like up with the others like the strake. And some of the hitboxes are really wonky. 
 

Quote

Umm wouldn't a size 2 rounded fusalage just be size 2, 2.5m tanks? If you mean 2.5m LF only tanks: I agree. mk3 parts made round are just 3.75m parts. Are you asking for 3.75m LF only tanks? a mk3 cargobay slightly wider in the middle?

Well, LF only tanks yes, but I was thinking more fore the passenger side of things. Instead of a mk2 in a lifting wing body, a mk2 rounded passenger part, essentially a scaled up mk1 passenger part. As for the mk3 parts, LF Only, rounded passenger fuselage, rounded cargobay, etc. 
 

Quote

I don't understand what you want for the pegasus, I don't see what the different landing leg styles would add to the game.

Aircraft already have heat shielding in the form of higher heat tolerance for certain parts (compare the heat resistance of the Big-S wings to the FAT-455 wings, for example)

For the antenna, look at the com-16S

For Pegasus, I just want to simulate irl Pegasus XL launches. 
Different landing legs for different cosmetic styles. Plus, I think we can all agree the wheels need to be overhauled. 
Yes, but still, anything above 1400 m/s started to overheat and explode. Heat shielding or higher temps adjustments are needed to combat this. Or give us special high speed parts. I would be happy with that. 
 

Quote

I could og for the pylon removal/placement. Animation of the shockcone would be cool but add nothing to gameplay.

Model switching... could be nice for aesthetics, but I see no need for a F-22 style nozzle, as that's for stealth/war, and that is not something base KSP should address (mods can do that just fine)

It's just purely cosmetics, but I've thought about it and the different models could add more or less thrust vectoring. The F-22 and the X-31 nozzles can go pretty far, farther than the in game thrust vectoring already, which would mean tighter maneuverability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people make Spaceplanes, so a bigger Whiplash and Rapier variant would be of great help. We need the extra thrust and this would help in reducing complexity cause by clustering air intakes and engines.

Bigger wings are also necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/16/2019 at 6:45 AM, Xurkitree said:

Most people make Spaceplanes, so a bigger Whiplash and Rapier variant would be of great help. We need the extra thrust and this would help in reducing complexity cause by clustering air intakes and engines.

Bigger wings are also necessary.

Definitely... the Goliath is basically already a bigger Wheesley... why would we need another even bigger wheesley, and still be stuck clustering rapiers and whiplashes?

On 4/14/2019 at 12:19 PM, GoldForest said:

I suggested a bigger Goliath for the reason you said, reduce part count.

I haven't seen many designs using more than 4 goliaths... there are many designs using over 30 rapiers... so its easy to see which one is in more need of a larger version to reduce part count

Quote

For Pegasus, I just want to simulate irl Pegasus XL launches.

Then... do it? there's already a stock launcher that roughly simulates that (the stratolaunch)

even so, what you wrote earlier is basically incoherent:

Quote

a place to hold rockets and a place to tail fins to stick up inside of the fuselage

A place to hold rockets? what do you even mean by that? Would hanging a rocket from under a decoupler (like we can already do) count?

pegasus__pegsat__1.jpg

"a place to tail fins to stick up inside of the fusalage"? do you mean "a place for tail fins to stick up inside of the fusalage"

And since you were just talking about a pegasus styled fusalage... do you mean

"a place to tailfins to stick up inside of the fusalage of the carrying plane"? Of were you never talking about the pegasus to start with, but the fusalage of on of its multiple carrier planes (which may include stratolaunch), are you talking about a L-1011 style fusalage with a cutout just for a fin to go in?

I'd be strongly against this... that would be a very restrictive part, that would only accommodate one design.

You could always try an upside down mk3 cargo bay, and have the fin go up in there... open the bay before decouple, so that the fin doesn't collide with the carrier when it is decoupled.

Soo... if my interpretation of your statement is correct, everything you want can be accomplished with mk3 airplane parts, and a decoupler...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 7:27 AM, GoldForest said:

Here's a few ideas I had for new spaceplane parts, as well as a few suggestions for the current ones. And I know some of these suggestions are inside of mods, but I would like them in the base game for stock builds.

New parts:
A bigger Goliath - 3m Goliath anyone? But seriously, bigger engine, more thrust, for those heavy payloads... or just to get a tiny payload moving ridiculously fast. 
A bucket reverser 1.25 meter engine - Buckets are kool.
A 1.8 meter engine - not as small as the J-20, but not as big as the J-90. A middle road jet engine. 
1.8 meter aircraft parts 
Bigger FAT-445 Aeroplane Main Wings - Two new sizes actually. One wing is better than 50 wings glued together after all. 
Size 2 rounded fuselages
Size 3 rounded fuselages - Or parts to make the mark 3 parts round. 
Pegasus XL styled Fuselage - Basically, a place to hold rockets and a place to tail fins to stick up inside of the fuselage
New landing legs in many different styles - Including but not limited to, F-16 style, where they go 90 degrees (About) from the fuselage, C-17 style, Hidden inside a hump that attacks to the Fuselage, and WW2 fighter style, wheels that go up side ways instead of forwards or backwards. 
Aircraft heat shielding - For when you're going 1400+ M/S and things are getting a little toasty. Basically what I'm picturing is little body conformed wing like structures that you can click on to the aircraft's nose and belly, or anywhere else really. 
Aircraft antenna - Resistant to both heat and air speed.

Edit parts: 
J-90 Goliath Pylon removable option - An option to remove the pylon from the engine so that when it's inline with the body like a tri-jet config, it looks cleaner.
Engine Nacelle Pylon option - Option to add a pylon on to the part
Shock Cone Intake animation - An animation that moves the cone foreword or backwards depending on if above or below Mach 1. Plus manual option to move cone forward or backwards.
J-404 Model switching - New models that mimic some other jet engine nozzles, such as the F-22, the F-15, the Su-37, and the X-31
 

1.Why a 3m Goliath? You can already build the biggest space planes with them. However, for a 2.5m wide engine I'd prefer more thrust on them.
Traditionally buckets are only used on small regional jets where the engines are radially attached. Cold stream reversers are used on the most popular high by pass turbofan engines (like all of ksp engine types) and have integrated function with cold stream flaps. It would only be a animation anyway, is that cool factor sufficient to suggest something out of the games scope. Otherwise play a flight simulator. Regardless, they'd be used only on aircraft that have the bucket engine away from the wings like on most smaller private jets. This is why bucket reverser engines are attached near the wing where there's no wing for the bucket cowls to clip through. Rotating them 90 degrees counter/clockwise so they don't clip goes against the logic of bucket reversers as the runway debris/gravel would hit the cowl and ejected on the fuselage hence why the bucket cowls are always vertical top to bottom. So the realistic application for a bucket reverser involves the player to know how to attach them to look traditional whereas traditional is the only functional way.

2. I'm cool with a 1.8meter engine. For aircraft that means we need 1.85m liquid fuel tanks otherwise it's not much of a plane. At least have 1.85m truss mode so a 1.25m engine attached neatly to a 1.85m attachment node. Nowadays we have to use a 1.85m to 1.25m converter with another adapter to have rapiers at the end of the stack, that isn't optimal.

3. Bigger FAT-445 Aeroplane wings would be cool, but I never need 50 of them and I'm a little  big against it. I have a Rapier SSTO that carries 1.5Kiloton to orbit https://kerbalx.com/Aeroboi/Hearts-Chevron-96-Cargo-Lifter-2375MC It uses about 80 Big S wings which equals about 50 FAT-445 in lift rating. It's the heaviest SSTO I could build without falling apart.

I also have https://kerbalx.com/Aeroboi/Super-Jumbo-SC36 It uses 28 FAT-445 wings while carrying more then 800 Kerbals 2.5 times around the globe. So 28 of them is enough to create a super heavy aircraft or spaceplane, why do you need moar I ask?

4. Size 2 and 3 rounded fuselages is a must for my part. Make it happen :)

5. I'm for new landing legs, also the foldable spacex style ones that requires no mods and comes stock in the game.

6. I'm against aircraft heat shielding. First of all that is incorporated due to the excessive heat tolerances of 2000-2700Kelvin. That is already excessively high for most materials to maintain solid and is arbitrary to what could be expected. That part has to become realistic first before you want a heat shielding element tossed into the part count.
Which brings me to part count which would be excessively high using tiles. It's not really a nice gameplay element and hence why no modder has attempted to make it.
Alternatively mend the heating element to realistic expected values and toggle heat tile element on/off in the context menu of mk2 and mk3 parts making them noticeably heavier compared to having no tiles.
Also, in Kerbin's atmosphere at 2.200m/s it is very hard to overheat and using a steep ascent profile and 90 degree body aerobraking you should be miles away from a critical heating temperature even in normal/expected temperature ranges, so they're most suited for interplanetary encounters at greater speeds.

7. Antennas resistant to heat and aerodynamics? Maybe you should ponder that suggestion further, it makes little sense. A lightweight aluminium disk with a thumb screw or bolted on twig like radio receiver breaks in the wind earlier then aerodynamics do under the current game physics so don't go there.

8. I like all the Edit parts suggestions of yours, good thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jet engine and air intakes that fits into mk2 node
Mk2 Clamp-O-Tron like vtol engine with air intake on top
Modular Girder Segment like structural part that fits mk2 node (and structural adapter mk2 to other sizes)
cargo bay with doors on bottom and top
small 1 crew cabin for mk2 node (can be with air intakes on sides)
mk2 node battery (1000 energy)

Share this post


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

Definitely... the Goliath is basically already a bigger Wheesley... why would we need another even bigger wheesley, and still be stuck clustering rapiers and whiplashes?

I haven't seen many designs using more than 4 goliaths... there are many designs using over 30 rapiers... so its easy to see which one is in more need of a larger version to reduce part count

Then... do it? there's already a stock launcher that roughly simulates that (the stratolaunch)

even so, what you wrote earlier is basically incoherent:

A place to hold rockets? what do you even mean by that? Would hanging a rocket from under a decoupler (like we can already do) count?

pegasus__pegsat__1.jpg

"a place to tail fins to stick up inside of the fusalage"? do you mean "a place for tail fins to stick up inside of the fusalage"

And since you were just talking about a pegasus styled fusalage... do you mean

"a place to tailfins to stick up inside of the fusalage of the carrying plane"? Of were you never talking about the pegasus to start with, but the fusalage of on of its multiple carrier planes (which may include stratolaunch), are you talking about a L-1011 style fusalage with a cutout just for a fin to go in?

I'd be strongly against this... that would be a very restrictive part, that would only accommodate one design.

You could always try an upside down mk3 cargo bay, and have the fin go up in there... open the bay before decouple, so that the fin doesn't collide with the carrier when it is decoupled.

Soo... if my interpretation of your statement is correct, everything you want can be accomplished with mk3 airplane parts, and a decoupler...

Yes, I would like the Stargazer L-1011. And it wouldn't be restrictive as the part could just be another model for the Mk3 part. 

Also, on the 4 Goliaths, I found that people actually hide Goliaths inside each other to make it more atheistically pleasing. So while you see 4, there could be 8 or even 12 engines on the plane. 

 

16 hours ago, Aeroboi said:

1.Why a 3m Goliath? You can already build the biggest space planes with them. However, for a 2.5m wide engine I'd prefer more thrust on them.
Traditionally buckets are only used on small regional jets where the engines are radially attached. Cold stream reversers are used on the most popular high by pass turbofan engines (like all of ksp engine types) and have integrated function with cold stream flaps. It would only be a animation anyway, is that cool factor sufficient to suggest something out of the games scope. Otherwise play a flight simulator. Regardless, they'd be used only on aircraft that have the bucket engine away from the wings like on most smaller private jets. This is why bucket reverser engines are attached near the wing where there's no wing for the bucket cowls to clip through. Rotating them 90 degrees counter/clockwise so they don't clip goes against the logic of bucket reversers as the runway debris/gravel would hit the cowl and ejected on the fuselage hence why the bucket cowls are always vertical top to bottom. So the realistic application for a bucket reverser involves the player to know how to attach them to look traditional whereas traditional is the only functional way.

2. I'm cool with a 1.8meter engine. For aircraft that means we need 1.85m liquid fuel tanks otherwise it's not much of a plane. At least have 1.85m truss mode so a 1.25m engine attached neatly to a 1.85m attachment node. Nowadays we have to use a 1.85m to 1.25m converter with another adapter to have rapiers at the end of the stack, that isn't optimal.

3. Bigger FAT-445 Aeroplane wings would be cool, but I never need 50 of them and I'm a little  big against it. I have a Rapier SSTO that carries 1.5Kiloton to orbit https://kerbalx.com/Aeroboi/Hearts-Chevron-96-Cargo-Lifter-2375MC It uses about 80 Big S wings which equals about 50 FAT-445 in lift rating. It's the heaviest SSTO I could build without falling apart.

I also have https://kerbalx.com/Aeroboi/Super-Jumbo-SC36 It uses 28 FAT-445 wings while carrying more then 800 Kerbals 2.5 times around the globe. So 28 of them is enough to create a super heavy aircraft or spaceplane, why do you need moar I ask?

4. Size 2 and 3 rounded fuselages is a must for my part. Make it happen :)

5. I'm for new landing legs, also the foldable spacex style ones that requires no mods and comes stock in the game.

6. I'm against aircraft heat shielding. First of all that is incorporated due to the excessive heat tolerances of 2000-2700Kelvin. That is already excessively high for most materials to maintain solid and is arbitrary to what could be expected. That part has to become realistic first before you want a heat shielding element tossed into the part count.
Which brings me to part count which would be excessively high using tiles. It's not really a nice gameplay element and hence why no modder has attempted to make it.
Alternatively mend the heating element to realistic expected values and toggle heat tile element on/off in the context menu of mk2 and mk3 parts making them noticeably heavier compared to having no tiles.
Also, in Kerbin's atmosphere at 2.200m/s it is very hard to overheat and using a steep ascent profile and 90 degree body aerobraking you should be miles away from a critical heating temperature even in normal/expected temperature ranges, so they're most suited for interplanetary encounters at greater speeds.

7. Antennas resistant to heat and aerodynamics? Maybe you should ponder that suggestion further, it makes little sense. A lightweight aluminium disk with a thumb screw or bolted on twig like radio receiver breaks in the wind earlier then aerodynamics do under the current game physics so don't go there.

8. I like all the Edit parts suggestions of yours, good thinking.

1) Well, engines IRL are getting bigger, more fuel efficient, and put out more thrust. And I feel like Spaceplanes are going to get a major update anyway, at least in terms of aesthetics, to fit the new art style, so it only make sense they should put some quality of life updates in as well. I'll take a higher output Goliath if they want to update the thrust, but I feel a 3m engine would also be a good fit for the game. 

2) I agree, I just mostly want the engine though. Which would go well with the mk2 parts I feel. But, yeah, if they're going to add engines, might as well go for fuel and passengers as well.

3) 80 Wings? My gosh. Save the FPS much? Lol But yeah, bigger wings I feel are needed. Less part count, not more :P 

4) Agreed!

5) Agreed!

6) Well, reason I asked for that is because flying a plane going in a straight line at 1400m/s tends to see the heat bar start to fill up slowly. I want my KR-71 to hit Mach 5 without blowing up. So either heat shielding for the plane parts, or new parts with like, 3000 Kelvin heat endurance please. Ooooh…. New idea, new parts painted black instead of white!

7) That's why I said resistant to aerodynamics, so the wind doesn't break it. Wind is part of aerodynamics. I would settle for cockpits getting antenna modules, or an inline part, maybe like a probe core reused as an antenna. 

8) Thanks! Though, I would like to add on to the Goliath, make a model that cuts off everything in front of the reverser, that way we can have a L-1011 style engine. 

Share this post


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

Yes, I would like the Stargazer L-1011. And it wouldn't be restrictive as the part could just be another model for the Mk3 part.

So... if it could be a mk3 part, then its basically just a mk3 bay with a slot in it? how is this different from an opened mk3 cargobay? I really don't think your suggestion is good for adding to the base game.

Quote

Also, on the 4 Goliaths, I found that people actually hide Goliaths inside each other to make it more atheistically pleasing. So while you see 4, there could be 8 or even 12 engines on the plane. 

Ummm, I haven't seen that... I have barely seen any multi engine goliath planes... but whatever, taking your example, you would get part count savings of 4-8 parts... Wow (sarcasm)... adding a new part (with model, memory usage, and clutter to menu) to save a few parts in very niche designs is not worth it IMO.

Now bigger wings and rapiers on the other hand... those can result in part count savings of >20 (for either the wings, or the engines, > 40 for both)... sorry, but for me you've still failed to make your case for a larger goliath variant.

Quote

I'll take a higher output Goliath if they want to update the thrust, but I feel a 3m engine would also be a good fit for the game. 

Well, personally, I would like the goliath's thrust buffed a bit. Its a 2.5m engine, so its got 4x the cross section of a 1.25m engine, it should have at least 4x the thrust of the wheesley, IMO, but its only got 3x the thrust. So I'd increase its thrust and mass by a factor of 4/3.

As for the other numbered points:

I feel like 2 and 4 go together, and that is basically: liquid fuel only tanks for all cylindrical sizes. Airbreathing engines for sizes larger than 1.25m

6) Going mach 5 in the low atmosphere is supposed to be a problem, heat bars filling up part way is fine

7) you keep ignoring that we have this part:

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Communotron_16-S

or this one:

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/RA-2_Relay_Antenna

or the RA-15 or 100: none of these break from the wind.

All you have to do is position them out of the heating shock cone, and their temperature resistance is high enough. You can place them in structural tubes or fairings, or service bays...

Again you are suggesting solutions to problems that do not exist... I don't want the stock game cluttered up with stuff that adds nothing new/no benefit.

Larger wings, LF fusalages, and (high speed) engines offer large part count improvements, the rest of your suggestions, I'd rather have left to a mod that I don't have to install.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

So... if it could be a mk3 part, then its basically just a mk3 bay with a slot in it? how is this different from an opened mk3 cargobay? I really don't think your suggestion is good for adding to the base game.

Ummm, I haven't seen that... I have barely seen any multi engine goliath planes... but whatever, taking your example, you would get part count savings of 4-8 parts... Wow (sarcasm)... adding a new part (with model, memory usage, and clutter to menu) to save a few parts in very niche designs is not worth it IMO.

Now bigger wings and rapiers on the other hand... those can result in part count savings of >20 (for either the wings, or the engines, > 40 for both)... sorry, but for me you've still failed to make your case for a larger goliath variant.

Well, personally, I would like the goliath's thrust buffed a bit. Its a 2.5m engine, so its got 4x the cross section of a 1.25m engine, it should have at least 4x the thrust of the wheesley, IMO, but its only got 3x the thrust. So I'd increase its thrust and mass by a factor of 4/3.

As for the other numbered points:

I feel like 2 and 4 go together, and that is basically: liquid fuel only tanks for all cylindrical sizes. Airbreathing engines for sizes larger than 1.25m

6) Going mach 5 in the low atmosphere is supposed to be a problem, heat bars filling up part way is fine

7) you keep ignoring that we have this part:

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Communotron_16-S

or this one:

https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/RA-2_Relay_Antenna

or the RA-15 or 100: none of these break from the wind.

All you have to do is position them out of the heating shock cone, and their temperature resistance is high enough. You can place them in structural tubes or fairings, or service bays...

Again you are suggesting solutions to problems that do not exist... I don't want the stock game cluttered up with stuff that adds nothing new/no benefit.

Larger wings, LF fusalages, and (high speed) engines offer large part count improvements, the rest of your suggestions, I'd rather have left to a mod that I don't have to install.

Well, the higher you go, the poorer the performance of the engine. The Goliath has a sweet spot of around 11-15km imo. I feel that a 3m engine would provide better performance, enough that it would be able to easily operate at 15 - 20km, or even higher. Of course, the same could be said about the Goliath getting a buff. Increase the thurst, and it would be able to work pretty well at higher altitude. 

Hmmm, and I just had another idea. 

Instead of giving us Mk3 rounded parts, add a Mk4 part family. Now, 5m plane parts are a little big I would think, but instead of going 5m, go 4m. 4.375m to be exact. I feel like this would be a good size for jumbo planes in KSP. And I know I haven't made a case for a 3m engine, but I'm going to go ahead and say add the 3m engine to the 4m airplane parts. 2.5 engines to 4.375  fuselage and wings would be a little small imo. So I am now adovocating for a 3m engine to go with the mk4 parts. And actually, there would be two mark 4 parts, or mark 4 + mark 5): mark 4 rounded (Or MK4A) and mark 4 blended body(Think NASA's SSTO, the X-33 SSTO. Or the NASA VentureStar) (Would be known as MK4B or MK5)

Mark 4A part list ideas:
Mark 4A Rounded Cockpit
Mark 4A Passenger section
Mark 4A Liquid Fuel only
MK4A LFO tank
MK4A Mono
MK4A Large wings (Bigger FAT-445's)
MK4A Large Tail
MK4A Double height passenger section
MK4A Double height cockpit
MK4A Double height Tail
MK4A Cargo bay
MK4A Double height Cargo bay
MK4A Wheels

Mark 4B/Mark 5 part list: 
MK4B/5 Cockpit
MK4B/5 Probe core
MK4B/5 Passenger Fuselage (Will be more like a larger Mk3 passenger section)
(All tank parts come in two types. Straight or angled. This is to give the triangle appearance of the X-33. Straight vs angled would be done via in game model switching)
MK4B/5 LF tank
MK4B/5 LFO tank
MK4B/5 Mono tank
MK4B/5 Wings
MK4B/5 Tail
MK4B/5 Linear Aerospike Engine
MK4B/5 Cargo bay (Only comes in straight sections, no angled sections)
MK4B/5 Wheels
MK4B/5 Nose/ Nose Cone
MK4B/5 Sized RCS Thrusters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need Mk3 and Mk1 Drone Cores. Something that smoothly blends with the fuselage, rather than a probe core that just juts out.

Share this post


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

We need Mk3 and Mk1 Drone Cores. Something that smoothly blends with the fuselage, rather than a probe core that just juts out.

For the Mk3 Drone core, eh, maybe not a whole new part. Just cover the windows of the Mk3 cockpit in a new model and remove the interior. Make it an alt model for the MK3 cockpit 
Mk1 Drone core, I would agree, but the 1.25m probe core works fine. It looks ugly, but imo it works fine. 

Edited by GoldForest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a full cockpit for what can be done by a thin slice. It can be the same breadth as the Large Probe Cores, and it'll work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 7:31 AM, GoldForest said:

Well, the higher you go, the poorer the performance of the engine. The Goliath has a sweet spot of around 11-15km imo. I feel that a 3m engine would provide better performance, enough that it would be able to easily operate at 15 - 20km, or even higher. Of course, the same could be said about the Goliath getting a buff. Increase the thurst, and it would be able to work pretty well at higher altitude. 

No...

That doesn't change the thrust or velocity curve... spamming goliaths won't get you higher either. So a 3 meter variant of the goliath won't help, it would need an altitude curve more like the panther, or whiplash. Then it ceases to be a larger goliath, but more like a larger ramjet. Just increasing the thrust on the goliath won't increase its ceiling.

Quote

Instead of giving us Mk3 rounded parts, add a Mk4 part family. 

*snip'd a huge list of parts*

I'm going to have to disagree again. First by "mk3 rounded parts", I'm going to assume that's the same thing as a liquid fuel only version of 3.75m (cylindrical) "rocket" parts. Such parts are needed more, because they would be multi-use, and would be useful for making rockets using LV-Ns.

What purpose would these larger parts serve? There is a mod for that (OPT I think), one I haven't bothered installing. I'm quite fine with 3.75m parts for large spaceplanes. What is the point of a large spaceplane anyway? get a lot of cargo to orbit? I find a twin boom deisgn with the payload in a center fairing to be better (and less restrictive, I can take payloads over 7 meters wide like that).

As for reusable cargo deploying dropships... I have some desire for a larger diametercargobay. I can make 2.5m part based payloads work like so:

Spoiler

lezvzrk.png

GednQxS.png

But it does feel cramped, and a wider wheelbase would be great

23 hours ago, Xurkitree said:

You don't need a full cockpit for what can be done by a thin slice. It can be the same breadth as the Large Probe Cores, and it'll work.

Exactly... but I don't see such a need, any plane design will have the mk3 section taper for aerodynamics, the mk3 cockpit has a 1.25m node on the front: I often stick a probe core there, or on one of these: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/C7_Brand_Adapter_-_2.5m_to_1.25m or a 2.5m probe core on one of these: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Mk3_to_2.5m_Adapter

Or in a cargobay along with other stuff, like a relay antenna, reaction wheels, batteries, solar panels to deploy once in orbit or RTGs, etc.

I don't think its so needed.

I'd rather have a 3.75m probe core or reaction wheel, for use on reusable first stage boosters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

No...

That doesn't change the thrust or velocity curve... spamming goliaths won't get you higher either. So a 3 meter variant of the goliath won't help, it would need an altitude curve more like the panther, or whiplash. Then it ceases to be a larger goliath, but more like a larger ramjet. Just increasing the thrust on the goliath won't increase its ceiling.

Agreed. The Goliath is a RR-Trent-800 replica and there aren't many other larger variant types so a larger ksp type would be a fictional made engine, just like the rapier that is. IIRC I need a light air craft with plenty of wing incidence to get it anywhere close to 12+ km let alone 15km. The way I see it the Goliath is a engine for the lower atmosphere, remember that 10km on Kerbin is a lot higher relative to  10km on Earth.

2 hours ago, KerikBalm said:

What purpose would these larger parts serve? There is a mod for that (OPT I think), one I haven't bothered installing. I'm quite fine with 3.75m parts for large spaceplanes. What is the point of a large spaceplane anyway? get a lot of cargo to orbit? I find a twin boom deisgn with the payload in a center fairing to be better (and less restrictive, I can take payloads over 7 meters wide like that).

As for reusable cargo deploying dropships... I have some desire for a larger diametercargobay. I can make 2.5m part based payloads work like so:

 

There is a Mk4 mod in the first place and the way it looks it would require exotic new type shapes of stock fuel tank adapters, by the looks of it would'nt even blend in that well with it's egg curved shapes but that is taste after all.
While it required a lot of effort I already created a 52% payload to orbit rapier space plane using 96 rapiers to get 1.5Kiloton into orbit 7.5M wide and 60M long. Bigger ramjet/turboramjet or ramjet/rocket hybrid engines like the Rapier would cut on the part count and 2.5m variant engines would be good.
Maybe Squad could stock make a welding mechanism to weld rapiers to a engine plate so to make it a single part.

I'm all for bigger cargo bays, any way shape or form.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 1:30 PM, Aeroboi said:

While it required a lot of effort I already created a 52% payload to orbit rapier space plane...

Was it rapier only, or rapier + nukes? we were having a discussion previously on what the best combo was, and I was advocating for pure rapiers just for simplicity and their high altitude performance... >50% seems to be close to the max for many spaceplanes, or a variety of engine configurations

On 4/14/2019 at 12:19 PM, GoldForest said:

For Pegasus, I just want to simulate irl Pegasus XL launches. 

On 4/18/2019 at 7:36 AM, GoldForest said:

Yes, I would like the Stargazer L-1011. And it wouldn't be restrictive as the part could just be another model for the Mk3 part. 

To illustrate my point that no new parts were needed, I went back to a stock size solar system, and used unmodified stock parts:

Spoiler

My first attempt at an orbital launch was screwed up due to a mistake in the root part of the detached payload:

eZcOaub.png

Note: 8444 meters = 27,700 feet, close to the altitude the RL pegasus launches from, throm in the 1.25x multiplier to get equivalent real atmo density: 34,600 feet high.

The pegasus released: with its control point wrong, and I reloaded rather than trying to reset it and recover it:

QS9TAmP.png

So, a new attempt, control point fixed,

on the runway:

NWQhzMZ.png

Rotating to lift off:

Zzd6Vm8.png

Liftoff:

5E0rcEG.png

Climbing, nearly at release altitude:

MY7lGyj.png

Seems my ascent was less efficient this time, decided to release about 400 meters lower than before:

Hbrv1cu.png

Doors open so that the tailfin doesn't clip the fusalage upon release:

HjDo0r8.png

Release:

oKNoFO0.png

Ignition:

Nhe2StB.png

Pulling ahead of the carrier:

1KA3dzI.png

I was focused too much on the camera angle for the shot, and pulled up way too much:

WFos81O.png

But it was ok:

W2NRKoE.png

Weee...

U2YX1Hh.png

Weeeeeeeeee

I99e5sN.png

Second stage fires:

BaCqKRg.png

Its almost to orbit already... but I've still got a 3rd SRB stage, because the RL pegasus has one... but its too late to reduce the fuel load... it is an SRB, so no early shutdown.

KHxBV4Z.png

Yea, that apoapsis is high enough:

C7s0wB7.png

I had 2 basic fins for stability, one burned off on ascent:

hzjYv6u.png

Fairing separation:

yYYK3z2.png

3rd stage separation, coasting to apoapsis before lighting it:

TJftBTA.png

Weeeee.... shoulda reduced the fuel load:

2udVtY7.png

Well, its certainly in orbit, payload released:

dC67YkQ.png

Payload circularizing itself:

1BsC9oc.png

Payload circularized:

WthgRwO.png

So.... why do we need new parts to do pegasus air launches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

Was it rapier only, or rapier + nukes? we were having a discussion previously on what the best combo was, and I was advocating for pure rapiers just for simplicity and their high altitude performance... >50% seems to be close to the max for many spaceplanes, or a variety of engine configurations

To illustrate my point that no new parts were needed, I went back to a stock size solar system, and used unmodified stock parts:

Rapier only. I think LV-N's are never justified for payload orbiters unless they're interplanetary or Liquid fuel only. The weight involved on each LV-N in order to push the last couple hundred m/s into orbit doesn't scale with a pure rapier based space plane. Whenever I try to optimize a Rapier only space plane and try to attach LV-N's to it while swapping LF/OX with required LF tanks any added LV-N's usually cripple me for getting larger payloads to orbit.

On that particular SSTO I used 4x4 adapters on a 5m engine plate set to "quad" each holding 4 for a total of 16 rapiers each with a tapered front end for optimal aerodynamics.

Building larger/heavier also means more weight per cross section of aerodynamic drag and that SSTO weighted 2.7 Kilotons with cargo. Building heavier while keeping stack count low means less rapiers per ton to go past 400m/s in a dive plus the square cube surplus is a bonus with it.

Edited by Aeroboi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 4:20 AM, KerikBalm said:

No...

That doesn't change the thrust or velocity curve... spamming goliaths won't get you higher either. So a 3 meter variant of the goliath won't help, it would need an altitude curve more like the panther, or whiplash. Then it ceases to be a larger goliath, but more like a larger ramjet. Just increasing the thrust on the goliath won't increase its ceiling.

I'm going to have to disagree again. First by "mk3 rounded parts", I'm going to assume that's the same thing as a liquid fuel only version of 3.75m (cylindrical) "rocket" parts. Such parts are needed more, because they would be multi-use, and would be useful for making rockets using LV-Ns.

What purpose would these larger parts serve? There is a mod for that (OPT I think), one I haven't bothered installing. I'm quite fine with 3.75m parts for large spaceplanes. What is the point of a large spaceplane anyway? get a lot of cargo to orbit? I find a twin boom deisgn with the payload in a center fairing to be better (and less restrictive, I can take payloads over 7 meters wide like that).

As for reusable cargo deploying dropships... I have some desire for a larger diametercargobay. I can make 2.5m part based payloads work like so:

  Reveal hidden contents

lezvzrk.png

GednQxS.png

But it does feel cramped, and a wider wheelbase would be great

Exactly... but I don't see such a need, any plane design will have the mk3 section taper for aerodynamics, the mk3 cockpit has a 1.25m node on the front: I often stick a probe core there, or on one of these: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/C7_Brand_Adapter_-_2.5m_to_1.25m or a 2.5m probe core on one of these: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Mk3_to_2.5m_Adapter

Or in a cargobay along with other stuff, like a relay antenna, reaction wheels, batteries, solar panels to deploy once in orbit or RTGs, etc.

I don't think its so needed.

I'd rather have a 3.75m probe core or reaction wheel, for use on reusable first stage boosters.

I just feel that we need more plane parts in general, and all of these are just my suggestions and ideas to Squad. I feel there is a place for bigger plane parts. I respect your input, and have thought about it, but I still feel like bigger engines, fuel tanks, passenger section, cockpits, etc would be beneficial. 

 

On ‎4‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 6:30 AM, Aeroboi said:

Agreed. The Goliath is a RR-Trent-800 replica and there aren't many other larger variant types so a larger ksp type would be a fictional made engine, just like the rapier that is. IIRC I need a light air craft with plenty of wing incidence to get it anywhere close to 12+ km let alone 15km. The way I see it the Goliath is a engine for the lower atmosphere, remember that 10km on Kerbin is a lot higher relative to  10km on Earth.

There is a Mk4 mod in the first place and the way it looks it would require exotic new type shapes of stock fuel tank adapters, by the looks of it would'nt even blend in that well with it's egg curved shapes but that is taste after all.
While it required a lot of effort I already created a 52% payload to orbit rapier space plane using 96 rapiers to get 1.5Kiloton into orbit 7.5M wide and 60M long. Bigger ramjet/turboramjet or ramjet/rocket hybrid engines like the Rapier would cut on the part count and 2.5m variant engines would be good.
Maybe Squad could stock make a welding mechanism to weld rapiers to a engine plate so to make it a single part.

I'm all for bigger cargo bays, any way shape or form.

 

Bigger engines do exist. The GE9X is pretty huge in its own right, being about the size of a 737's fuselage, so bigger engines wouldn't be fictional. And the rapier isn't fictional either. It's based off the Skylon engines which are a hybrid rocket/ramjet engine

As for the Mk4 mod, I feel it's too extreme a leap for stock.

Share this post


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

I still feel like bigger engines, fuel tanks, passenger section, cockpits, etc would be beneficial. 

I agree in principle for the engines, but not for turbofans, rather large whiplash and rapier derivatives. We also need larger LF only cylindrical tanks.

I feel the passenger section for mk3 planes, and the mk3 cockpit are large enough though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GoldForest said:

I just feel that we need more plane parts in general, and all of these are just my suggestions and ideas to Squad. I feel there is a place for bigger plane parts. I respect your input, and have thought about it, but I still feel like bigger engines, fuel tanks, passenger section, cockpits, etc would be beneficial. 

 

Bigger engines do exist. The GE9X is pretty huge in its own right, being about the size of a 737's fuselage, so bigger engines wouldn't be fictional. And the rapier isn't fictional either. It's based off the Skylon engines which are a hybrid rocket/ramjet engine

As for the Mk4 mod, I feel it's too extreme a leap for stock.

What I mean is that a "GE9X" for instance isn't a scale higher then 3.75m is opposed to 2.5m so another 3.75m turbofan engine would really be a class apart. Also the rapier is a prototype and indeed non fictional. I should have been clearer. When I uttered fictional in context of the rapier it is that it has never flown yet, hence fictional towards actual space flight.

On that basis of those pointers I made my conclusions. Note that I'm not against fictional stuff or prototype stuff. It just doesn't cope with the game well and IMO many of these parts can make the game to easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this