Jump to content

[WIP] Nert's Dev Thread - Current: such nuke, wow

Nertea

By Nertea
in KSP1 Mod Development

 Share

Recommended Posts

Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well, it didn't have a functional hatch before now...

A new prerelease appears!

Important Changes

  • Textures for pretty much all the parts (except as below)
  • Optimized and improved colliders for all parts
  • Hatches and such work on the cockpit
  • Improved attach points across the board
  • New parts: Mk4 LFO Fuselage, Mk4 Utility Fuselage
  • Tweaked weights/costs/properties on some parts

Issues

  • Mk4 Utility Fuselage and the two Mk4 adapters don't have normals/spec maps, and so don't match exactly well yet
  • Mk4 Tail Cargo Bay and Mk4 Blunterator (name subject to change) don't have textures.
  • Mk4 Tail Cargo Bay is purely for testing, it lacks meaningful collision and geometry is still WIP
  • UV seams are visible on a few parts when zoomed out due to poor planning.

As always, looking for balance feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voculus

Voculus

Posted
Posted

These Mk IV parts are going to be the stuff of legend! The cargobays are HUGE, and rival the B9 HL bays for size and most importantly, usefulness! :) Anyway, I was doing a bit of testing with FAR, and while I don't know which mod is the culprit, for lack of a non-offensive term, I wanted to throw this out there:

screenshot40.png?psid=1

Half the ship is comprised of cargobays, and while the one up front is shielded, the three aft bays are creating a huge amount of drag, which made it very difficult to get up into space, but she did get into space! :) There's also an issue with the way the wings attach to the various parts. The frontmost section, highlighted by a very bright drag indicator, didn't quite surface mount to the cargobays the way the aftmost wing sections attached to the fuel tanks. I had angle snap off, and couldn't quite get them aligned just right. Cosmetically, it's a non-issue, but FAR does the math, and calculates that it must fight me! :sticktongue:

Also, the connection strength between the cargobays and fuel tanks seemed very weak. Wobbly shenanigans ensued.

Again, not sure if any of that is useful or not, but there it is.

I love the flat bottom hull, and makes wheel placement a breeze, given the limited sizes of landing gear out there. Very cool! When the IVA comes in the future, my only suggestion is to make the cockpit windows as large as possible. I know it's hard with the Kerbal head size to do that in an elegant way, but one can wish. Thanks for the hard work! :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomoo

Bomoo

Posted
Posted (edited)

Nert, dude. God damn.

5158C4A0C3AC851C7BDB2312E27B33E5529C1F23

P.S. I really like the way you handled the monoprop slice, allowing it to function as a kind of transition piece between the payload bay and cockpit, as front ballast, and at the same time leaving plenty of room for extra gadgets, life support, and what have you. A superb effort, sir.

Edited by Bomoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted
These Mk IV parts are going to be the stuff of legend! The cargobays are HUGE, and rival the B9 HL bays for size and most importantly, usefulness! :) Anyway, I was doing a bit of testing with FAR, and while I don't know which mod is the culprit, for lack of a non-offensive term, I wanted to throw this out there:

https://ls785w-sn3301.files.1drv.com/y2puhFMcLYQu2jGyFQMRFQZZhlyLEceC5VDMM_C1XOZVlPu4P4wpPKd1UOodZvWIejLhlJWTBE0U8RmQmyDCTdCxf48DAS9AW6UtOzd2CI-y5E/screenshot40.png?psid=1

Half the ship is comprised of cargobays, and while the one up front is shielded, the three aft bays are creating a huge amount of drag, which made it very difficult to get up into space, but she did get into space! :) There's also an issue with the way the wings attach to the various parts. The frontmost section, highlighted by a very bright drag indicator, didn't quite surface mount to the cargobays the way the aftmost wing sections attached to the fuel tanks. I had angle snap off, and couldn't quite get them aligned just right. Cosmetically, it's a non-issue, but FAR does the math, and calculates that it must fight me! :sticktongue:

Also, the connection strength between the cargobays and fuel tanks seemed very weak. Wobbly shenanigans ensued.

Again, not sure if any of that is useful or not, but there it is.

I love the flat bottom hull, and makes wheel placement a breeze, given the limited sizes of landing gear out there. Very cool! When the IVA comes in the future, my only suggestion is to make the cockpit windows as large as possible. I know it's hard with the Kerbal head size to do that in an elegant way, but one can wish. Thanks for the hard work! :cool:

Most interesting. As far as I know you are the first person to test it with FAR, so this is good to know. I expect I'll have to look into it more, I don't know how it calculates drag. If anyone knows, feel free to chip in !

I can look into the cargo bay connection, I think that it might be that there are two nodes on each end. I made one size 1, chances are the connection between tank and bay sometimes uses that one by chance. I will adjust.

I am also glad you like it!

Nert, dude. God damn.

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/49864244462198306/5158C4A0C3AC851C7BDB2312E27B33E5529C1F23/

P.S. I really like the way you handled the monoprop slice, allowing it to function as a kind of transition piece between the payload bay and cockpit, as front ballast, and at the same time leaving plenty of room for extra gadgets, life support, and what have you. A superb effort, sir.

Yay! Glad you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TopHatDragon

TopHatDragon

Posted
Posted

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I'm also testing it with FAR and I'm loving it!

The wobbliness is due to the breakingForce/Torque being at 50, I changed it to 1500 and now I'm not getting any now. Testing is testing.

Also suggestion, rename the Mk4 Utilities Fuselage to 'Mk4 Service Compartment' and it'll consider things inside it as shielded for FAR/NEAR. It'd also be awesome if you could add some SAS to it.

Another suggestion is to add some LF/O to the Cargo Bays to help balance out the COM, You can fit 3/4th's of a 400 unit 1.5m fuel tank on either side in the bubbles so that would be a nice number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Milkshakefiend

Milkshakefiend

Posted
Posted
Most interesting. As far as I know you are the first person to test it with FAR, so this is good to know. I expect I'll have to look into it more, I don't know how it calculates drag. If anyone knows, feel free to chip in !

I can look into the cargo bay connection, I think that it might be that there are two nodes on each end. I made one size 1, chances are the connection between tank and bay sometimes uses that one by chance. I will adjust.

I use FAR and also experienced quite high drag on cargo bays. I believe FAR attributes high(er) drag to objects with an unused attach node, so perhaps FAR is not shielding these extra nodes and thus creating extra drag. I did a bit of testing and found that a craft with no cargo bays will still create rather a lot of drag at relatively low AoA, so *something* else is creating drag also. A vessel with a TWR of 0.5 was barely able to crack 110m/s at 2km altitude, for instance. I don't know much about creating FAR configs so I can't really do much to actually help at this point, but that behaviour doesn't feel right.

I remember reading (perhaps mistakenly) that FAR generates drag/lift values for parts without FAR configs from the part mesh - I can't recall with any authority if it was the visual mesh or collision mesh, though - so perhaps it's mis-interpreting something in the mesh and generating abnormal drag? The cockpit especially looks like it's generating more drag relative to other cockpits.

I wish I could help more, but when it comes to FAR I'm more of a 'consumer'. I've only ever set up a couple wings, not an entire fuselage system!

With that malarkey out of the way, I do have some quick points:

The Good

  • The overall design is awesome. I mean seriously cool.
  • The flat bottom. Great for mounting gears, intakes, anything really.
  • The space in the cargo bays is great.
  • As someone else mentioned, the monoprop slice is a good idea - great for ballast, mounting life support pieces etc.
  • The cargo tail ramp looks nice and wide!
  • I didn't have a problem balancing CoM and CoL on a couple of quick test craft.

The Bad

  • Docking port nosecone (and the cockpit nose I think) need an attach node
  • FAR flight characteristics are 'odd'.
  • Wing mounting on the fuselage 'bulges' can be tricky.
  • EVA Hatch on the underside is a bit odd, but maybe I'm not thinking creatively enough about ladder mounting!
  • I don't want to use B9 S2W now that I've had a taste of this.

The Suggestions

  • The bulges on the side of the fuselage pieces look like they could accommodate fuels?
  • Bulkheads on cargo bays w/ cutout for Kerbals to walk through?
  • Incorporating the method B9 uses to cycle through tank types and toggle mesh visibility (Firespitter?) could be useful for the above.
  • Custom landing gears?
  • Drone core?
  • Cockpit window illumination emissive?
  • Off in the realms of 'If You Ever Run Out Of Things To Make' - custom RCS, intakes, an inline cockpit, more rear engine adapters would be lovely. Also, the double hinged nose from THIS post would be rad. I don't know why I'd want to deploy payloads like that, but I really really want to now that I've seen that.

Keep up the awesome work - I look forward to seeing what you do with this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm also testing it with FAR and I'm loving it!

The wobbliness is due to the breakingForce/Torque being at 50, I changed it to 1500 and now I'm not getting any now. Testing is testing.

Also suggestion, rename the Mk4 Utilities Fuselage to 'Mk4 Service Compartment' and it'll consider things inside it as shielded for FAR/NEAR. It'd also be awesome if you could add some SAS to it.

Another suggestion is to add some LF/O to the Cargo Bays to help balance out the COM, You can fit 3/4th's of a 400 unit 1.5m fuel tank on either side in the bubbles so that would be a nice number.

http://imgur.com/a/AkKOa

I'll make those changes to the naming. SAS will be combined with a drone core slice by default. Fuel for cargo bays - maybe...

I use FAR and also experienced quite high drag on cargo bays. I believe FAR attributes high(er) drag to objects with an unused attach node, so perhaps FAR is not shielding these extra nodes and thus creating extra drag. I did a bit of testing and found that a craft with no cargo bays will still create rather a lot of drag at relatively low AoA, so *something* else is creating drag also. A vessel with a TWR of 0.5 was barely able to crack 110m/s at 2km altitude, for instance. I don't know much about creating FAR configs so I can't really do much to actually help at this point, but that behaviour doesn't feel right.

I remember reading (perhaps mistakenly) that FAR generates drag/lift values for parts without FAR configs from the part mesh - I can't recall with any authority if it was the visual mesh or collision mesh, though - so perhaps it's mis-interpreting something in the mesh and generating abnormal drag? The cockpit especially looks like it's generating more drag relative to other cockpits.

I wish I could help more, but when it comes to FAR I'm more of a 'consumer'. I've only ever set up a couple wings, not an entire fuselage system!

Yeah I have no idea either. I'll go look at the SP+ FAR configs or something. I had heard something to that tune about the attach nodes at some point too.

The Good

  • The overall design is awesome. I mean seriously cool.
  • The flat bottom. Great for mounting gears, intakes, anything really.
  • The space in the cargo bays is great.
  • As someone else mentioned, the monoprop slice is a good idea - great for ballast, mounting life support pieces etc.
  • The cargo tail ramp looks nice and wide!
  • I didn't have a problem balancing CoM and CoL on a couple of quick test craft.

I like this list :P

The Bad

  • Docking port nosecone (and the cockpit nose I think) need an attach node
  • FAR flight characteristics are 'odd'.
  • Wing mounting on the fuselage 'bulges' can be tricky.
  • EVA Hatch on the underside is a bit odd, but maybe I'm not thinking creatively enough about ladder mounting!
  • I don't want to use B9 S2W now that I've had a taste of this.

Not as bad as I thought it might be! :P The nose bits do have an attach node as far as I can see. It's hidden inside the docking retractor mechanism for the docking, but is visible to me for the standard nosecone and the cockpit itself. I can make the docking one larger I suppose, so it's visible. .

The Suggestions

  • The bulges on the side of the fuselage pieces look like they could accommodate fuels?
  • Bulkheads on cargo bays w/ cutout for Kerbals to walk through?
  • Incorporating the method B9 uses to cycle through tank types and toggle mesh visibility (Firespitter?) could be useful for the above.
  • Custom landing gears?
  • Drone core?
  • Cockpit window illumination emissive?
  • Off in the realms of 'If You Ever Run Out Of Things To Make' - custom RCS, intakes, an inline cockpit, more rear engine adapters would be lovely. Also, the double hinged nose from THIS post would be rad. I don't know why I'd want to deploy payloads like that, but I really really want to now that I've seen that.

1. They might. You mean for the cargo bays?

2. I'm not exactly sure what you mean, like a crew bulkhead running the length of the bay?

3. I'm dead set on minimizing plugins. The only one I want to use is RPM.

4. Maybe. I know we will get some with the next Squad update, so I'm doubtful of the utility, and there was a redo of the one we have in the works too.

5. Yes, planned.

6. Of course!

7. I have two more rear adapters (to 4x1.25m and 2x2.5m) planned, as well as two intakes, an inline cockpit, and a few other things. The nose... eh, perhaps. I was going to make a pointy thing full of gas, but I could replace it with a pointy thing full of nothing.

I also just wanted to throw this idea out there:

http://www.moveoneinc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Cargo-airplane-nose-open.jpg

Imagine landing Big Bertha on Laythe, opening up the nose, lowering the ramp, and barreling out onto the beach with a souped up rover! For science!

Yes, I have a sketch for this, but it has to wait until inline cockpits happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrmcp1

mrmcp1

Posted
Posted (edited)

Thanks for the prerelease for the spaceplane parts, it is good to have a plane with a 2.5m cargo bay. All of the parts of well designed. I have a few suggestions about the new tail part that opens with a ramp: overall the design is great, would it be possible to make the ramp longer so that it touches the floor when using the standard landing gear, also the attach node on the back to too low so everything you place on it is slightly misaligned. The bulges on the side of the parts make it tricky to align fuel tanks but I am not sure if that is possible to change. Thanks for making these parts.

EDIT: Sorry to keep making suggestions but I think for the tail cargo bay the entrance needs to be bigger because you can't get 2.5m parts out of it. Thanks for making these parts.

Edited by mrmcp1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
blowfish

blowfish

Posted
Posted
Sadly I'm still getting the massive drag with this CFG.

@PART[mk4*]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final {

dragModelType = default

maximum_drag = 0.2

minimum_drag = 0.15

angularDrag = 2

}

All those values should be zeroed with FAR to disable stock drag. If you need guidance look at FAR's own CFGs for stock parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sage

Sage

Posted
Posted

Those part really look great :) They are chubby-cute

Anyway, the FAR drag issue could be due to this:

I can look into the cargo bay connection, I think that it might be that there are two nodes on each end. I made one size 1, chances are the connection between tank and bay sometimes uses that one by chance. I will adjust.

If the nodes between two things are different, FAR assume that the inline front face isn't completly shieldied. At least if I remember correctly how far worked. Try to ask ferram about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
starkline

starkline

Posted
Posted (edited)

Nertea: You are a Golden God for making these parts. I definitely dig.

Re: FAR, I didn't have many problems after applying these MM configs (I basically just copied the FAR MM config for the SPP parts):

@PART[mk4cockpit]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final {
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
}
@PART[mk4adapter-1]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final {
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
}
@PART[mk4adapter-2]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final {
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
}
@PART[mk4fuselage-1]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final {
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
}
@PART[mk4fuselage-lfo-1]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final {
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
}
@PART[mk4mono-1]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final {
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
}
@PART[mk4tail-1]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final {
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
}
@PART[mk4nose-docking]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final {
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
}
@PART[mk4cargo-1]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final {
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
}
@PART[mk4cargo-tail-1]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR]:Final {
    @minimum_drag = 0
    @maximum_drag = 0
    @angularDrag = 0
    !MODULE[ModuleLiftingSurface] {}
}

Using the MM file, I didn't really have any issue, but I made the config before loading the parts, so I have no frame of reference with respect to the parts without the config. I will say this, however, I gave her a ton of wing! That said, the parts are large, so it makes perfect sense to need a huge wingspan.

Anyhow, after looking at these parts, here's my thoughts (without having looked at any previous comments, so forgive me if I'm repeating things...ignore me if so).

  • I absolutely think the cockpit fits the style. It reminds me of some conceptual stuff I saw sitting around my father's desk. He was USAF Col. with NORAD/Space Command and a B-52 pilot.
  • I think you did a beautiful job with the models and textures. They really fit nicely with Porkjet's style.
  • The nose-cone docking port is great, I cannot "see" the connect node on the cockpit. No big deal...it's obviously just hidden by the texture.
  • I'd love to see longer (perhaps 2x) LFO/LF fuselage sections. They are especially useful for placing a large vertical stabilizer.
  • The wing mounts (bulges) on the fuselage/cargo bay pieces are really nice. It's especially more elegant than the SPP/B9 cargo bays, as I often end up having wings inside my cargo bay.
    • It'd be a lot of work, but I'd also love to see those wing mounts capable of carrying fuels. Perhaps, similar to B9's use of texture switching for each part. In that respect, it would be "closer" to real life in that most planes carry a significant portion of their fuel in their wings. I know reality isn't KSP, but I digress.

    [*]In the same vein as the fuselage parts, I'd eagerly welcome 2x or even 3x longer cargo bays. It would help for those large loads, like USI's MKS modules, and it would reduce part count. Again, real life doesn't equal KSP, but you don't see many short and fat cargo lifters. Not saying they're not out there, but most large lifters are long to match...thinking C-5s and even KC-135s. Then there's the Antonov....

    [*]My final thought is just a general wish list thing....as such I know it's a long-shot. For myself, who only uses FAR, one of the only reasons I have any B9 parts installed is to use their Air Brake parts. Having some means by which to increase drag is almost essential, and using ailerons as flaps and spoilers just doesn't cut it. Having said that, I'd love to see an air brake part for the MkIV that is curved to match the dorsal fuselage. Sure, cargo transports usually don't have dorsal air brakes, but they just look so damn cool on F-18s.

edit: I have one more thought, but it's small. While RCS can be placed anywhere, I prefer to have my RCS pods in line with the CoG/CoM laterally. In that fashion I can balance the power with 4 pods instead of 8, or having 2 each on the dorsal and ventral. Those gorgeous bulges of the fuselage sections I dig so much make placing RCS pods rather interesting. To that end, it would be cool to have a small flat, or less curved, surface on those bulges. That way when symmetry is on, the RCS blocks would have somewhere to go that's flat.

Anyhow, as I user of all the NFT parts as well, I have to say...thanks! These new parts are sweet!

Edited by starkline
Sometimes my grammar shocks even myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I'm going to let you guys fiddle around and use whatever FAR stuff you come up with.

Those part really look great :) They are chubby-cute

Anyway, the FAR drag issue could be due to this:

If the nodes between two things are different, FAR assume that the inline front face isn't completly shieldied. At least if I remember correctly how far worked. Try to ask ferram about it.

I had been told that calling the part "Cargo bay" eliminated that behaviour. hm.

Thanks for the prerelease for the spaceplane parts, it is good to have a plane with a 2.5m cargo bay. All of the parts of well designed. I have a few suggestions about the new tail part that opens with a ramp: overall the design is great, would it be possible to make the ramp longer so that it touches the floor when using the standard landing gear, also the attach node on the back to too low so everything you place on it is slightly misaligned. The bulges on the side of the parts make it tricky to align fuel tanks but I am not sure if that is possible to change. Thanks for making these parts.

EDIT: Sorry to keep making suggestions but I think for the tail cargo bay the entrance needs to be bigger because you can't get 2.5m parts out of it. Thanks for making these parts.

I will make it touch the ground, but there's not much you can do about the entrance issue without compromising the tail component. Which I might be ok with, but it's pretty cool looking. Plus, I'm not too worried... I don't think 2.5m rovers would fit in the bay anyways (2.5m core plus wheels would be too large).

Actually.. what do we think of something like this? Move the attach node above the fuselage to make more room.

I've looked into the part cfgs and, er -

I'm not sure if the second parameter is even used, but something's definitely wrong here...

Me neither, but that'll teach me to just copy cfgs.

Nertea: You are a Golden God for making these parts. I definitely dig.

Re: FAR, I didn't have many problems after applying these MM configs (I basically just copied the FAR MM config for the SPP parts):

Thanks. Always happy to... make people happy.

  • It'd be a lot of work, but I'd also love to see those wing mounts capable of carrying fuels. Perhaps, similar to B9's use of texture switching for each part. In that respect, it would be "closer" to real life in that most planes carry a significant portion of their fuel in their wings. I know reality isn't KSP, but I digress.

I don't think it would be that much work, just need to add some numbers to the cfg, unless I'm misunderstanding.


  • In the same vein as the fuselage parts, I'd eagerly welcome 2x or even 3x longer cargo bays. It would help for those large loads, like USI's MKS modules, and it would reduce part count. Again, real life doesn't equal KSP, but you don't see many short and fat cargo lifters. Not saying they're not out there, but most large lifters are long to match...thinking C-5s and even KC-135s. Then there's the Antonov....
  • My final thought is just a general wish list thing....as such I know it's a long-shot. For myself, who only uses FAR, one of the only reasons I have any B9 parts installed is to use their Air Brake parts. Having some means by which to increase drag is almost essential, and using ailerons as flaps and spoilers just doesn't cut it. Having said that, I'd love to see an air brake part for the MkIV that is curved to match the dorsal fuselage. Sure, cargo transports usually don't have dorsal air brakes, but they just look so damn cool on F-18s.

The first is not unreasonable, 2x cargo bays and fuselages will be coming eventually (in fact the models are trivial to make). Texturing is a long proposition and I'd rather focus efforts elsewhere at the moment.

You may be in luck with airbrakes at some point. We'll see.

edit: I have one more thought, but it's small. While RCS can be placed anywhere, I prefer to have my RCS pods in line with the CoG/CoM laterally. In that fashion I can balance the power with 4 pods instead of 8, or having 2 each on the dorsal and ventral. Those gorgeous bulges of the fuselage sections I dig so much make placing RCS pods rather interesting. To that end, it would be cool to have a small flat, or less curved, surface on those bulges. That way when symmetry is on, the RCS blocks would have somewhere to go that's flat.

Hmm, there should be a flat area of collider right on the bulbous bit. I suspect you mean cosmetic though.

I'm considering making the drone core hollow. Thoughts?

Edited by Nertea
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrmcp1

mrmcp1

Posted
Posted (edited)

Thanks for the response, I hadn't fully considered the fact that a 2.5m rover would not fit in the cargo bay and the tail cargo bay does look good. Its up to you if you move the attach node above the fuselage but I think it is quite a good idea as it should look good and give a bit more room. The hollow drone core sounds like a good idea also the air brakes you mentioned would be good. Thanks for making these parts.

EDIT: Sorry for all of these requests but the rear cargobay door could do with the ramp being a bit wider so you can get a vehicle in.

Edited by mrmcp1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
starkline

starkline

Posted
Posted

Hmm, there should be a flat area of collider right on the bulbous bit. I suspect you mean cosmetic though.

I realize, of course, that not everyone uses the same parts, but this image should demonstrate what I'm thinking of. I know it's simply cosmetic, and therefore pretty low on importance, but it just looks a bit odd. Having the flat section line up with where things are placed when 90 degree symmetry is on would make a place for not only RCS, but also wings.

Anyway...just cosmetic, but the parts look so graceful otherwise!

jhlu4yI.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voculus

Voculus

Posted
Posted
Nertea: You are a Golden God for making these parts. I definitely dig.

Re: FAR, I didn't have many problems after applying these MM configs (I basically just copied the FAR MM config for the SPP parts):

Should I copy all of that and overwrite Nert's MkIVFAR cfg file? Does that file get placed under GameData?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
starkline

starkline

Posted
Posted (edited)
Should I copy all of that and overwrite Nert's MkIVFAR cfg file? Does that file get placed under GameData?

I just have that FAR config I posted in GameData, AFAIK it can go anywhere. You need not overwrite any of Nertea's config files, as the MM patch does this for you.

edit: I should've taken the time to read what Voculus was taking about. I just found Nertea's FAR config file...so if they're different then you should delete his. That is, if mine's working better for some reason. I should also add that I was looking though my config files and found this in my FAR folder:

MODULE
{
    name = FARBasicDragModel
    S = 29.2719718719377
    cosAngleCutoff = -1
    majorMinorAxisRatio = 1.87820510784283
    taperCrossSectionAreaRatio = 2.76387456741217E-08
    ignoreAnim = False
    CdCurve
    {
        key = -1 5.90336E-16 0.3464104 0.3464104
        key = 0 0.3464104 0 0
        key = 1 5.90336E-16 -0.3464104 -0.3464104
    }
    ClPotentialCurve
    {
        key = -1 0 2.506559E-08 0
        key = -0.866 1.880057E-08 5.929654E-08 5.929654E-08
        key = 0 0 -2.170966E-08 -2.170966E-08
        key = 0.866 1.880057E-08 0 0
        key = 1 0 2.506559E-08 2.506559E-08
    }
    ClViscousCurve
    {
        key = -1 0 -0.6417251 -0.6417251
        key = -0.95 -0.03208626 -0.5763673 -0.5763673
        key = -0.866 -0.07501105 -0.3304949 -0.3304949
        key = -0.5 -0.1299039 0.05491367 0.05491367
        key = 0 0 0.2598078 0.2598078
        key = 0.5 0.1299039 0.05491367 0.05491367
        key = 0.866 0.07501105 -0.3304949 -0.3304949
        key = 0.95 0.03208626 -0.5110095 -0.5110095
        key = 1 0 0 0
    }
    CmCurve
    {
        key = -1 -1.214477E-15 -2.428954E-15 -2.428954E-15
        key = -0.5 -2.428954E-15 -2.428955E-15 -2.428955E-15
        key = 0 -3.643432E-15 0 0
        key = 0.5 -2.428954E-15 2.428955E-15 2.428955E-15
        key = 1 -1.214477E-15 2.428954E-15 2.428954E-15
    }
}

It was named "PartMk4 LF+O Fuselage Short.cfg."

I just looked around the forums, and I have no idea where I got it from. It isn't included with Nertea's download, so I can't give credit to whomever wrote it. I must have been...tired...when I found it. I have no idea if it had any effect on my test plane.

end edit

Also, AFAIK, you can name the config file anything you want...I've got mine named MkIV_Custom_FAR.cfg. I did read back a few posts and saw the comments regarding drag, but I didn't really see much of a problem...not that my install is the same as someone else's. Furthermore, my knowledge of FAR configs only extends as far as I can throw a Kerbal's rocket. Grain of salt not included.

Anyway, here are some beauty shots of my 1st MkIV SSTO so lurkers can see how awesome Nert is. Make note I use a "cheaty" custom RAPIER so that I can keep my builds more "elegant" in that they need not have hordes of engines and intakes. It uses FAR, a KW tank to mount the gear, B9 gear/air brakes/rcs tanks/lights, PWings, TweakScale, HGR RCS pods, and the all important PWB Fuel Balancer.

Javascript is disabled. View full album
Edited by starkline
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LaDouche

LaDouche

Posted
Posted

Nice build starkline.

Really liking this mod. As I havent got any programming skill I cant really contribute in any way but actually testing it and reporting bugs, which I will one I find them. :)

Sorry for the offtopic but how did you change the RAPIERS to "cheaty mode" as you put it? Did you change thrust or ISP or both perhaps? Thanks.

(Meant to message you privately but cant find the option, on mobile atm.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...