Jump to content

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


Nertea
 Share

Recommended Posts

There are some mods out there that provide a certain control over attachment nodes, Procedural Fairings is the prime example. Perhaps it is possible to switch on an interior attachment node via the right-click menu that way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good progress on the IVA so far. Layout has gone well and I'm unwrapping bits as well as detailing. Going for a similar look to TB2's cockpit as well, so no complaining :P

layout.png

The lower area has a door leading to the airlock and theoretically through to the front hatch.

Visibility is pretty nice and it fits the kerbals quite well with lots of room. It's a large cockpit. Large large.

screenshot563.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a mesh for now. Lots of tris (~15k), might convert it to a texture later. It doesn't seem to have much of a performance impact though.

I'm also trying to balance these parts a bit better now, so I appreciate input on numbers, particularly these points:

  • Debating removing lift in stock aero from the monoprop segment to simplicity's sake.
  • Still haven't decided whether to put maybe an FL-T400's worth of fuel in the Cargo Bay.
  • How does mass/lift look in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a mesh for now. Lots of tris (~15k), might convert it to a texture later. It doesn't seem to have much of a performance impact though.

I'm also trying to balance these parts a bit better now, so I appreciate input on numbers, particularly these points:

  • Debating removing lift in stock aero from the monoprop segment to simplicity's sake.
  • Still haven't decided whether to put maybe an FL-T400's worth of fuel in the Cargo Bay.
  • How does mass/lift look in general?

It might just be that I am terrible at building large planes but I think that the lift of the parts should be large as I can't get the nose of the plane up, also the parts are far larger than the spaceplane + so I think they should have more lift. I think fuel is a good idea and that seems like the right amount, it would give the bumps on the side of the parts seem like they have a use. Regarding the monoprop segment if it makes things easier remove the lift, its such a small part I don't think it matter if it has lift. I am not sure if it is the lack of lift or just my designing so its up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plane parts look awesome! Have you considered giving them small lift values? Not enough to get them off the ground wingless or anything, but planes with shaped bodies like these often have a small degree of lift from their own shape alone. Just a thought :) Will have to check it out later!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plane parts look awesome! Have you considered giving them small lift values? Not enough to get them off the ground wingless or anything, but planes with shaped bodies like these often have a small degree of lift from their own shape alone. Just a thought :) Will have to check it out later!

Yes, they all have their own lift :).

Anyways, PartTools seems to have somehow nuked my slaved-over internal props config :(. Very depressed! I came here to post a picture of the finished control consoles, but... I got nothing. Back to stage 1. At least the textures for the inside are still intact (halfish done).

So here's a picture of cabin lights?

mk4lights.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Snip-

So here's a picture of cabin lights?

http://www.areadenialgames.com/ksp/mk4lights.jpg

Cabin lights look great, Nert. :) I actually think that windows with togglable lights, placed judiciously, create a more immersive gameplay experience for me than do super-detailed IVA views. I don't fly IVA, and if a cockpit or command pod or crew cabin or habitat module, whatever, has an IVA view, I'll go look in there maybe once or twice when I first fly the part(s), and then I usually totally ignore it from that point on. What I'm saying is, on my own personal list of priorities, lighted cabin windows comes WAY before any kind of IVA modeling. Besides, having too many IVA views full of Kerbals REALLY slows down my frame rate, so there you go.

Not that we were talking about IVA's, sorry. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cabin lights look great, Nert. :) I actually think that windows with togglable lights, placed judiciously, create a more immersive gameplay experience for me than do super-detailed IVA views. I don't fly IVA, and if a cockpit or command pod or crew cabin or habitat module, whatever, has an IVA view, I'll go look in there maybe once or twice when I first fly the part(s), and then I usually totally ignore it from that point on. What I'm saying is, on my own personal list of priorities, lighted cabin windows comes WAY before any kind of IVA modeling. Besides, having too many IVA views full of Kerbals REALLY slows down my frame rate, so there you go.

Not that we were talking about IVA's, sorry. :)

Cabin lights are a great 20 minute diversion to improve morale ;).

It's odd, I don't fly IVA either, but I am far more inclined to use (not download, I'll download anything, but actually place on my ship) parts that have IVAs than ones that don't. Must be the Kerbal portraits or something.

It's also something I'm not terribly good at, so I like to work on it to improve. This cockpit is leaps and bounds ahead (technically and artistically) of the Mk3-9 and Itinerant pod IVAs that I've done before, so the work pays off. Bodes well for the SSPX IVAs, whenever those get done.

Edited by Nertea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's odd, I don't fly IVA either, but I am far more inclined to use (not download, I'll download anything, but actually place on my ship) parts that have IVAs than ones that don't. Must be the Kerbal portraits or something.

It's also something I'm not terribly good at, so I like to work on it to improve. This cockpit is leaps and bounds ahead (technically and artistically) of the Mk3-9 and Itinerant pod IVAs that I've done before, so the work pays off. Bodes well for the SSPX IVAs, whenever those get done.

It's funny, the same is true for me: I rarely ever actually go to the IVA view, but knowing that a part has a nice IVA makes me far more likely to use it. I think it's mostly about the immersiveness of being able to go inside and look out the window, even if I never actually fly the ship from that perspective.

I'm especially looking forward to the greenhouse you mentioned for SSPX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG!!! It's so CUTE! I'm sure that's not exactly what you had in mind when you came up with it. BUT IT IS!!! It's adorable and very kerbal-e-looking. Are these parts going to be stock aero compatible? (please, please, pretty please?)

The configs are set up for stock aero by default.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny, the same is true for me: I rarely ever actually go to the IVA view, but knowing that a part has a nice IVA makes me far more likely to use it. I think it's mostly about the immersiveness of being able to go inside and look out the window, even if I never actually fly the ship from that perspective.

I'm especially looking forward to the greenhouse you mentioned for SSPX.

I still haven't fully decided what it's going to look like :P. I am thinking that the 2.5m one will be an realistic orbitally oriented greenhouse with no orientation, so will look something like a tube with very tiny closeable windows all over it. The growing space would be radial and there would be a simple crew access tube down the centre. Plants grown in hydroponic drawers, a few of which I'd make clickable to open.

The 3.75m one could be more ground-oriented with a less realistic design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they all have their own lift :).

Anyways, PartTools seems to have somehow nuked my slaved-over internal props config :(. Very depressed! I came here to post a picture of the finished control consoles, but... I got nothing. Back to stage 1. At least the textures for the inside are still intact (halfish done).

So here's a picture of cabin lights?

http://www.areadenialgames.com/ksp/mk4lights.jpg

Dem inclined wingtips. Mmf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unable to build anything that doesn't flip over on take-off with FAR using these fuselages.

Once I start pitching up it seems the air hits the flat bottom and the drag increases too much making it flip over, even with a lot of tail control authority.

Any ideas how to tweak this?

BTW, these MKIV models are awesome! Just need to figure out how to tweak the aerodynamics.

Edited by hcalves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After playing with it for a while, I must say I'm not a fan of the side bulges. It's serving no purpose and hindering a lot of possibilities. So here's two ideas:

1. What about extending a bit further and adding attachment nodes here (like in the 3-adapter), these would be great to fit custom air intakes, compressors, shock cones:

mk4tex03.jpg?_subject_uid=745480&w=AAAGsJxkuwjGF9fZaBGwSYwKWW669Hgkcpxsbb5ToqEeGg

2. Or keep the same width, but instead of bulges make the fuselage more streamlined like in the Dreamchaser:

index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29416.0;attach=445400;image

Right now the bulges are just making it hard to fit either wings or side tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unable to build anything that doesn't flip over on take-off with FAR using these fuselages.

Once I start pitching up it seems the air hits the flat bottom and the drag increases too much making it flip over, even with a lot of tail control authority.

Any ideas how to tweak this?

BTW, these MKIV models are awesome! Just need to figure out how to tweak the aerodynamics.

The simplest solution is to bring the CoP (CoL) farther back behind the CoM. To determine what AoA is safe, you can look at the FAR static analysis and sweep the AoA - whever the Cm line goes from decreasing to increasing is where you should keep the AoA below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simplest solution is to bring the CoP (CoL) farther back behind the CoM. To determine what AoA is safe, you can look at the FAR static analysis and sweep the AoA - whever the Cm line goes from decreasing to increasing is where you should keep the AoA below.

Got it, but it can't be just that. I had the CoL almost on the tail and it would still catastrophically flip over after a certain (small, <10 deg) AoA.

What I'm thinking now is that the wide body blocks the air and makes the tail control surfaces stall too easily on pitching. I'll experiment with different designs, the one I was trying was a short delta wing.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...