Jump to content

[1.10.x] Mark IV Spaceplane System (August 3)


Nertea
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm confused. OP says that the Mk4 system is designed to fit 2.5 meter parts in a cargo bay... but isn't the Mk3 system intended to do that? Is this actually supposed to be able to hold 3.75 meter parts, or am I missing something?

Edit: I stand corrected.

Edited by Itsdavyjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused. OP says that the Mk4 system is designed to fit 2.5 meter parts in a cargo bay... but isn't the Mk3 system intended to do that? Is this actually supposed to be able to hold 3.75 meter parts, or am I missing something?

I don't understand. Only one part set can ever do the same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I decided to just download it and find out firsthand. Indeed, this mod is not big enough to hold Size 3 parts, or even Mk3 parts (but it's pretty close if you turn them sideways). So I guess it's just a wide version of the Mk3 system rather than a "next size up" sort of deal.

That said, awesome work on the models and textures! Everything looks like it fits in with the stock parts and seems to function properly, with the exception of the IVA view in the Crew Cabin (which I presume is being worked on ;)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I decided to just download it and find out firsthand. Indeed, this mod is not big enough to hold Size 3 parts, or even Mk3 parts (but it's pretty close if you turn them sideways). So I guess it's just a wide version of the Mk3 system rather than a "next size up" sort of deal.

That said, awesome work on the models and textures! Everything looks like it fits in with the stock parts and seems to function properly, with the exception of the IVA view in the Crew Cabin (which I presume is being worked on ;)).

It was made before the stock MK3 revamp, which is why the overlap exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well technically the overlap exists because I wanted to make this and it was fun, less because I didn't know that redo was coming.

I had some thought recently to modifying the overall scale to be about 20% larger for more flexibility with rovers, but then wasn't sure because I would need to re-finnagle many of the adapter parts. Opinions there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well technically the overlap exists because I wanted to make this and it was fun, less because I didn't know that redo was coming.

I had some thought recently to modifying the overall scale to be about 20% larger for more flexibility with rovers, but then wasn't sure because I would need to re-finnagle many of the adapter parts. Opinions there?

Not to mention IVAs...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well technically the overlap exists because I wanted to make this and it was fun, less because I didn't know that redo was coming.

I had some thought recently to modifying the overall scale to be about 20% larger for more flexibility with rovers, but then wasn't sure because I would need to re-finnagle many of the adapter parts. Opinions there?

One way to do it is to flatten the bottom so it extends out to the full width (i.e. make the bump-outs go to the floor) but that would require a complete rework of the entire profile and would result in the loss of fuel capacity.

Quite frankly I enjoy having an alternative 2.5m sized cargo bay that looks more plane based (but working with the rover i posted about 8-10 pages back would be great).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the wide body cargo bay much better. It makes docking a lander in there much easier. I've even used it with a claw in there to catchers mitt satellites I want to recover. The Mk3 bay is a tight fit with little error room due to it's more cylindrical shape.

My favorite lander fits in the Mk4, doesn't fit in the Mk3. Plus the Mk4 looks way cooler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well technically the overlap exists because I wanted to make this and it was fun, less because I didn't know that redo was coming.

I had some thought recently to modifying the overall scale to be about 20% larger for more flexibility with rovers, but then wasn't sure because I would need to re-finnagle many of the adapter parts. Opinions there?

That would definitely make them more useful in that regard, however (and I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir) if I was a modder making spaceplane parts with lifting properties, I would wait until after the aero overhaul to preclude having to redo all or some of my work. As much as I love the mod, I'd hate to have someone go over it twice for that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if I fiddle with the shape I'll probably use a few more polys to round some areas out, and find a nice way to make the CofM align better with wings.

Not to mention IVAs...

Due to an issue with the way IVAs are loaded, the Mk4's IVAs are actually 20% too large, which supports a 20% size increase without changing really anything.

That would definitely make them more useful in that regard, however (and I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir) if I was a modder making spaceplane parts with lifting properties, I would wait until after the aero overhaul to preclude having to redo all or some of my work. As much as I love the mod, I'd hate to have someone go over it twice for that reason.

Well it's not like I have time to do anything now anyways :P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if I fiddle with the shape I'll probably use a few more polys to round some areas out, and find a nice way to make the CofM align better with wings.

One thing I had thought about is extending the bumps on the side all the way down the floor level, then making them actual open area instead of fuel storage. It'd make a sort of 'wheel track' where rover wheels on large 2.5m vehicles could go but a stack probably won't fit (and certainly won't come out easily in the case of orbital delivery). Another thing I'd love to see is a drop bay (bottom floor of bay drops out), but you already have something like that on the planned features list. ;)

I remember something someone suggested called an "aerodynamic truss". That would be a cool concept too, being able to haul large things ala 1999 space eagle style.

P.S. If some expansion here takes your mind of beating your head against the wall of code that is NFE, we can wait on NFE. Do whatever is most interesting at the time.

EDIT: On wing placement.

This kind of aircraft would benefit hugely from overhead wing designs, but that comes at the problem of needing to release the payload ventrally. Giving us a ventral deployment option would make overhead wings doable and be a solution to the CoM issue. Another suggestion would be make the sidewalls of the bays straight (they have a nice little angle flare right now) and then shorten the doors a bit so the wings can be mounted higher up even on dorsal bay craft.

Edited by Captain Sierra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think sinking the 1.25 nodes further into the fuselage might look better. It also might not, of course. I do approve of aligned CoM and 1.25 nodes though, and the more rectangular bay could also come in handy for certain rovers I've got no way to transport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What i do like about the current shape is the fact that it looks fluid from the top(the 'edge points'?) like a giant shell, the new one has a break and then pops out a bit. i definitely prefer the old one in that regard. who knows, maybe it will look great in 3d... the interior on the other hand i think is great on the new drawing. much better clearance with the squaring of the lower portion of the bay.

If you're redoing the shape, would you consider to create tail cargo ramp sections with different ramp angles at the open position? maybe one more shallow and one a bit more aggressive, just to give us more options on the height and where to place landing gear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think sinking the 1.25 nodes further into the fuselage might look better. It also might not, of course. I do approve of aligned CoM and 1.25 nodes though, and the more rectangular bay could also come in handy for certain rovers I've got no way to transport.

Not sure what you mean with that precisely. Those aren't nodes, it's just the end of a fuselage chunk.

What i do like about the current shape is the fact that it looks fluid from the top(the 'edge points'?) like a giant shell, the new one has a break and then pops out a bit. i definitely prefer the old one in that regard. who knows, maybe it will look great in 3d... the interior on the other hand i think is great on the new drawing. much better clearance with the squaring of the lower portion of the bay.

Might get some tweaking in approximate angles of things for sure.

If you're redoing the shape, would you consider to create tail cargo ramp sections with different ramp angles at the open position? maybe one more shallow and one a bit more aggressive, just to give us more options on the height and where to place landing gear?

That's a terribly inefficient idea. There is a better plan that I'm thinking of doing though.

new shape looks great, now i have more room for the ISS and Mir modules :D

btw, nertea, would it be possible to make a new rear section shuttle-like? that would be really cool :D

What do you mean by that?

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...