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

[Hodo]

Still having a few cargo bay issues...

One chunky spaceplane:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot587_zps27412a4f.jpg

And one refuelling truck:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot588_zps603f0be7.jpg

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot594_zpsc96f8685.jpg

A friendly looking fuel hose:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot595_zpsca2363e3.jpg

Oh no! We can't reach high enough!

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot596_zpsc41934a1.jpg

Never mind...

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot597_zpsd1b377d7.jpg

Hooked on:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot598_zpsdc8de491.jpg

All done, back in the bay, reconnect to the docking port I started from, and...

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/screenshot599_zpsc82dc3da.jpg

Rover wheels seem to really want to fall through that bay. Struts can sort it out during launch, but the whole point of the ramp is to allow rovers to be recovered. Even KAS struts would not have saved this one; the rover fell through immediately after reconnecting to the docking port; there was no time to strut.

Ok the easiest fix for this is not to dock the craft at the front. I found if I find its docking point to be inline with the CoM of the object in the cargo hold it wont flop through. And it will give you time to strut it. I like to place the low profile flat KAS wench at the bottom of the cargo hold and pull the object over it then switch it to dock mode then strut it. The other option is to do this the otherway and put it on the top of the cargo hold and pull it towards that point. This lets you adjust the height of the cargo in the bay.

Outside of the quantum struts or the active struts there is no otherway to do it. With parts falling through the floors of cargobays has been an issue since .23 if not before.

[BigNose]

I am seeing a couple of issues, among them the part categories. Will try to update in the next few days (few balance tweaks also).

Thank you for increasing the impact tolerance of the Cockpit/Drone Core/Passenger section, 8m/s really was too low. On the other hand... 150m/s? o.O

Why not balance it against the stock parts and most other mod parts, which is 45m/s for plane cockpits. That way, you can survive glancing crashes/hard landings, but still die from frontal impacts.

Right now, you can pretty much slam face first into the ground at a little under 150m/s and nothing happens, which is kinda as weird as the 8m/s were.

[Taquarinha]

Hi Nertea, here is a list of parts that i think you can and should do for us:

-aforementioned MK-IV C5 style cockpit

-MK-III C5 style cockpit

-MK-III Tail entrance (Like yours)

-MK-III to MK-IV fuel adapter and hollow adapter (to put some cargo on)

Thanks for your beatifull work!

[megatiger78]

can this into stock?

[Captain Sierra]

can this into stock?

While all of Nertea's stuff is beyond stock in quality, its not necessarily something that should go stock. Stock takes technology lines to a certain point and stops. Most of Nertea's stuff picks up and continues where stock left off. I'd imagine less than half the total KSP player base would ever use the stuff, and thus it is better remaining as a mod. That said, those of us that do use Nertea's mods, tend to use them obsessively. I'm guilty of this very much so.

[Nertea]

Thank you for increasing the impact tolerance of the Cockpit/Drone Core/Passenger section, 8m/s really was too low. On the other hand... 150m/s? o.O

Why not balance it against the stock parts and most other mod parts, which is 45m/s for plane cockpits. That way, you can survive glancing crashes/hard landings, but still die from frontal impacts.

Right now, you can pretty much slam face first into the ground at a little under 150m/s and nothing happens, which is kinda as weird as the 8m/s were.

Looks like an extra 1 snuck in there. It should be 50m/s!

Hi Nertea, here is a list of parts that i think you can and should do for us:

-aforementioned MK-IV C5 style cockpit

-MK-III C5 style cockpit

-MK-III Tail entrance (Like yours)

-MK-III to MK-IV fuel adapter and hollow adapter (to put some cargo on)

Thanks for your beatifull work!

I would be ok with adapting to the Mk3 profile, but I really don't intend to make any actual Mk3 parts. Why would I help the competition?

[Sean Mirrsen]

Speaking of new parts, is a tail ramp with Mk2 adapter still on the list? (i.e. tail ramp with Mk2 node above it) Would help any and all nose-unloading rover-carrier designs.

Also, remember that "aerodynamic cargo truss" I mentioned? I thought, why not make the a bottom-release variant of the cargo bay that's basically that? Instead of unfolding just the bottom, it could unfold the bottom and sides together, raising them up so that most of the cargo bay's height is cleared when the bay is open, and no bottom clearance is required - that way cargo-carriers could avoid needing to be hoisted off the ground to release their cargo, and the dropped-off cargo could be easily carried away by attending rovers and suchlike. VTOL carriers could use it to plop down whole sections of ground bases, etc.

[megatiger78]

any idea on a MKV and VI etc parts?

[luxyuz]

any idea on a MKV and VI etc parts?

That would be a little extreme don't you think? These parts already are prone to make my planes disintegrate from G forces

[Hodo]

That would be a little extreme don't you think? These parts already are prone to make my planes disintegrate from G forces

How many G's are you pulling? This is for cargo planes not for fighters. I rarely break 6Gs on any of my cargo SSTOs, and that is if I am messing around.

[blowfish]

The yellowjacket's stack node seems to be offset from its axis. Is this intentional?

[Nertea]

Speaking of new parts, is a tail ramp with Mk2 adapter still on the list? (i.e. tail ramp with Mk2 node above it) Would help any and all nose-unloading rover-carrier designs.

Also, remember that "aerodynamic cargo truss" I mentioned? I thought, why not make the a bottom-release variant of the cargo bay that's basically that? Instead of unfolding just the bottom, it could unfold the bottom and sides together, raising them up so that most of the cargo bay's height is cleared when the bay is open, and no bottom clearance is required - that way cargo-carriers could avoid needing to be hoisted off the ground to release their cargo, and the dropped-off cargo could be easily carried away by attending rovers and suchlike. VTOL carriers could use it to plop down whole sections of ground bases, etc.

I think that makes more sense than the cargo truss! Might be an idea for the future.

any idea on a MKV and VI etc parts?

Now that's just being silly!

The yellowjacket's stack node seems to be offset from its axis. Is this intentional?

Er, it seems pretty fine to me. Centered and all and the cfg looks fine...

[blowfish]

Er, it seems pretty fine to me. Centered and all and the cfg looks fine...

I'll check again, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't centered in-game (and yeah, I can't find any error in the cfg). Might be a long shot but perhaps it has to do with the fact that the gimbal transform is off-axis?

[Jovus]

Nertea, now that we have viable stock Mk3 parts, do you have any planes to change up the Mk4 parts? (Say, to hold 3.5m parts, or something.) Or is the plan to keep these as alternatives/extensions to the Mk3 system? (Or am I missing something?)

This isn't a request; I'm just curious.

[Captain Sierra]

Nertea, now that we have viable stock Mk3 parts, do you have any planes to change up the Mk4 parts? (Say, to hold 3.5m parts, or something.) Or is the plan to keep these as alternatives/extensions to the Mk3 system? (Or am I missing something?)

This isn't a request; I'm just curious.

Hey Jovus, could you redo your Karbonite NFP configs? Karbonite migrated over to a new resource system and I don't know if yours still work. I'll test and keep you posted, but it might need a rework. Also Roverdude tweaked the way noble gas resources are intended to be acquired, just a thought too. I'm looking into the new system (Regolith) now to see what modules need to be called.

[Boomerang]

Just popping by to say that I love these parts. Even better than the new Mk. 3 parts.

Kinda odd that the functional crew hatch on the cockpit is the same as the decorative one near the attachment node, but it looks cool if you've got a hollow section there.

[Avalon304]

I love these parts! They are amazing... even though i cant build a functional plane, spaceplane or SSTO to save my life.

I would love to see a bomb bay type part with doors that open facing down so I can bomb all the things.

[steve_v]

Can anyone confirm this is working okay with the latest FAR?

Im getting no flight data window and a bunch of:

NullReferenceException
  at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.Component:GetComponent (System.Type)
  at UnityEngine.Component.GetComponent[FARWingAerodynamicModel] () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ferram4.FARWingInteraction.WingInterference (Vector3 rayDirection, System.Collections.Generic.List`1 PartList, Single dist) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ferram4.FARWingInteraction.UpdateWingInteraction (System.Collections.Generic.List`1 VesselPartList, Boolean isSmallSrf) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ferram4.FARWingAerodynamicModel.UpdateThisWingInteractions () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ferram4.FARWingAerodynamicModel.StartInitialization () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at ferram4.FARWingAerodynamicModel.Start () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

when I launch any parts from this pack (Stock is OK).

Seems to fly alright though...

[Logan.Darklighter]

Nertea - I have a request:

On the Mk IV cockpit - is it possible to have a version of the cockpit that does not have the airscoops on the sides?

I love the TB-2 nature of the cockpit and all. No question. But it'd be nice to have the option for some designs to have the more "clean" smooth-sided look of the original Mk 4 Cockpit. If you want to save on part count, you could maybe code it the way that B9 does and have it be toggle-able in the SPH.

Just a thought.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Nertea - I have a request:

On the Mk IV cockpit - is it possible to have a version of the cockpit that does not have the airscoops on the sides?

I love the TB-2 nature of the cockpit and all. No question. But it'd be nice to have the option for some designs to have the more "clean" smooth-sided look of the original Mk 4 Cockpit. If you want to save on part count, you could maybe code it the way that B9 does and have it be toggle-able in the SPH.

Just a thought.

Or maybe perhaps as "best of both worlds", the air intakes could be animated. They could be visible when open, and covered with a retractable aerodynamic cover when closed.

[Captain Sierra]

Nertea, now that we have viable stock Mk3 parts, do you have any planes to change up the Mk4 parts? (Say, to hold 3.5m parts, or something.) Or is the plan to keep these as alternatives/extensions to the Mk3 system? (Or am I missing something?)

This isn't a request; I'm just curious.

The Mk3 parts do not have lifting body properties, whereas these do. The Mk3 parts are meant for emulating shuttles and are heavy and produce no lift. These at least produce lift (have not compared masses) and thus are a more competitive option for planes over the Mk3, further emphasized by the multiple intakes, engine pods, and engines that this comes with.

[ultrasquid]

Nertea - I have a request:

On the Mk IV cockpit - is it possible to have a version of the cockpit that does not have the airscoops on the sides? …

I've had some success using the radial-mount cockpits from RetroFuture with the Mk IV parts to come up with some interesting new configurations. It's not updated to 0.90 yet, though.

[fatcargo]

Hi! First, i have to commend on making this pack. As was already noted numerous times, KSP lacked cargo bays capable of carrying larger payloads.

Pros :

1. The looks. It is just awesome. Futuristic yet structurally sound (at least to me)

2. Tweakscale support. Without TS, this would be yet another cargo bay pack that i can't use to haul a station core to LKO (Kerbodyne fuel tank with radially attached Sr Docking Ports etc)

3. My main reason for using this pack, a Mk4 Extended Cargo Bay. It has excellent cross section shape for bulky payloads, door placement does not hinder placement of other externally mounted parts, has side bulges that are perfect for wings, engines, intakes etc

4. Resizable Tail Cargo Bay ? YES PLEASE !

5. It has "made for SSTO construction" written all over it

6. All parts are lifting bodies under FAR

Now a list of minor problems/questions (note that i use FAR and KJR and all Mk4 fuselage parts are tweakscaled to their maximum size of 5m) :

1. Support for Modular Fuel Tanks. Add this to fuel-capable parts to make them viable solution for engines using alternative fuel types (rocket/jet/dual-mode engines using hydrogen, methane etc generated with Kethane, Karbonite, ORS, ORSX,KSPI etc)

2. Part Mk4 Extended Cargo Bay has somewhat problematic collider geometry

- Side bulges have some strange vertical "offset" when attaching wings. I use KJR and i have added B9's largest wings which in flight stay stable (seems they have good "rooting" in hull). However, when trying to use Procedural Wing B9 SH it has a sharp flat root that does not "stick" well to hull and it gets ripped off in flight (note that i'm using SSTO to lift heavy payloads to LKO)

- Side bulges could have flatter undersides to more easily attach parts

- The bottom side has no collider surfaces "flat" enough to place landing gears, i don't know if this is problem with Unity and thus solvable

3. When tweakscaling Mk4 Docking Nosecone to match size of a Sr Docking Port, it has two problems

- First, it does not connect with Sr Docking Port, only normal Clamp-O-Tron ("size=1" in part cfg ?). Also, does FAR consider this nosecone as having reduced drag as it has a aerodynamic shield ?

- Secondly, enlarged version causes vessel to explode or severely distort on phyiscs load. Even normal size port when opening/closing causes "jumping" or "tremors". For testing i attached it to on top of stack of stock 4k battery and RC-L01 remote control pod

4. Additional hull parts with short lengths

- A solid bulkhead part with Cargo Bay cross-section shape, similar (ie not hollow) to Service Compartment and half of its length

-A shorter version of Triple and Single Adapters, also half length

[Kolago]

I can help with a MFT config for MK4:

@PART[mk4fuselage-lfo-1]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 1600
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4fuselage-lfo-2]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 4800
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4fuselage-1]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 1600
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4fuselage-2]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 4800
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4mono-1]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 600
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4cargo-1]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 200
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4cargo-2]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 600
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4cargo-tail-1]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 100
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4tail-1]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 800
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4tail-2]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 1600
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4adapter-1]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 800
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4adapter-2]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 800
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4pod-1]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 1280
    type = Default
  }
}
@PART[mk4pod-2]:NEEDS[modularFuelTanks]
{
  MODULE
  {
    name = ModuleFuelTanks
    volume = 1920
    type = Default
  }
}

[fatcargo]

Thanks Kolago, i hope these get officially added into part pack. Now i can tweak what fuel type i need and where it needs to be (the ever present battle with COM/DCOM placement).