Jump to content

Citizen247

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    444

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Citizen247

  1. Citizen247
    Usually, the reason for the reversal of pitch control is the location of the control surface compared to the COM. I've noticed that on some craft the COM can be further back than in stock, not sure why. However, it's worth checking if that's your problem. Try moving the control surface back, and checking where the COL and COM are.
  2. Citizen247
    Copy and paste it into a text file with a .cfg extension. Save that anywhere in the GameData folder. It's working exactly as it should. AJE engines, props in particular, provide much less thrust than KSP engines. The most powerful AJE prop engines, in general, produce something like 20-25kN max thrust. The thrust provided by AJE engines are produced by a simulation that takes into account the engine's environment, performance and type of prop. Thus the only way for the true power of the engine to be known is to run the simulation, which you're doing on the runway but not in the hangar. KE is giving you incorrect figures based on the Airplane Plus configs, not what AJE is producing in game. You really need FAR for AJE, the stock atmosphere is too thick. I've played around with my own atmosphere configs, but I could never get them to work right for both aircraft and spacecraft. Either aircraft received too much drag, or spacecraft received too little. I can only suggest ditching AJE and playing with stock configs or fixing the issue with FAR. If you don't want to use spacecraft I can give you my stock atmosphere configs though.
  3. Citizen247
    Hi. Sorry, I built a new computer and was busy drooling testing it. Got to check it today and all the statics seem pretty good. Thanks!
  4. Citizen247
    Are you using Trajectories? Those look like errors Trajectories reports when it tries to plot an atmospheric track and can't when using it under FAR.
  5. Citizen247
    https://github.com/Crzyrndm/B9-PWings-Fork/releases
  6. Citizen247
    If you're talking about B9 then I've been getting them from ckan by setting allowed versions to 1.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I've updated the AJE configs to include the new engine: as the Wright R-3350-23 Duplex-Cyclone (2200hp used on the Stratofortress) and Wright R-3350-26W Duplex-Cyclone (2800hp used on the skyraider). I've also added configs for the Bumblebee for various versions of the Bristol Centaurus: Bristol Centaurus I (2000hp) Bristol Centaurus VII (2520hp) Bristol Centaurus Mk373 (3220hp) I've been trying to write configs for the helicopter engines but hitting a bit of a brick wall. I delete the FSEngine- modules and replace them with AJE modules but the thrust isn't applied properly. Instead of the thrust going up it goes forward, which indicates that the AJE modules need a thrust transform orientated 90 degrees to FS. There's not a lot I can do about that, so I was hoping that, if I ask @blackheart612 really extra nicely he'd be willing to add a second thrust transform orientated front up for AJE configs to the models? So, erm, pretty please with a green Kerbal on top?
  7. Citizen247
    Hey, sorry been busy, meant to get back to you :/. I'll try it out ASAP and let you know. Thanks.
  8. Citizen247
    Fair enough. As I said I wasn't sure if I was just missing something. It just seemed strange to me that the replica that's close in dimensions, mass and powerplant would have ballpark performance to the real thing (slightly slower) with a nose cone, but hugely better performance with a nose intake (i.e. something that should struggle to go supersonic in a dive having the ability to supercruise). Although I also get that KSP, even with FAR, by its lego nature isn't going to ever be a rigorous flight sim.
  9. Citizen247
    Sure, except with an air intake on a real aircraft you've got ducting followed by fan blades that introduce significant drag. It seems that FAR, with a nose intake, treats the whole aircraft as a hollow tube, which means it gets much less drag than it should.
  10. Citizen247
    I'm not sure if I'm missing something and this is correct behaviour or if there is something wrong. Nose intakes seem to make aircraft have much lower drag. For instance this craft: With just a nose cone looks like this: But with nose intakes: Should a nose intake have such a dramatic effect on the curves compared to a simple nose cone? With a nose cone and side intakes the aircraft has performance close to the mig 15 it's roughly based on (tops out at full throttle at about mach 8.6). With a nose intake it's able to go supersonic at mach 1.1+. It just seems wrong.
  11. Citizen247
    Is it possible to replace stock wheel modules with KSP Wheel? The stock wheels, for me, seem to act like they're constantly on ice, but Kerbal Foundry wheels are fine. I was wondering if it's possible to write an MM config to convert the stock gear to KSP Wheel to see if that stops planes sliding around like a drunk at an ice rink.
  12. Citizen247
    Next set of (probably) stupid questions: So I tried to place statics in an unresized Kerbin and then bring them into a 10x rescale with KKtoSD. Is Sigma Dimensions supposed to preserve altitude as well as position between KK statics? It seems to sometimes do it and sometimes not: The taxi way is flush with the runway when I placed them, but several metres higher in the 10x resize. Similarly, the runways, hangars and arcology are at about the same height relative to the base static as they were when placed. The other buildings, however, are lower in some cases significantly. Thanks
  13. Citizen247
    Yes :). The statics moving was me being an idiot and forgetting about Sigma Dimensions. Enable Colliders seems to unset itself randomly for some reason, but only when I open the static settings so it's not a big deal. Not sure why planes sometimes fall through otherwise solid statics, but I suspect it's probably KSPs usual floating point precision weirdness. Thanks.
  14. Citizen247
    Well, not so much that shapes change, but a tiny puddle becomes a huge lake. A tiny sandbar becomes a large island. A place that's good for a runway at 10x, is too small for a helipad at stock. That makes it hard to place things if they're meant to be used at a larger resize. Plus to prevent mountains, that on Kerbin are already pretty high compared to Earth, poking out of the atmosphere the planet is scaled by 10x but the landscape is scaled by 2.5x, so the height/width relationship is also different. In the Kerbal side pack, for instance, there's a mountain observatory that in stock has stairs from a lower area to the observatory at the peak. In the resize the stairs and lower portion are underground because the cliff face is now further away. That's no failing in sigma dimensions obviously, it's just the nature of the beast.
  15. Citizen247
    Sure, but I'm only really interested in placing bases for a 10x scale, and the terrain changes so much that there's no way of reliably setting bases in stock for that. That would be awesome thank you. I'm guessing that I could write configs that would automatically apply that fix to only my bases before Sigma runs in that case?
  16. Citizen247
    I was hoping to be able to place the bases in the resized planet because it's the only way to really know what the ground is like after the rescale in stock. I might try placing them in a stripped down rescale, bringing them into a stock game to get the altitude and reloading into the resized game to see how that works.
  17. Citizen247
    Is there a setting to turn off repositioning of Kerbal Konstruct PQS statics? I'm trying to create my own bases for a 10x rescale, but when I place them and restart the game they're floating high in the air. Or preferably omitting some statics/groups. Also, I tracked down the problems with KSP GPP rescales and Linux: KSC++. Deleting that folder under GPP removes the problem.
  18. Citizen247
    Some further issues: Every time I restart KSP statics are floating above the ground: They don't seem to save the altitude position. Just opening the editor snaps the model to the ground (but lower than I set it previously): The colliders seem to be turned off every time as well. Also, planes occasionally fall through statics, though that could well be the glitchy KSP engine since occasionally I can find craft falling through the ground as well. Finally, when I add a launchsite there seems to be no way to open it. It appears in the menu as a launchsite, but is unusable. I have to quit KSP and change the setting in the "OpenCloseState" in the config to Open manually. Then it can be used properly. Log file
  19. Citizen247
    I didn't really notice anything in the Log file myself but I can upload it asap. I tried removing loading screen, but that didn't do anything. It wasn't until I removed Galileo Planet Pack that the issue resolved fully, so I guess that it's something to do with one of GPPs bundled mods. I'll keep testing and let you know. EDIT: On further investigation, it's definitely something to do with GPP's KSC++ settings. Deleting that folder from GPP removes the issue entirely. EDIT EDIT: It looks like it's a problem specifically with Linux, same machine running windows doesn't have the problem.
  20. Citizen247
    I think I might have some weird mod interaction going on. With Kerbal Konstructs installed the main menu doesn't work. The Icon for loading screen manager works registers clicks and shows it's menu. Scatter's menu works. KSP AVC menu works, but the main menu options don't highlight when the mouse is over them and don't register clicks. You have to force the window to close through the OS, and obviously, can't start a game. After removing KK and reloading everything works as it should. It's not just 1.3.1, I wasn't using KK on version 1.3.0 for the same reason, and this is an entirely fresh install on an entirely fresh OS... I've tried it on a completely fresh install with no other mods and there was no problem. The minimum number of mods I've tested with where I've seen this problem is:
  21. Citizen247
    Well, how fixed it is might vary on 1.3.1:
  22. Citizen247
    That's the "props". Gauges and so on. Have you set up unity for KSP? Installed the part tools? I think this tutorial is still relevant: Adding props is fairly easy. You can actually do it by just editing a text file, but it's hard to know where the props need to be placed. You can import the .mu file of the IVA mesh into unity and add props to it in the editor, then export it using part tools. There's a tutorial for that:
  23. Citizen247
    It depends on what you want to change? If it's just props it's fairly straight forward.
  24. Citizen247
    RPM integration is a patch linked to in the OP.
  25. Citizen247
    @SVS @Trollsama I can't tell you exactly what THR keys and state does, but in the Firespitter source code they're linked with Throttle Keys and Throttle State. I'd hazard a guess that it's a switch to use the stock KSP throttle or something else, perhaps to let the player control the rotor throttle independent of any other engines on the craft so hybrid jet helicopters could function. I've only glanced at the source though.
×
×
  • Create New...