Jump to content

XOC2008

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    693

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by XOC2008

  1. XOC2008
    You're definitely going to have some high part counts then unless you use the part welder. I can't see why it wouldn't work with these parts.
  2. XOC2008
    Did you use the 'select all' option in the Wing Command GUI to add the other planes into the flight group?
  3. XOC2008
    The nice thing about Tweakscale is that just because it's on a part it doesn't mean you have to USE it. It doesn't affect anything if you don't change the part's scale.
  4. XOC2008
    As far as I know they are pretty much all the original ones from the first iteration of the mod before @SpannerMonkey(smce) took over maintenance and development. The sub engines should look like the waterjets but just the 'end' part. The surfaces.. I can't remember if there were specific ones for the sub parts but procedural all moving parts will do in a pinch.
  5. XOC2008
    Well there are sub parts but they are basically for a Typhoon-class sub. No WW2 era subs as of yet. (Doesn't mean he's not working on them, or not planning to.)
  6. XOC2008
    As @SpannerMonkey(smce) mentioned earlier in the thread, that's an issue between NKD and BDAc. Since NKD relies on the BDAc code, it won't get better until the problem is resolved in BDAc. All parties are aware of the problem.
  7. XOC2008
    I gave you the link to the PEW Continued version in the SM Armory thread that you said this in.
  8. XOC2008
    That missile is actually located in the SM maintenance version of PEW: https://spacedock.info/mod/1200/PEW continued
  9. XOC2008
    Hey thanks! I have more I just need to take screenies and get them uploaded. I like yours too!
  10. XOC2008
    The nozzles? I don't recall them ever doing that without being attached to an IR rotatron.
  11. XOC2008
    That's a good looking pair of LCACs right there.
  12. XOC2008
    Ka-52:
  13. XOC2008
    I think he's saying he changed the root to the rover and built from that so it turned the ship type to a rover, and AA didn't recognize it as an aircraft.
  14. XOC2008
    That is the most vague description. Are they going sideways, longways, upside down, crosswise, diagonal, etc.? You might have to make sure snap is on and then WASD to get them in the correct position.
  15. XOC2008
    Define "can't get them to go on right". What are they doing?
  16. XOC2008
    Forgot to post this:
  17. XOC2008
    Aside from the extra bits to make it look 'pretty', it's really easy to put together.
  18. XOC2008
    Sounds like you need to turn on autostrut or use KJR.
  19. XOC2008
    I only ever turned those on when the engines were on, thus simulating the thrust coming from what the engine was pulling in and redirecting to those ports. The easy solution, rather than rewriting the cfg, is to just turn off the RCS when you're not moving.
  20. XOC2008
    Short answer: No. Long answer: The same things are taken into account at all altitudes, which is why, like I said, the ramjet fares better at higher altitudes but not well at all at sea level when compared to engines of similar thrust. And it's not just altitude curve. It's atmospheric curve in general. It also takes into account engine -type-. Wheesley is a turbofan. Tumansky is an afterburning turbojet. Which means their performance at varying altitudes, including sea level, will differ greatly simply because of the base performance and inner workings of the engine.
  21. XOC2008
    Thrust isn't the only factor though. The ramjet engine has a similar thrust to other engines but only functions well at higher altitudes due to the atmospheric curves set in the cfg. You realize, also, you're judging a "commercial grade turbofan" against a "military grade afterburning engine", yes? I just think you're looking at thrust only and deciding that's the only factor, when it isn't. They take in different amounts of air, burn fuel at a different rate, have a different shape.. so of course they are going to perform differently at varying altitudes. Can the Stryker engines be tweaked? Maybe. But I will tell you that the MiG I built in 1.1.3 using the Stryker engines matched the plane's top speed and didn't break any unknown speed records. And this was with me building to scale on size and weight. I just don't think they need the adjustment you're asking for.
  22. XOC2008
    Yes, but the atmospheric curve variables will make them perform differently, which is what I said.
  23. XOC2008
    2. Everything has a different aerodynamics model, which is why the Wheesley performs at around half of the Tumansky. Just thought I'd throw that in there. If you look in the cfgs and compare the two atmosphere curves, etc., you'll see what I mean. That's why thrust can be similar but have vast differences in performance. (Based on weight, fuel, intake air, etc..) 3. I don't know what Spanner has in store but I know Aviator Arsenal has a b-29-esque turret, and Carcharoth and a couple others have different weapons fitting that era.
  24. XOC2008
    Remove the Airplane plus mod entirely and then reinstall it in the Gamedata folder along with the firespitter folder (If you don't have Firespitter).
  25. XOC2008
    I use those and don't have missing parts. It sounds like you installed something incorrectly. for the record, you need firespitter for props to work and meshes to switch.
×
×
  • Create New...