sirrliv

Thank you so much for your advice. I had no idea about the RWD/FWS being such a bad combo. I'll bear that in mind for this and my future rover projects. I was just going by common real world practice. But then, this is KSP we're talking about, so I probably should have known better. I'll adjust things as you suggested and try again. You're right about what I was talking about with "Service" or "Stock"; they each have those color settings, otherwise the hubs are invisible, only the tires show. It's possible I've got it installed incorrectly, but I can't see how; all I did was drop the GameData folder into the KSP install directory, the same as you'd do for any mod. Once I switch them to their color, they work just fine.

Sorry for coming so late to the party, but I just wanted to make sure if I'm doing something wrong with this mod. I'm just coming back to KSP (1.4.5, the latest version) after a bit of a hiatus, and since I've been following the development of this mod I thought I'd give it a try. First project was a simple shuttle bus, nothing fancy and not too big. I have to admit though, it took me a fair bit of time to figure out the construction method used here; chassis, then platform bits, then load carrying parts on top. Also the no attachment points for wheels thing threw me, as did the wheels trying to attach sideways and needing to be flipped the right way round, but I eventually got the knack of that. Here's my real stopping point though, and the part where I would beg assistance, or at least clarification: No matter what I did, no matter what settings I tried; traction control as stock or maxed out, four-wheel drive and steering or front-wheel steering and rear wheel drive, whether I used the (Service) wheels or the (Stock) wheels (unsure of the difference aside from coloring), my results were the same: The thing just skids all over the place and is impossible to control at any speed greater than 2 m/s. At 5 m/s it is just about manageable, but still starts to slide in more prolonged turns, but by 10 m/s it is completely out of control. Am I missing something here? Is there a setting I haven't tinkered with that I should? I did notice a "friction control" setting in the SPH that wasn't available on the runway. Would that help this lack of control problem? I also haven't tried using stock Squad-made wheels on it yet. Or is this possibly some bug that's come up with the latest KSP update; such things are far from unheard of, especially where landing gear/wheels are concerned. The bus does have a tendency to bounce on spawning, as do several aircraft, usually not enough to break anything and it's cured by tapping the brakes immediately after spawn. Edit: Upon further testing, I've found that tweaking the friction control option helped immensely. With that set to "Override" and the relevant slider maxed out, the bus is now perfectly controllable at speeds up to 5 m/s and only shows slight skid tendencies at 10 m/s. However, at 15 m/s it tends to go into far too tight a turn and flips onto its side, though I am more inclined to put this down to user error as 1. I am using keyboard controls and not a joystick, therefore lacking such fine steering controls, and 2. I also maxed out the traction control setting as well. Also note that this test was done with the (Stock) wheelset, not the (Service) wheels; again, aside from color and design, I am not clear on the functional difference between the two. Overall, I am pleased that fiddling with the friction control seemed to remedy the problem, but I am still rather troubled that when left in "Automatic" mode said friction control seems to be all but useless.

Finally got around to trying out the latest beta release, and I was disappointed to find that the old bug where the engine sounds continue even before the engine is actually started persists into this version. I don't mean to criticize, but I might have thought that would be the first thing to be fixed as it was one of the few things actually wrong with the original. Also, I see what you mean about updating the engine's performance. Using my testbed stock-built biplane, weighing in at about 6.7 tons without an engine, the original D25 Radial would get it into the air at about 55m/s and would carry her to a top speed of about 90.5 m/s with enough spare power to easily maneuver. With this new version takeoff is much quicker and the new top speed is about 153.4 m/s. I also tested it with the P100 Turboprop. Original top speed: 120~m/s. New top speed: 231.4 m/s. I also tested a version with a pair of stock Juno 0.625m jet engines placed on the sides by way of extra mini fuel tanks. That version reached about 251 m/s. My conclusion is that while I'm a touch disappointed at the considerable increase in power and performance over what I was used to, therein lies the key phrase, "what I was used to". While I may have to rethink my designs a bit, this new status quo of power is something that I think I can adjust to.

@SpannerMonkey: I am so thrilled to hear that the superb performance of the original engines has been maintained, though I confess to a slight bit of trepidation at hearing that they've been "improved"; personally, I'm not hugely concerned about "going slow", in fact I'd rather thought that was the point of these prop engines, for them to be cheaper but slower than jets. Actually, that's my other big problem with Airplane Plus is that those engines that aren't too weedy and underpowered to even get a plane off the ground are almost always so overpowered that they send the same plane shooting off like a rocket at a rate that would put some jets to shame. It's a fine balance, is what I'm saying, something that Keptin got perfectly right and that I think Blackheart has yet to master. I'll reserve any final judgements on this continuation until I've officially tried it myself, but given your stellar reputation in this community, I am not the least bit concerned, sir. I trust you to continue to find the right balance between not threatening the jets for performance and still having enough grunt to get an old crate off the ground. @kcs123: I would absolutely second this notion. There's not nearly enough electric atmospheric engines in KSP, least of all prop engines. Heisenberg Airships recently added a few, but they're whopping great monsters meant for powering colossal lumbering sky-leviathans, not a diddy little biplane with a few solar panels slapped on. The Extra 330LE you suggested looks like a great candidate to me being in appearance quite similar to the existing Aerosport engine. Another one I'd like to put forward is the side-mounted ducted fan engine of the Airbus E-fan: Also, the counter-rotating twin-props of the Electroflight high performance electric stunt plane:

Magnificent work, SpannerMonkey. Of course, we're all sad to see Keptin let go, but I'm so thrilled to see this wonderful mod, one of the first I ever used, being taken over, maintained, and even expanded. Bravo, sir. Bravo. Brief question, just for confirmation: Will the original engines still work in essentially the same way as before? I ask mostly due to my frankly disappointing experiences with the rival Airplane Plus mod. No disrespect to blackheart, she does fine work, but I've tried the engines from that mod on a plane I built with this mod in mind and no matter what I tried, it simply would not fly. With even the weakest Aerosport engine from KAX, the same plane flew like a dream.

Looks fantastic, sir. Well done. Eagerly looking forward to this update. Couple questions, if I may: 1. The one I recall irritates you to no end, but someone will inevitably ask, so let's just get it out of the way now: That body-mounted rear fan. Is that going to be available only as a rear-end part, or will we also see a mid-body version as well? 2. Slightly less obvious question: We'll probably find out the hard way when it's released and we test it, but what is the handling like with these hover rotors? One of my biggest issues with the Kerbal Foundation anti-grav pads was always how you had zero lateral control; once you started moving in a certain direction you just kept going, making steering and fine control almost impossible. Will these rotors have any sort of inertial compensation to them, like putting out some counter-thrust when you release the turn/strafe key so you don't just keep going? Or will this be up to the skill of the pilot? 3. Again, something I'm expecting to remain secret until release, but what's the fuel consumption on these rotors like? Will the built-in solar panels normally cut it, or should we expect to be building rovers with extra generators to provide enough power to not fall into the sea?

Will these rotors work over water as well as land? Also, what sort of fuel system do they use, liquid fuel or electric, or are they switchable between the two like in the Mk.4 Spaceplane mod?

It's been quite awhile and no word from Keptin, nor any word of anyone else taking up this mod's torch. I dearly hope this won't be consigned to the Isle of Forgotten Mods as I still consider it the best propeller engine mod around; all respect to Blackheart and the Airplane Plus set, but I just cannot for the life of me design a plane that actually flies using those engines, whereas most any design I've tried with a KAX prop on the nose takes off like a dream. All we need is for someone to fix the sound bug. Most of this mod is still solid and probably doesn't need altering at all. Please, won't someone take up the call?

Excellent looking update, sir. I look forward to trying it out next time I reinstall KSP. Quick question/slight request, and believe me I hesitate to bring this up given your recent hard work and well deserved rest, but it's been on my mind since I saw the first screenshots of how buoyant these parts are and tested it for myself: What are the possibilities of possibly seeing a part for waterborn propulsion? Like, maybe a rear part with a built-in impeller, like a jet ski engine? I've tried equipping rovers (built using both your parts and the WildBlue Buffalo/Bison systems) with small Juno minijet engines, and while those work even when placed below the waterline they just don't have the power to push a substantial sized rover at more than about 20 m/s and they are horribly inefficient on fuel, made even worse on electric vehicles that typically don't carry fuel at all. Also, I often run into problems with the engines striking the ground when traveling over rough terrain and when entering the water. Just a thought, mind. I'm not by any means trying to demand anything. This mod is brilliant and I thank you for whatever direction you take it in.

And we're certainly glad to have any thread back to support this wonderful mod. Are you still working on this mod at all, keptin? Keeping it up to date, fixing that engine noise even when engines are not active issue?

Thank goodness this is back. I was really worried when my link to this mod's thread stopped working. I thought something horrible may have happened to one of my all-time favorite mods. I'm glad I was mistaken and that it is still alive and well, or at least merely dormant rather than dead.

Rather nice looking mod. Looks very much of Angel-125's "Buffalo" rover system. Overall, I congratulate you on the looks of this mod, particularly the level of detail you've put into your parts, especially the IVA's. Everything looks very sharp. Well done, sir. I look forward to giving it a test run. Speaking of Angel's "Buffalo", he's been wrestling for some time with how to do flexible connections for his mod with only limited success. Might I humbly suggest that you two perhaps get together and exchange information? Likewise, is there any possibility of a future development of this rover parts pack someday including an adapter section to make Feline rover parts compatible with Buffalo rover parts?

Huh. That's weird. It's the command cab (on the right in your pic, to be specific) that's lacking the IVA. That's very strange. I thought I'd installed everything properly, extracted everything to their proper places. And every time there's an update, I'm sure to delete my old Buffalo folder before installing the new one to ensure no conflicts or corruption. I'd be happy to send you some logs. Forgive my noobishness, but where might I find them?

Sorry to bring this up again, but there's still no interior view for the cockpit/cab portion, and hasn't been for a couple versions now. Is this something that's being worked on, or is it some sort of bug? I wouldn't make too big a fuss about it except I can't select any of my kerbals that are in that part; it's like they're not there even though I know I put them in prior to launch and I still have full control of the vehicle.

Thanks so much, sir. I did this and now everything works fantastically! I shall apply this process to the cargo elevator and other envelop parts.

Okay, I'm really sorry, but I am just utterly flummoxed by this rolling over problem. As an experiment, I've tried building just about the simplest airship I could think of how to build; basically three long envelop sections with a gyro ring at either end and a nose & tail cone in their proper places, the tailcone twisted round to an X pattern so the fins won't smack the runway, with a small Bison gondola slung underneath and engines extending at a slight downward angle from the gyro rings at either end of the ship (engines that I have yet to even turn on, I should note), all supported on stock 8 XL landing gear grouped fore and aft. No flight deck or anything on top since this is supposed to be a test ship. I'll see if I can post some pics to better explain how I built her and so you chaps can see what's going wrong. Tried taking off, set the HL airship controls for auto pitch & auto elevation, airship barely lifted off the ground and then started rolling to starboard, ending up upside down. Tried again, this time remembering to turn on the SAS, which apparently activates the gyro rings. Same thing happened; lift off, roll over. In exasperation I added two more gyro rings so that there are now 4 rings total separating all envelop sections. Made no difference, still rolled on take-off. I've tried my best to ensure that everything is symmetrical, that the COM remains in the center and slightly below center of the envelops, but no matter what I do it doesn't seem to make a difference, my ship just keeps ending up upside down. If anyone is willing, please PM me and I will gladly send you my .craft file for you to see what I'm doing wrong. As for me, I'm at a complete loss. What's really vexing me the most is that I've never had this problem with any earlier version of this style of mod; I never had rolling problems with old Hooligan Labs airships, I didn't even have it with the initial iterations of Heisenberg here. But since the updates that added flight decks and the like something's happened and the stability is just gone and I don't know why or how to compensate for it.

Finally got around to trying out the latest version of this excellent mod and... I'm really not sure if this is a bug or designer error, but when I went to test my first trial airship... the darn thing flipped upside down. It still flew, mind. Just... upside down. Best I can tell, this might be related to the Auto-Pitch option since it happened after that was activated, which I did to try to balance the ship and bring it back to level, which it kind of did. Just... upside down.

Nice update, Angel. Love the new parts. Only thing is that the cockpit has lost its interior view. Would that be the part you mentioned forgetting?

While I haven't gotten around to experimenting with this using the Heisenberg parts, I do recall taking a Hooligan Labs airship up to its max altitude some time ago. As I recall, I managed to get it up to around 16,000 meters before it leveled off, much higher than my KAX engines could breath, so I made much of the climb without power.

With respect, I'm inclined to disagree about it not looking right. Breaking up the lines like this isn't necessarily a bad thing as it helps the vehicle as a whole to look less boring and same-ish; look at the Amtrak Superliner lounge cars for example and how their design with an upper level that's nearly all windows breaks up the otherwise plain lines. Plus, it makes more sense for a greenhouse module to get as much natural light as possible. Maybe one might compromise around the door/hatch, but otherwise I think Roboray's photoshop looks pretty good. Just my thoughts. As always, take/mod/leave as you will.

I actually rather like these new gondola modules. I admit I wasn't too sold on them at first, particularly with such broad gaps between the windows and the windows themselves seeming too big and rectangular. But upon closer inspection they really do work for me. They rather remind me of double decker railway carriages, particularly with the rounded off corners on the roof. And considering that these will ultimately double as modules for a new series of larger rovers, the railway car comparison feels even more apt. And now that I've got that thought lodged in my head, 1. nice touch with the yellow line on the habitation module since yellow markings traditionally denote first class on trains, and 2. possible idea for when you get around to making cargo/hangar rover modules, giving them big sliding side doors like on boxcars or luggage vans. Anyway, great work, sir. Many congratulations. Very much looking forward to giving it a try.

Good lord, my man! That is truly the most glorious insanity! Fantastic work, sir. I feel obligated to ask though, given how much this flying carrier idea has taken off (pun partly intended), are you still considering the option of allowing us to use the hangar deck parts as cargo bays, installing them upside down so that cargo can be loaded or unloaded from beneath, either by KAS winches/Roverdude's Konstruction cranes, or perhaps a system similar to your flight decks, but upside down, allowing players to extend vehicle ramps or lifts from the underside of their airship? Also, I hope you'll forgive me mentioning it given our earlier spat, but I'm a bit tickled that you're going forward with the passenger gondola idea. You're right that most folks don't even use the interior view all that often, but airships are uniquely suited to long-range cruising with minimal required control input, thus making them ideal for kicking back with a favorite podcast/audiobook/music and just watching the world go by.

Oh dear. Here we go again. Just offering the thought, but with all three models presented so far apparently so close to completion, there's nothing wrong with including all three. Players do like options.

I feel I owe you an apology for my conduct in this thread. It's been a long time since I've been this excited about a new mod's development, or indeed about KSP in general. But I've been letting my excitement get away from me and have been getting overly pushy in my requests and suggestions. For that, I am honestly sorry. For what it's worth, I do think that this new command cab looks excellent, as does your rover version. I can easily see both designs being used for either purpose. Please, do keep up the good work.

Not a bad design, though I must admit I think it rather lacks some of the charm of the previous version. Your original design looked like it could be a proper airship command bridge and make for a unique looking rover front, whereas this frankly reminds me of an angular 80's car. I'm also rather concerned about visibility in this version. In the first version, visibility was excellent, particularly below, a much overlooked angle but very important for airship commanders. Here, visibility seems limited to all sides with no downward viewing angles at all. Of course, I recall your concerns about the original design, particularly with regard to headroom on the lower deck. Even so, I'm not sold on this new design and would humbly urge you to give your original design another look.