Daniel Prates

Probably not my brightest moment, but I cant seem to find where you toggle from kerbin to other planets/moons. Can someone show me where?

This looks like a paradox game map! CRUSADER KERBALS (tm)!!!!!!

@linuxgurugamer, There is something strange with that intake RCS part, intnended to guide planes through the atmosphere (as the part info say). So it's description states that it comsumes intakeair. I follow. It is supposed to be redirecting air, in RCS fashion. The idea is great - it allows you to stabilize a jumpjet or other VTOL or even STOL craft, somethig which is always tricky. Having it controlled by the RCS system really simplifies guidance. And it is realistic too - to my knowledge the Harrier did just that through a series of well-placed ports, only, redirecting exaust instead of the air intake. The problem is... as far as I could see, it generates thrust in impossible situations - even if the aircraft is stopped in the ground, without any engines working, and without consuming no EC or anything. Intake is merelly the air passing through the maw of the airplane. It may be sucked in if the air-breathing engine is turned on, or it may be being pushed inside by atmospheric pressure if the airplane is moving through the air (more speed, more of it is pushed in). But if the vessel is completelly stopped at the runway, engines turned off.... there can be no intake. And still the part can thrust like hell - and pretty strongly too. A few of them can take a several-tons beast of the ground. My point is, intakes in the game generate the 'air intake' resource even if stopped, but that should be understood only as a game convention. To my knowledge the game generates 'intake air resorce' all of the time because, in most situations, it makes no difference - or maybe, because it presumes that there is an engine there sucking it all of the time, so hence it is being generated all that time too. The paradox rises when you build a vessel that is nothing except a command pod and an intake, just standing there like a rock, and the generated 'intake' is nevertheless abundant. To me that proves that the consumable provided in the part tooltip is just a game convention. It shouldn't indeed be producing anything usable in a stopped, engines off situation. And still, the Quizteck intake thruster generates, all by itself, a lot of thrust. A third possibility, if we want it to make sense, is this part having it's own built-in 'fans' or turbines or something, which is acceptable in principle, but then it should be consuming something - EC, for instance! For the sake of realism, this should be tweaked, I think. Otherwise the part is merelly "motto perpetuum", something quite strange in a phisics-based game! Lastly, me b#%tches only because me cares! This is an excellent mod and this minor adjustment should deserve some meditation, me thinks. Congrats on an excellent mod!

It is very good anyway. I like the new system so much that I actually shelved "station science" alltogether, to give preference to kerbalism as a whole. But it would be excellent to see all mods dialoguing well some point in the future. Come to think of it, maybe the devs of those two mods should be warned about this too. Maybe there is something to be done from their end. I'll drop a line on their respective threads.

Oh and btw @XOC2008 thanks for this AVIATOR ARSENAL suggestion!

Ok, interesting! Thanks for taking the time to explain that. I thought engine design only started to show differences in performance as altitude went up.

That solves it, the way I see it. If it is correct, it is correct. Still makes me wonder how the wheseley performs that much worse having the same nominal thrust. I understand the altitude curve argument, @XOC2008, as indeed different engines may be designed to fare better in higher altitudes, like being supercharged for instance (i'm thinking RL, had no idea ksp mimicked that for airplane engines). But shouldnt they all be in the same competing terms at sealevel?

That maybe so but when performances are so different in all altitudes, sea level included, even though thrust is describrd as being the same, you realize that is not what is wrong.

Come to think of it, finding life in other bodies should be more explored in the game. Someobe should come up with a mod to cover that. Maybe experiment packs and randomly placed micro-life that yelds lots of science points.

I did the simplest of tests: made a single airplane, and flew it with both engines. Performances were strinkingy different (proving the tumansky is way more powerful) but if you check the part's description, they produce the same thrust (or 99% equal anyway). So I think its more like a bad description of the part's abilities in the VAB helper. Now which is more close to reality, its imposisble to say. Stock engines make sense when compared amongst themselves, as do parts within a same mod, but usually cross-comparing them generates issues - due to a lack of commom language, mostly. Maybe all that is necessary is to tweek the mod's description of the parts, thats all. In the tumansky's case the total KNs of thrust produced could be raised somewhat, for instace. @SpannerMonkey(smce) , if you like, I can do some experiments for you. You know, flying the same plane with all engines and measure the speeds. Then compar with stock engines. That can provide an accurate chart in which to base a new set of part descriptions.

@SpannerMonkey(smce) Ok! Gave a dedicated go at the mod. A few thoughts: 1. All intakes are in the "hypersonic flight" science node. I get some of them being there but "st-red"? It looks so "fifties"! I am sure you meant it as a mig-15 sort-of intake, so I think it should be in a lower science node! 2. The "tumansky" engine gives more or less 120 (59 +63) Kn of thrust. But so does the "wheseley" engine, although much less powerful. I always thought squad's standards of data and measurements for airplane parts to be a little arbitrary (unlike rocket parts), and i am sure you are probably more on the mark then they are - you didnt choose those kilonewton figures arbitrarily. I am also not saying that stock parts should be a "standard" (as for instance, if your tumansky engine is twice as powerfull than the wheseley, that it should mandatorilly have twicr the "x" KN vakue). Still.... it is strange to have perceivably more powerful parts than stock, being rated as having the same power output. Maybe this warrants some meditation! 3. The cockpits with no structutal cilinders like the k-109 was a great and very creative idea! Would you consider doing some variants such as blisters and turrets for 1940s-esque bombers? It would go great with BDA.

Ok i'll check it out! Tks!

Oh! I had no idea this could be done. You mean, to keep the CoM exactelly in the " geometric middle" of the ship and let the auto do the rest? Whenever I neglect balancing, when I set the auto-altitude, either the nose or the stern will point up very sharply.

Interesting way of thinking. I personally always had problems with manual downloading and installing mods - I like to use a lot of them and eventually mod-souping would create uncompatibility issues. I started using CKAN because it nearly elliminates those problems. I had no idea that there were purist modders who saw CKAN as an offensive venue for downloading and mixing mods! You really learn something everyday. Thanks for the input. I will download manually and check it out.

Not in CKAN?

@SpannerMonkey(smce) thanks, but that's not what i was talking about. I pretty much already know everything you said. Maybe I should explain better. In lighter than air ships, there should be a center of BUOYANCY, around which your CoM has to be planned. I read that "procedural airships" has a way to make it visible in the VAB-SPH - it was supposed to be accessible with the CoL button somehow, but I dont know. I inquired wether HLAirships had a way to display Center of BUOYANCY, to which @JewelShisen responded that it is in the CoLIFT (which it isn't. It will only display the mean center for all LIFT generating parts, disregarding buoyancy alltogether). So the sum of your answers makes me beleive that no, no Center of Buoyancy is displayed in anyway whatsoever. That makes designing a bit hard, since after you stary adding parts, the CoM will move all around. So where do you place it lastly in the final touches, since you do not know where the center of buoyancy is?!?! By trial and error?! But I found a workaround. Its not ideal but will do. It relies in the idea that the vessels CoM coincides with the CoBuoyancy when you have only the floating parts added. What you do is: build the float envelope without any other parts. Check the original CoM's position and "mark" it with a very light part, like an antenna. Then go about adding everything else: fuel tanks, engines, cockpits etc. When you are done, the CoM changed. It is now far from the CoBuoyancy, but how could you slide around parts in order to balance it, since you have no way to spot the center of buoyancy? That is what the original "marking" was for. Its a workaround but it works.

I see. Not so easy a thing to do then! Anyway, the mod is great and getting better each time!

Are you sure the CoM is in the right place? In an atmosphere entry, your object has to have low CoM that is situated in the front (movement wise, it must be prograde-placed). Also, the whole thing also needs radial simetry. If it is not thus designed, it will start to spin, and armosphere may keep feeding that speed with more torque in each turn. Eventually it becomes uncontrolable. If your project is correct, then think about some extra reaction wheels to keep it alligned.

@Keniamin sorry for prolonging this issue.... indeed I checked and now I am running current GAP. However... the actual "konstructs: kerbin side" available in CKAN is unappealably 1.1.3. I am guessing this doesn't do any harm though. Or the current GAP demands higher (if there is one)?

Ok, great! Many thanks!

@blackheart612 a question though: is it difficult to create a part that, undeployed, generates a lift rating of (lets say) 1, but when toggled, generates 2? That would mimic flaps correctly!

@blackheart612 a question though: is it difficult to create a part that, undeployed, generates a lift rating of (lets say) 1, but when toggled, generates 2? That would mimic flaps correctly!

Hahaha! Laughing hard here. Its a good thing I have "eva parachutes". Good for the kerbal, that is! Ok, I understood. The other bug is not normal then? The charter mission was to carry 39 nameless tourists. There were 38 at the SPH, making it impossible to fullfill it. However clearly I am using a troublesome version of the mod. Sorry my asking, its just that apparently some mods stopped being updated since 1.1.3 as apparently it remains current. Since no newer version appears in CKAN I assumed it was the case. It never occured me that my CKAN version could be old! I'll check. Thanks for the tip! And kudos on the great work. Finally, a tip of my own: can't there be a configurable slider somewhere so that the contracts rewards are tweaked a bit?

@ShotgunNinja I have noted a weird interaction of Kerbalism with two other mods, which I think its important to report. I am not saying this is a complaint and neither that any one mod should adapt regarding any other one! This is just something worth looking into. The thing is, in the currwnt way that Kerbalism collects science, it is generating conflicts with some functions of DMAGIC ORBITAL SCIENCE mod, and it completelly inviabilizes STATION SCIENCE. In the orbital science case, some experiments were supposed to be used two or three times (the mini goo, for instance, had two samples that allowed two logs by remote control), but apparently the data-storage system of kerbalism is not allowing that. Its just the one and that's it. With station science its more serious a problem. This mod provides parts that must be "completed" after some criteria are met and then returned to kerbin. With kerbalism this became impossible, since clicking "finalize results" ends up generating science the usual way, ruining the returnable experiment (you can return it but its useless). Now, again, I am not presuming to say who should conform to who. But those two mods are i.m.h.o. important comunity assets and making them dialogue a little better shoukd be worth some investigating into!

@Keniamin, CKAN exibiths only a 1.1.3 version of this mod as the most current. Is it all the same, or should I necessarilly get it elsewhere to have good results? With the CKAN download I experienced some weirdnesses: a contract was impossible to fullfill because it gave me less tourists to carry than missions specifications, for instance. In another time, a contract required me to carry this specific kerbal, but not only he was not available in the SPH to be loaded in, but also when I launched the craft, he appeared... falling from the sky! So I ask wether I absolutelly have to use some other version of this mod, other than the CKAN-available. Also any other guidelines would be appreciated!