Jump to content

FahmiRBLX

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    335

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by FahmiRBLX

    KSP Aircraft Standardization Effort [READ WHOLE OP] [WIP]

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted · Edited by FahmiRBLXian

    4 hours ago, Commander Zoom said:

    I'd be surprised if you got even 10 other people (besides yourself) to go with your arbitrary craft-numbering scheme, let alone "everyone".

    1. First of all, I'm trying to get most of us discussing for a more appropriate designation for every role. Like some people may prefer the designation 'X-Wing' instead of just the letter 'F' for fighters. Take note that it's still WIP.
    2. Model numbers and namings are up to users. As long as (What I'm hoping for) the designation letters are at the beginning or end of the model name.
    4 hours ago, Commander Zoom said:

    ... Let alone "everyone".

    3. Read the Notes section carefully. It's not mandatory.

    KSP Aircraft Standardization Effort [READ WHOLE OP] [WIP]

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted

    55 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

    Normally, we frown upon discussing moderation in public, but this move might need a little explanation, and there might be more than you wondering why I did that.  Having a rigid designation system for types of craft really only applies to those who are willing to share those crafts with others, so they can easily see what type of craft they are dealing with, and since all traffic relating to sharing crafts goes into Spacecraft Exchange, that's where I put this.   This cannot apply to other types of users, as this is a single player game, and since there's no way I'm going to name my ships the way somebody else tells me to, I cannot expect it to apply to others as well.  If you'd like to discuss it further, by all means, drop me a PM and we can talk. 

    If you can get the community behind you in using a designated naming system for craft, more power to you.  But I know the mods will not police this, as mentioned, it is a single player game, and we cannot expect everybody, especially new people, to adhere to an arbitrary classification system.  It's a noble effort, and I applaud you for trying.  But with my experience in trying to get the modding community to just tag their threads from a set list of categories, I know this won't get much traction.  It seems like a decent system, but getting everybody to adhere to it when there is little benefit to majority of players, is a lofty goal.  I personally don't usually number my craft, I give them odd names, so a year later, I have no idea what the craft is intended to do.  Perhaps I should use a system like this, but I'm not, because that's not how I enjoy playing the game. 

    Just one question : Any ideas on what's the relationship between mods (I mean game mods, not Moderators) and the designation? I meant this standardization to apply on a whole craft, not a single mod. And crafts might comprise of several different mods.

    [1.4.x-1.8.x] Airplane Plus - R26.4 (Fixed issues/Github is up to date) (Dec 21, 2019)

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

    Mk1 passenger cabins have the same behavior. It's only Mk2 and 3 that support EVA (in stock), and it's because they have a dorsal hatch.

    Well the mentioned situation is that when noth sides of the Mk1 cabin has something attached either by radially on the surface or via nodes. While @Frankenshtine's situation is that no EVAs can be performed even with both sides are left empty; just pure air.

    KSP Aircraft Standardization Effort [READ WHOLE OP] [WIP]

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted · Edited by FahmiRBLXian
    Typo

    25 minutes ago, Gargamel said:

    standards.png

     

    Well all of us could discuss on letters for different aircraft roles that all of us agrees, and hence the reason I put this on KSP Discussion at the first place.

    And hence turning the '15 Standards Problem' situation by unifying them as one, hence we got a single standard we all agree.

    Though when you said that you moved the thread to Spacecraft Exchange I

    thought I posted the thread in the wrong subforum.

    KSP Aircraft Standardization Effort [READ WHOLE OP] [WIP]

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted · Edited by FahmiRBLXian

    5 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

    Some people’s don’t even have aircraft. 

    Additionally, everyone has their own mod preferences and building styles, meaning that trying to force your system on them is only going to suppress the brilliant individuality that is indigenous to this game and this forum. Craft designation can be creative in its own way.

    I know that, hence the word aircraft in the OP, which means only applies for aircrafts. For rocket buffs, they don't need to build their own plane for.

    EDIT : OP has been updated.

    [1.4.x-1.8.x] Airplane Plus - R26.4 (Fixed issues/Github is up to date) (Dec 21, 2019)

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, Jognt said:

    If you find yourself in the situation where you have to rescue a Kerbal in a vessel that:
    - it cannot get out of;
    - you cannot dock with;
    - is not covered by mods that fix this sort of thing;

    Then (if you have The Klaw™ unlocked) use the the claw/klaw to 'dock' with said vessel (it counts as docking) and transfer over the crew that way. Note that there are also contract where you have to bring the part the kerbal is in back with you too, but that should be noted in the contract.

    Wait I thought the Klaw denies crew transfers. :0.0:

    [1.4.x-1.8.x] Airplane Plus - R26.4 (Fixed issues/Github is up to date) (Dec 21, 2019)

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted · Edited by FahmiRBLXian
    Morse is more fun than inverted spelling

    37 minutes ago, blackheart612 said:

    I don't know what to say, it was supposed to be cut content because I thought it's redundant to the KSP DLC parts, it's easily doable even if I don't put the part in, to be honest. I don't remember anymore, I think KAX already has harrier jets? I know some popular mod had it so I had no reason to make it back then.

    I'm not gonna say that thehinge wing is redundant, but is, seriously no joke, a genius solution in terms of making variable-geometry wings without the expense of more drag and no lift. I even hyped for that part to make a variable-swept wing fighter.

    Seriously, you should bring that hinge wing into the next update.

    To decipher :

    ... . . / ... .--. --- .. .-.. . .-.

    Spoiler

    Talking about new parts, what about the requested Beluga parts and the new Mk3S4 and other's request-Mk3S2?

     

    KSP Aircraft Standardization Effort [READ WHOLE OP] [WIP]

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted · Edited by FahmiRBLXian

    [WIP]

    What I'm doing here is not to simply execute a roleplay here, but to standardize things out. Ever became sick of non-standardized stuff around the uploaded planes?

    Anyways, this only applies to planes, feel free to call whatever for your rockets.

    Important : Model Prefixes are open for discussions.

    VERY IMPORTANT : Before anyone complain, read this whole post. This standardization isn't mandatory, but tail number prefix is a bit prioritized.

    Number One

    Aircraft Tail Number

    Some might came with the idea on applying tail numbers of their planes in Mission Reports, but the prefixes aren't exactly the same. So now, 

    I petition that the tail number prefix of the whole Kerbin is 10K-*.

    Case closed.

    Number Two

    Model Prefix

    So what we have around here? Airliners, freighters, helicopters, bombers, ground attack, gunship, SSTO, submersiles, lighter-than-air, sea-based, Green propulsion, etc?

    Bear in mind this have similarities with the standard United States aircraft designations. If the aircraft serves for more than one role, the aircraft shall have both alhabets representing its roles. Example, a ground attack aircraft and bomber has AB-* or it is also a fighter, hence ABF-*. Or it's an experimental fighter VTOL SSTO, hence XVSF-*. Numbers, letters or words before and after this is up to you. Example : Frontinco-North American YF-86M Venom Sabre, Royal Aerospace P-Box II, GAI P-K38/52, etc.

    Alphabet Role
    A Ground Attack
    B Bomber
    C Freighter
    D* Lighter-Than-Air (Airships) (e.g Heisenberg Mod)
    E Reconnaissance
    F Fighter
    G Gyrocopters & rotary-wing aircraft with separate engine for forward propulsion.
    H Helicopter
    I Ornihopter
    J Gunship (Must use with prefix A-, such as AJ-*) (Applies to heavily-armed ground attack aircraft, in other words, buff planes)
    K Other body-optimised (Planes you make to fly in atmospheres other than Kerbin or didn't perform good enough (Or efficient enough) on Kerbin but good on Duna, Eve, etc.) (Only for planes optimised for atmospheres unable to support Jet Engine operations)
    L Rocket-propelled aircraft
    M  
    N  
    O Glider
    P Airliner
    Q Unmanned
    R Conversion
    S* SSTO
    T Trainer
    U* Utility (General Aviation or No purpose)
    V VTOL
    W Research (Planes that fly to take experiments from a body)
    X Experimental (Let's say you're making your first Breaking Grounds electric plane, but you're still tweaking it around to get things right, a lot)
    Y Almost-final version (The one, let's say, you're making a Duna SSTO, but the 'final' design isn't used for the real deal)
    Z Electric propulsion (Xenon or Electric Propeller)

     

    Note

    • This will apply to future planes. Don't hesitate to not to go to KerbalX only to change your airplane naming but you may change it as you wish to follow this standard or not.
    • Letters with no 'explanation text' in the above list means no roles designated to the alphabets.
    • Letters in the above list, marked with Asterisk (*) means they're less encouraged, but still encouraged at a 'lower' level.
    • You may choose to not to use this, but I encourage the usage of this guideline.
    • The whole guideline isn't mandatory, but again, encouraged.
    • Don't hesitate to reply if you have suggestions or thoughts.

    The Frontinco Mission Contract Logs

    in KSP1 Mission Reports

    Posted · Edited by FahmiRBLXian

    5L0CGqo.png

    FRONTINCO's Mission Contract Logs & Reports

    Welcome to the main thread of Frontinco's mission reports. Here we send reports on our missions, whether it's about a formal mission or simply whackjobs.

    Mission Reports

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by FahmiRBLXian
    Excuse me floolwing? what the

    Before going to bed (Well I'm quite late to go sleep atm) I decided to do something rather simple; building jets.

    The jet here, is named "Frontinco-North American Republic Saber" since of its appearance that almost based on the North American F-86 Saber except with higher-profile wings.And I've decided to give it the tail number 10K-VNMSBR. VNM stands for "Venom", while SBR stands for "Saber". Why I choose "Venom"? because one of Eminem's song, "Venom" and its album cover has an F-86 Sabre. Picture in spoiler.

    Spoiler

    Eminem - Kamikaze album

    Related image

    ... Which then made me felt weird. Back in WW2, it's the Japanese who practiced Kamikaze-ing, not Americans. And checked that there's no Japanese license-built versions of this plane.

    6ywkLBg.pngFJ5b1d0.png

    Decided to go Space Shuttle status for fun.

    Four airports are visited on my way testing. Two of them are from Kerbinside Remastered. South Field, Dessert Airfield, Kojave Sands and Baikerbanur (KSR Facelift that puts a runway there). Pictured are only at Dessert and Baikerbanur.

    Rph47dV.png

    DXqrh1d.pngldsbxGR.png

    Cool picture?

    hKdgqIj.png

    Near Dessert Airfield.

    JuwA78V.png

    Runway in sight.

    EeZxIAj.png

    Base leg, runway 36.

    FBYsSJS.png

    On short final.

    Between the floolwing landing and the holding short shot, I've landed there. Originally I went back to SPH via Space Center (Not via reverting) to build a tanker truck to refuel the plane. But since I've checked the info that even the Klaw is unable to perform crossfeeds, I've decided to go back to the plane, fire it up and head for Kojave Sands with half tank left. Miracle had it that Kojave and Baikerbanur are pretty close.

    xtVSNtn.png

    Cleared for takeoff, runway 36, 10K-VNMSBR.

    So I forgot to take a screenshot upon arriving at Kojave. It's a very short stop that I stopped on the runway the less than 10 seconds I went back into the sky.

    And finally I landed in Baikerbanur. Sadly, I forgot once again to take the last moment before it shattered into pieces after a tailstrike during taxiing. Why during taxiing? Because I've taxied too fast, at 23 m/s in which the nose can be lifted up by the massive elevators. The engine struck the tarmac first, then the BDAC radar followed by some more parts. The end for the flight.

    Using Vessel Mover, I've moved Jeb onto the roof of the original VAB the stock game brought into via the Easter Egg and prior to parachuting down, I've discovered a that the old VAB has a fully cuboid collision mesh.

    LZo1jkz.png

    A4OoJu8.png

    [Insert Confused Math Lady meme here]

    And that's the end of today's logbook. See you guys tomorrow.

×
×
  • Create New...