8bitsblu

I can't seem to get my tailhook to function correctly. So far I've been forced to land without a tailhook, which is possible, but a bit of a close call. when I toggle the tailhook, the game says the tailhook's deployed, but there's no animation and the hook remains static. It seems to have no effect on the arresting wire as well. Sometimes it seems to register for a second and the wire bends, but is static and doesn't affect the aircraft. It's especially weird because the catapult and carrier works fine. Am I the only one with this issue? Is it a compatibility thing? I don't think I'm using any mods that would conflict but who knows with Unity games. Edit: After testing with a different aircraft, it seems like the whole mod is broken for me. The carrier itself works fine and can store aircraft, but the catapult is completely broken. Once it locks itself onto the front wheel of my plane it just throws it around until I launch it, where it then launches the plane no matter what position its thrown into, which usually breaks the aircraft and throws the remains off the deck. While this would make a great automatic deck cleaning system, I doubt that's what this mod was made for. Can someone help? Edit 2: Nevermind, got it working.

Looks like 1.2 broke this mod. Anybody got a fix?

Everything's working fine for me except that animations aren't symmetrical. Also it seems like extending the leading and trailing edges greatly increases drag while not increasing lift. Don't know if that's something new or just me.

Yeah I do agree that the Scramjets need to be updated a bit. I also agree that "scramjet only" intakes are a bad idea, I've never liked the thought of implementing that. I will probably be reworking the appearances and stats of the scramjets once I finish the chine parts. Honestly I kind of want to give the whole mod a visual revision.

So I've installed the 1.1 version of firespitter and the animations still aren't working in my game. Propellers do produce thrust, but they make no sound or animations. Is this a problem anyone else is having?

I'm having an issue with animations not working. When I use firespitter propellers neither the animations or the sound plays. Is this an issue with 1.1 or did I install incorrectly?

Alright so I've tested this mod in 1.1 and it looks like it mostly checks out. Except for the XE404, which is now ittybitty for some reason. Scramjets are confirmed to work fine, I havent checked the XE303 since there isn't a 1.1 version of firespitter out yet but it looks like it actually aligns better in the editor now, so that's a plus. The new parts aren't ready yet, but I'll work on a compatibility release to make sure everything's peachy with 1.1.

This is probably a dumb question but does anyone know if we should upgrade to Unity 5 for KSP v1.1? I figured that I probably wouldn't but I want to be sure. Even if it's not needed would anyone recommend upgrading anyways? Is the UI and methods for setting up mods similar?

The download has been updated and the mod is back up!

Holy excrements it's been a while. Sorry everyone, college gets in the way of everything. Anyways I'll be reuploading the mod to SpaceDock and linking it in the OP. Also hopefully in the next update I'll be adding hypersonic fuselage parts (with sexy chines) possibly along with a new engine that'll be a blend of the F-22's F119 engine and the F-35's F135 engine. It'll have 2D thrust vectoring along with slightly higher thrust than the J-404 Panther. It'll be optimized for supercruise for all of those people out there who like to go places fast and still be able to pull a 180 degree turn in a half second. The next update will be coming whenever 1.1 comes around, as I don't want to risk releasing a bagillion parts and then have them immediately break. Have fun friends.

[quote name='Lego8_bit']is this mod compatible with 1.0.5 ???[/QUOTE] It should be. honestly I haven't tested it yet in my own game but I don't think any changes were made in this update that would really affect these parts. You might need a later version of firespitter though as the current one is a bit outdated. If everything works fine then I probably won't update till 1.1. I'm thinking that there might be some issues when that update comes.

I know it is. I even stated it in the text "Closely based on the USA Tri-Service aircraft designation system." Not just the Air Force uses it either, all three branches do. It's not exactly the same, however. Some letters are changed to better fit KSP. For example, under the real life system "S" stands for "Anti-Submarine Warfare". Plus in the real-life version the ordering of the letters doesn't matter, whereas in my system it does.

A while back I decided to create my own system of aircraft naming based on real-life systems. Does anyone else do this? This is my method: Instell Inc. Aircraft Classification System Closely based on the USA Tri-Service aircraft designation system. Name format is [Prefix][VT][PM][SM][TM]-[Number][Name] Vehicle type always goes before mission, prefix goes before everything. Mission type isn't necessarily needed. For instance if you have a spaceplane that carries cargo to orbit, it would be fine to designate it "S-123" or "SC-123". Status Prefix (ex: XF-23, YF-35B): G=Permanently Grounded (Probably won't be used in a game like KSP.) X=Experimental Y=Prototype Vehicle Type/Mission Type (Goes before secondary mission and number): A=Attack (primarily air-to-ground combat) B=Bomber (doesn't apply to fighter-bombers) C=Cargo/Carrier E=Electronic F=Fighter (applies to fighter-bombers, multirole fighters, and some interceptors) G=Glider H=Helicopter I=Interceptor (Fills a similar role to fighter. mission usually entails quick deployment to destroy a missile or other high-speed attack.) K=Tanker (For refuelling) L=Laser-equipped (Not applicable to Fighters or Attack aircraft equipped with laser targeting systems.) M=Multi-mission (not applicable to multirole fighters. Think aircraft that would fit too many classifications to be easily explainable.) O=Observation (Different from Reconnaissance.) P=Patrol (Think aircraft that are built to fly for long periods of time to patrol an area, generally automated. Use kOS for this.) Q=Unmanned Vehicle R=Reconnaissance (similar to Observation, but generally more stealthy.) S=Spaceplane T=Trainer U=Utility V=VTOL aircraft X=Special Research (If this applies, don't use the "X" Prefix, this is enough.) Z=Lighter-Than-Air (pretty much exclusive to modded crafts.) For secondary and tertiary missions just use the same classifications as above. If aircraft has more than three classifications just use "M" to indicate a multi-mission aircraft. If you have your own system that's different from mine please share it. I'm interested to see how you guys name your crafts.

- - - Updated - - - I can't say I'm familiar with that. Care to elaborate?

My next projects are going to be a nuclear turbojet and a ducted fan for VTOL aircraft. The nuclear turbojet will be my first Mk.2 sized part, and the ducted fan will have Mk.1 and Mk.2 part types. I'm also considering making the nuclear tubojet able to gimbal downwards for VTOL as well, to compliment the ducted fan, or maybe make a separate engine with that capability. - - - Updated - - - Sorry, I don't think I'll make this change. I don't know what math you've been doing, but the sources I used to make this engine placed the top speed range at Mach 12 to 24. The engine already has a slightly lower activation speed than in real life, so I don't think raising the top speed would be very balanced.

I have noticed this as well. Unfortunately I couldn't come up with a satisfactory fix before the update deadline I set for myself. It's probably an issue with how Unity generates collision meshes. Once I'm back home from Japan I'll try to just make the collision mesh by hand and see if that helps.

KerbalStuff generally takes care of CKAN for me. So I can't really help you there. Sorry.

I could definitely do this, though I wouldn't outright reuse the XE-202 model. That'd be lazy - - - Updated - - - Eeh I'm not so sure about this one. The only use I can really imagine for these would be to get the XE-101 and 202 up to speed, which is a job that the XE-404 is more than capable of

it isn't intended, but with the way jet sounds work in the game that's how it turned out. I'll see if I can't fix that today.

Thank you so much for the suggestion! That finally got it working. I have no idea why exactly it wasn't working before but it works now! Version 1.6 is now out with the XE-404 engine!

A little update on the progress of the XE-404: I literally just need to get the sound files working and it will be done. Neither the stock or firespitter configs are working... and I have no idea why.

The memory footprint shouldn't be that big. The models are all relatively low-poly, and the textures aren't especially large either. It could be that I'm using .png for textures, rather than other, smaller formats. After I get this update out of the way I'll look into compressed textures.

Very good point. Here is a revised sound: https://soundcloud.com/space-aids/pulsedet-soundhigher

Hmm... Honestly I think that's a bit too high pitched. After all, unlike the examples shown in the various videos posted here, this is a rather large tube. I think it would have a lower pitch than the irl engines.

Alright so I have a sort of "rough draft" of the XE-404's sound effect. Uploaded it to soundcloud. https://soundcloud.com/space-aids/pulsedet-sound EDIT: Oh I nearly forgot to mention DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS WITH HEADPHONES.