Neutrinovore

Porkjet, dude, you are totally awesome, and this mod is my favorite parts pack right now, hands down! I need to build space stations and interplanetary exploration vessels, but all I can seem to focus on is building spaceplanes with YOUR parts! I mean, I have an excellent passenger spaceplane built that's gone through maybe a dozen atmospheric and orbital flights, and I don't even have anything or anywhere to take passengers to, I just love flying the thing! But, that being said, would you please for the love of KOD put the version number of the mod in the TITLE of the archive?!? It's not that hard, is it? Changing "SpaceplanePlus" to "SpaceplanePlus1.1", or "SpaceplanePlus1.2", etc.? Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?

Hey, Helldiver, congrats on the release of the Super 25! I've downloaded it, and am about to install. But, after watching Nazari's video, which is really cool btw, , I have something to say that I know you're not going to want to hear. Here goes... The rear landing gear, on BOTH shuttles, is TOO FAR FORWARD. Yes, I know, you've heard this before from other people (who were and are right, btw), and wanted nothing to do with the issue. I also know that you personally think that placing the landing gear where you have makes the shuttles "Look Cool", and that you have sworn to never break the "Rule of Cool". And that's all fine, these excellent craft are your creations and you have every right to make them however you want. The thing is, if you observe the 'real' Space Shuttles (may they R.I.P.), you will note that the rear gear is quite a bit farther to the rear of the ship, and there is one very simple, very LOGICAL reason for this: It is so that the Shuttle can come in nose-high, flaring into a 'wing in ground effect' state, and touch down on the runway without striking the tail surfaces. The farther forward the rear gear is located, the lower the possible angle-of-attack. The only other solution would be to make the landing gear taller, but first of all that would look silly, definitely violating your 'RoC', and also it would create strength, weight, and packaging issues inside the structure, so that's why they don't do it IRL. They make the gear a reasonable length, and they locate the wheels farther back. I am actually a bit confused as to why you resist this reasoning, mainly because the only reason for such placement (aside from how it looks, I mean) would be to make the craft easier to rotate for takeoff, like a jetliner needs, which you've clearly stated several times to several different posters that this shuttle, just like with all 'true' Shuttles, isn't designed to take off like an airplane, only to land like one. So, the question becomes, "Why would it matter if the rear gear were located farther rearward, if the ship would and should never take off like an airplane?" If anything, it would make the thing a HELL of a lot easier to land, right? I have no idea how many people have posted on this thread about how hard this is to land, and I'm betting that they don't mean 'it's really hard to find and line up with the runway', although I'm sure that's part of it. No, I think the problem is more along the lines of 'everything is going great until I actually LAND, but whenever I do, the back end of the Shuttle breaks off and explodes, which in turn causes the rest of the plane to turn into a fiery pinwheel of death as it careens down the runway'. Okay, I may be using just a touch of poetic license there with that last part, but I think you get my point. Anyway, I still really dig everything you've done for KSP, and the only reason I don't have the complete KSO installed right now is that I'm having a severe problem with parts-bloat, mainly because I WANT ALL THE PARTS!!! Heh heh... . And, since the KSO Phase I couldn't handle full 2.5 meter parts, it was kind of a 'do I really REALLY need it?' question. But now that the Super 25 is out, I'm pretty sure that it's going to stay in there permanently. Sigh, I just don't know exactly what I'll have to delete now though. So, just to recap, I have nothing but good things to say about ALL of the KSO mods, and I only raise the landing-gear-location issue as a matter of philosophical difference, if you will. Kudos again, Helldiver, keep on keepin' on!

Ummm, okay. It might have been prudent to wait until you actually had images to show, but it's cool, I'm always looking for new and different and interesting parts to add to my already ridiculously overburdened parts catalog, lol. I look forward to seeing what you've got planned.

I agree with Gaalidas, that sure looks finished to me! On a related note, I notice that in all of your testing videos and pictures so far, none show a bespoke, built-in landing leg system or module, but in your initial concept images you depict one. I hope you're still planning to develop landing gear that match the rest of the 'Konquest' system? I sure don't want to have to just tack on some stock landing legs like you do in your videos. No offense... Anyway, you (Alex) have such a fantastic attention to detail shown by only a few other modders. Sumghai, Bac9, and BahamutoD are a few that spring to mind. Keep up the great work, and I am certainly looking forward to a release of the Konquest system soon! But hopefully not Soontm, lol!

Hmm. The docking port still isn't working for me, it must be a conflict with another of my very many mods.

Neato, I'm quite interested in the 'First Light' project. Do you perhaps have any new pics of the development process for us to drool over?

Agreed. Is there any possibility of getting an alternate texture (black) for the RCS ports? This way the parts I put on the bottom of my spaceplanes would blend in better. This is a request only, not a demand. Very much in the 'nice to have' category, as opposed to 'need to have'. Have great day, all!

Ah. Well, I guess I didn't get the joke. I'll not inflict myself upon this thread any further then.

Hmm. I've seen a lot of pictures posted of really neat SSTO's using the inline docking port, but I have one question: Has anyone actually docked to anything with it? See, here's the thing, in the config there are only 2 nodes specified, the front and back stack nodes. So when I click 'control from here', it controls the plane from the front stack node, which means that the navball orientation remains the same, and all RCS translation commands are not aligned to the face of the docking port, but to the nose of the plane. Okay, fine, I'll cope with the extra challenge. Moving in to dock by visually aligning the docking ports, no dice. The docking port just bounces off of a clamp-o-tron, no magnetism, nothing. So I figure that if the 'control from here' node is the front one, called out as 'node_stack_top' in the config, that's probably where the thing would want to dock to, huh? I looked at Squad's stock part, and the B9 radial docking port as well, and they don't look significantly different from the SP+ config, so I don't know what the deal is exactly. Perhaps something got missed in the model rigging? Anyway, I'll mess with it some more in-game, but I don't think I'll get any different results. Just a heads up, since I'd not seen anyone mention this problem. The rest of the pack works bang-on, btw, I use these parts almost exclusively for building spaceplanes now. I just want to dock with my space station! Later.

@Spartan-S63 and jnrobinson: It says clearly "Balanced LES Boosters - Usable as Powered Landing System". Not much ambiguity there. So, in my experience, the LES system is NOT balanced, and is therefore NOT usable as a 'Powered Landing System'. False advertising, or an honest (if pretty significant) mistake? Anyway, a solid fuel rocket setup doesn't really work as a landing system at all, which is why I converted the LES to MonoProp engines via config edits. IMO, this is something that should have been done by the developers if they were truly interested in creating an all-in-one powered landing pod. I mean, as an alternate config in the archive, much like the config that removes the engines altogether. So there would (ideally) be 3 config files in the download: one for the original asymmetric solid rocket LES, one for (ACTUALLY!) balanced-thrust LFO or monoprop powered landing engines, and one that removes the engines completely for those that want that. Finally, as I've reviewed the thread looking for this post to quote, I see that I'm not the only one having the mysterious nose-pitching-down-uncontrollably issue. I told you, it's not me, it's something in the part itself. So, anyhow, for what it's worth. Later, all.

Hello. I finally decided to download this pod because of the changes in v1.1, specifically the built-in thrusters being balanced so as not to create torque. But, there's a bit of a problem, because they aren't. Using RCSBuildAid clearly shows a large imbalance of thrust, and there's an additional thrust vector arrow INSIDE the pod, in the nose up by the top attachment node, but offset to the 6 o'clock position. The red torque arrow indicates several kn/m's of negative pitch torque, and this is confirmed in actual use, the pod pitches down uncontrollably no matter what MechJeb or I manually tries to do to correct it. Oddly, if I place a counterweight to null out the indicated torque in the VAB, with RCSBuildAid showing absolutely no torque at all, the ship STILL pitches nose down under thrust. And before I get spammed with a lot of suggestions for simple solutions, this ain't my first rodeo, friends. I've tried everything it's possible to do regarding checking for mod conflicts, config editing and/or errors, etc. I can only conclude that there's something hidden in the model itself, either an out-of-place thrust transform, or a COM offset that isn't in the config, something. Could there be more drag on one side of the pod than the other? I don't use FAR, but having unbalanced lift or drag on a vessel will still throw a ship caddy-whompus, believe me. Anyway, just thought I'd mention this, see if anyone else was having the same issue. Later!

Yeah, naw, that's cool. I had PM'd Lack about a couple of other ideas for cargo bays too, but I guess he's not real eager to make any new parts right now. At least, not rectangular ones. (Even though there's already how many squillion different ROUND rocket parts available already...) Oh, wait, did I say that out loud?

Hm. Every time I see that there's a new post, I get my hopes up that there will finally be some new cargo bays... But, anyway, good to see that Lack and MrWizerd are still working on things. Hopefully someday my wishes will be granted. Later.

NOICE!! Just in time for the weekend, too! Thanks very much, Yogui, for working to update all of your neat mods for us. Later!

Yep, figures, the download link is broken!

Hmm, interesting. Any pictures or concept art to show what you're aiming for?

Oh absolutely, I'm always interested in new (read: BETTER-LOOKING and -FUNCTIONING) command pods and related structural parts. Edit: In fact, the more I think about it, there's one thing I'd really like to see developed for this command pod: A NON-Parachute docking port that is a fully enclosed aerodynamic (looking) nosecone. Without the Apollo style probe on the front, I mean. Not that the stock shielded docking port doesn't look fine on the front of the KP0110, but I think if you did a pass on a part that was made specifically for this pod, it would look and function that much better. Just a suggestion. It's just that I don't use parachutes, I play with a 'sci-fi' style, infinite fuel and such, so I always do powered landings, I just think it's cooler that way. So if there were a 'KP0110'-styled shielded docking port to match the pod, I'd use the pod that much more, lol. Later!

Wow! If the new parts look even ONE PERCENT as beautiful as your new logo, they'll be fantastic indeed!

LMAO, okay Lack, that's cool, as long as you're considering them. Sorry to have been a pest about the additional cargo bays, I'm just really having a hard time designing a Rover Carrier to my satisfaction with the current parts available, in ALL mods, I mean. TTYL friends!

Wait, so... I'm confused. Now we're waiting for weapons to be finished before the cockpits are available? Lovely.

See, Lack, I'm not the only one!!

Hear hear, well said Sarbian! Now, to new business: I have a suggestion for a slight adjustment of the functioning of the Rendezvous Autopilot. I have no idea if this would be practical to implement, or even if it's possible at all, but here we go... Currently, when I engage the 'RendAuto', as the toolbar button says, my MJ enabled craft plots the intercept just fine, matches planes, sets up phasing orbits, all hunky dory. When it gets close, or, well, anytime it's 'plotting course for intercept', I notice that MJ attempts to aim the ship directly at the target craft, and then plot a burn to try to stop short of the target by the distance set in the Autopilot, let's say 100m for this example. Depending in conditions, this can lead to a plotted 'closest approach distance' measured in, at times, millimeters. So if MJ is just a bit late on the node for the braking burn, I end up with a nice Kessler debris cloud and short 2 ships, not to mention a few Kerbals too. So here's my proposal: when I set the 'desired final distance' of 100m, I'd like to see MJ plot a course that will take my ship PAST the target with a 'closest approach distance' of NO LESS THAN 100 meters. Basically, plot a course to a tangent point on a circle with a 100m radius, centered on the target, instead of plotting a course DIRECTLY AT the target and then trying to stop before breaking the surface of a 100m radius sphere centered on the target, get it? This way, if the burn is a little late (or I ran out of fuel or power, or I forgot to stage the engines, whatever) the ship safely bypasses the target with no risk of collision, or of giving me a heart attack with a 'bullet burn' level near-hit, as I've also experienced several times! Again, the above may not be easily done or even possible, but I thought I'd throw the idea out here as food for thought. Carry on, as you were.

Lol, kewl, 'DC' it is. It's the same with me, btw, if you or anyone else reading this ever encounter 'Neutrinovore' anywhere else on 'teh interwebs', it's me. At least as far as I know no one has ever used that name before. Anyway, to the topic at hand: Yeah, I've thought about this off and on for the last few hours, and I really think that FS's texture switching is going to be the only way to go. I mean, let's say you introduce 10 different panel shapes in your first release, each in 3 different sizes (small, medium, large), and 5 different texture options for each part as well. Blammo, that's 150 parts added to the SPH/VAB catalogs! Yes, I know, if you use model scale and texture callouts it's still only 10 parts and 5 textures in MEMORY, but now I've just doubled or tripled the number of editor pages I have to wade through in the 'structural' category alone! I think it would be much better to just pick, say, the single 'Hex Panel' part, then scale it with TweakScale and pick the texture I want, and done. But if you don't want to do the TweakScale thing, it's still 'only' 30 parts, not 150. Much more manageable. So, again, another $0.02.

Mmm, great idea! Which in turn gives me several ideas and suggestions: First, regarding textures: Hell yeah! The ones you've shown in the pics, I mean. I've always felt the need for a more 'sci fi' option in the game, that's why I really like the B9 and LLL packs. But both are still a bit plain in certain ways when it comes to textures, so a mod like this could help make things look a bit more interesting. I think the easiest way to go would be to get with Snjo and implement Firespitter's texture switching capability. This way you can create ONE part for each panel shape (which I'll address in a moment), and so not using up more memory than necessary while still having the option for MANY different looks, like you said, anything from a wooden box to a 'Star Wars' hull panel. A corollary idea would be the TweakScale plugin, which I believe allows switching between multiple scales of, again, just one 'part' for each physical shape. Anyway, food for thought on that. Now, sizes. Square is a given, duh, but I've also found myself sometimes wanting a ONE-HALF meter by one meter panel, so you might consider doing 'fractional size' versions (i.e. one-third, one-half, etc) of your 'base size' part. Other than squares (1x1, 2x2, 3x3, all the way up to whatever), I suggest things like 1x2, 1x3 and so on. Again, don't want to have an absurd number of options, but more than just squares will help reduce SHIP part count, IMO. While still discussing rectangles, I've always thought it would be nice to have panels sized to 'sheathe' the skeletal struts, both stock sizes and the various addon/mod packs. Just for looks, mainly. I know the THSS pack has panels for this purpose, but they're so tiny that paneling just one section of strut blows the parts count into the stratosphere. I envision one panel to cover the entire side of a strut, and maybe also a half- or third-length version as well. Again, perhaps the TweakScale option would help here, or maybe even go the full 'Procedural' route, I don't know. Pros and cons to each method, I guess, and ultimately your decision on how fancy you want to get. Finally, shapes. The most 'modular' shapes will be squares and triangles, along with their variations, rectangles and hexagons. I suppose if people want to make true spherical shapes you'd have to have a pentagonal panel as well, for the 'soccerball' - err, that's 'football' to everyone but Americans like me, lol - aficionados out there, but I don't see that as being particularly useful when paneling a ship or structure. Once more, if a 'procedural' approach were possible, being able to grab any corner (number of corners user defined, natch) of a panel and stretch it into whatever shape one wants would be the ultimate in true modularity, but I don't know how possible or even desirable that would be. There would have to be a GUI so that one could define shape, size, texture, and probably several other variables I can't think of right now, which could get complicated kind of quick. So, leaving that out, the only other suggestions would be variations in length/width ratios. For instance, a hexagon that's 'stretched' to be twice as long as its width, with two short sides at the ends, and four long sides angling towards the middle. I hope that's clear. Anyway, that shape would definitely have as 'sci fi' look, but I don't know how useful it would be. So again, food for thought there. Mm, also, as a few other modders have done, I suggest making the edge lengths of the panels match. For instance, you can do a hexagon with the length of each side at 1 meter, to match the square panels, OR you can do a hexagon that's 1 meter across (flats or corners, makes no difference), but you can't have both. Eek, this post is already too long, I'm sure you get the gist. Okay, that's my 2 cents for now. Lol, more like 2 DOLLARS, sorry about the 'wall of text' post. But, you did ask us for ideas, Dungchunker. Hmm, I think I'll just call you 'Dc' from now on, unless you don't want me to. Later!