[WIP] [1.0.5] (Dev Paused) QuizTech Aero Pack v1.2.9.x | Updated: 8/9/15 |

[blowfish]

Awesome! Can I ask about the "cylcone" lifter section, is there a way to shut the "fairings" round the engine when moving forward in flight?

Shouldn't they close when you deactivate the engine?

[Boamere]

The Cyclone animation is dependent on the engine state, so to close them you have to deactivate the engine

Odd, It's not working, and when starting on the runway it is already deployed open, and when turning them off nothing changes, could this be due to downloading on CKAN?

[Zapjohnny]

Can anyone make new cockpit textures with a stockalike blue tint?

[Quiznos323]

Odd, It's not working, and when starting on the runway it is already deployed open, and when turning them off nothing changes, could this be due to downloading on CKAN?

Good catch, thanks, I accidentally commented out that block instead of the FScopterThrottle module right next to it! Updated now on Kerbalstuff

Btw I added pitch vectoring to the linear aerospike

[Dnaha]

Any idea when the Sr-71 cockpit piece will be released? Really looking forward to that one. The WIP pictures look amazing

[Naf5000]

Could you grey out the little blue lights on the medium nose? They look a little like eyes, which I like with the probe core but not so much with just a tank.

Thanks for the great work regardless!

[Boamere]

Good catch, thanks, I accidentally commented out that block instead of the FScopterThrottle module right next to it! Updated now on Kerbalstuff

Btw I added pitch vectoring to the linear aerospike

Awesome!

[blowfish]

Does the K-10 cockpit have solid colliders? FAR seems to think it doesn't...

[Quiznos323]

Any idea when the Sr-71 cockpit piece will be released? Really looking forward to that one. The WIP pictures look amazing

I think I may start on that one soon It has been sitting around for a while and needs some work lol. My plan is to maybe convert the existing model into a single seat cockpit, then create a second inline cockpit of the same style to fit it. This way you can choose to create either single or double-seater variants.

Could you grey out the little blue lights on the medium nose? They look a little like eyes, which I like with the probe core but not so much with just a tank.

Thanks for the great work regardless!

I will see about this, yeah. Right now it's just pulling the model and texture from the probe, but it won't add too much memory if I give the nose its own model tied to only the diffuse texture

Does the K-10 cockpit have solid colliders? FAR seems to think it doesn't...

I think that is one of the ones I have yet to fix... I have to take it through Unity again anyway so I'll update the colliders when I have time. Are there any other parts that you know of that are acting funny in FAR?

Edited May 30, 2015 by Quiznos323

[Dnaha]

Awesome! I'm really looking forward to it. Keep up the good work!

[Sufficient Anonymity]

Gimbal seems to be inverted on the linear aerospike, without the option to get the right way round - just me or is this a wider bug?

[Quiznos323]

Gimbal seems to be inverted on the linear aerospike, without the option to get the right way round - just me or is this a wider bug?

This is a known issue. I have fixed the gimbal so that it orients the right way. Are you having issues controlling it with SAS engaged? I noticed that, when I test it, it seems to like to freak out. I may pull the gimbal function until I figure out why it's doing that. For now I would suggest disabling the gimbal.

[Sufficient Anonymity]

This is a known issue. I have fixed the gimbal so that it orients the right way. Are you having issues controlling it with SAS engaged? I noticed that, when I test it, it seems to like to freak out. I may pull the gimbal function until I figure out why it's doing that. For now I would suggest disabling the gimbal.

Thanks - I've had a fair amount of success with the gimbal disabled on craft like this - are the SAS freakouts with the gimbal fixed or not? If it's the latter, I'd imagine that they're just due to a feedback loop in which the engine exacerbates the deviation to be corrected. If the former, well, then, yes, it might be best to strip the gimballing off (or to give it a standard KSP gimbal in all directions and pretend there are some little hidden vernier thrusters in there).

[Quiznos323]

Thanks - I've had a fair amount of success with the gimbal disabled on craft like this - are the SAS freakouts with the gimbal fixed or not? If it's the latter, I'd imagine that they're just due to a feedback loop in which the engine exacerbates the deviation to be corrected. If the former, well, then, yes, it might be best to strip the gimballing off (or to give it a standard KSP gimbal in all directions and pretend there are some little hidden vernier thrusters in there).

Ooh nice, that's a great looking craft The SAS issue still persists even with the gimbal orientation fixed. It may be an issue of the Unity hierarchy order. I attempted to add a stock KSP gimbal module but it refused to gimbal at all, which is strange because I've never had that issue before with gimbals . I'll take another look at it when I get some time and hopefully get it fully fixed

[blowfish]

I think that is one of the ones I have yet to fix... I have to take it through Unity again anyway so I'll update the colliders when I have time. Are there any other parts that you know of that are acting funny in FAR?

There are a few that definitely don't have solid colliders, but the open end is a stack node so at least it voxelizes correctly when it's attached to something. I've noticed this on the Thunderbolt, Eagle, and snub nose so far.

[aristurtle]

Ooh nice, that's a great looking craft The SAS issue still persists even with the gimbal orientation fixed. It may be an issue of the Unity hierarchy order. I attempted to add a stock KSP gimbal module but it refused to gimbal at all, which is strange because I've never had that issue before with gimbals . I'll take another look at it when I get some time and hopefully get it fully fixed

I think it just has too large a range for most craft by default. SAS likes to go to full lock easily, which results in crazy oscillation. I've had good results by setting the maximum range down to 2 or 3 degrees instead of 15.

Here's my current use case:

[drtedastro]

nice looking craft...

Good stuff.

[Quiznos323]

I think it just has too large a range for most craft by default. SAS likes to go to full lock easily, which results in crazy oscillation. I've had good results by setting the maximum range down to 2 or 3 degrees instead of 15.

Here's my current use case:

http://i.imgur.com/Lza3efw.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Acn4k8s.png

Sweet! That's a sleek looking ship Btw I reduced the gimbal range to 3 degrees and it does give better results like you said. I'll include that fix in the next update. Speaking of which, these are coming soon:

[DavidBowman]

Are those half length? Sweet!!

[Quiznos323]

Are those half length? Sweet!!

Yup! All half of a short section in length (so a quarter section). The bays can be opened from the bottom, top, or both. Also it has the ability to remove the center braces to allow for completely open bays.

[Nothalogh]

Speaking of which, these are coming soon:

http://i.imgur.com/fZSyGEx.png

I love it, these were sorely needed

[Wanderfound]

Are there any other parts that you know of that are acting funny in FAR?

The drag profiles of the cockpits appear to be a bit off; the green line from the FAR analysis in the pictures below is supposed to be tracing the cross-sectional area of the cockpit. It implies that the cockpits are vanishing about halfway along their visual length (except for the K-10, which appears to be totally absent from the wind). The "gap" that this leaves in the cross section causes huge transonic drag, right at the nose of the ship. Flip city.

[blowfish]

Wanderfound: For the Lightning and Eagle cockpits, as well as the Mk2 nose, at least the hollow part is adjacent to a stack node so FAR will fill it properly when a part is attached. Still, probably best for it to be fixed.

[Sufficient Anonymity]

Yup! All half of a short section in length (so a quarter section). The bays can be opened from the bottom, top, or both. Also it has the ability to remove the center braces to allow for completely open bays.

Half length tanks are what I really missed moving from the B9 Mk2 system to stock. Also, if we're showing off linear aerospike craft...

Combat SSTO, 500m/s dv remaining in a 100k orbit. Best used with MechJeb to auto-throttle down when you nearly burn the intakes off on ascent. Armament of 6 Hellfires carried internally (Mk1 cargo bays in front of the wings) and a fixed 20mm gatling cannon under the nose.

[Wanderfound]

Wanderfound: For the Lightning and Eagle cockpits, as well as the Mk2 nose, at least the hollow part is adjacent to a stack node so FAR will fill it properly when a part is attached. Still, probably best for it to be fixed.

I noticed it while building; the effect is there even with parts attached. The debug voxels look okay, but the area rule curves say otherwise, with or without a part attached behind.