Mk3 Expansion - [KSP 1.12x] Version 1.6 [10/5/21]

[ABZB]

WRT to the Mk2/3-form engines - Might we see an ion engine model in the future?

I am making a MM file that converts the nuclear engines to be the KSPI nuclear engine types - the VISTA and the nuke thermal turbojet are reasonable for your existing engine models, I would like to add the ion-y engines too.

[SuicidalInsanity]

@juanml82; For Mk3, right? Easy enough. The rapier clone will be useful; I just have to figure out a decent looking model for it.

@ABZB; Perhaps; I can see a mk2 electric engine being fairly useful. I'm not so sure about mk3, mainly because the low thrust of ion engines doesn't seem to be the best choice for superheavy spaceplanes, but maybe some sort of heavy MPDT or VASiMR engine might work...

Regardless of what form they might take, it does raise the question of power generation. I could try making some solar panels in aerodynamic housings suited for spaceplanes. Alternatively, hacking together a halfway decent mk2 nuclear reactor shouldn't be too hard, and would give an excuse to use the new stock radiator parts.

[ABZB]

@juanml82; For Mk3, right? Easy enough. The rapier clone will be useful; I just have to figure out a decent looking model for it.

@ABZB; Perhaps; I can see a mk2 electric engine being fairly useful. I'm not so sure about mk3, mainly because the low thrust of ion engines doesn't seem to be the best choice for superheavy spaceplanes, but maybe some sort of heavy MPDT or VASiMR engine might work...

Regardless of what form they might take, it does raise the question of power generation. I could try making some solar panels in aerodynamic housings suited for spaceplanes. Alternatively, hacking together a halfway decent mk2 nuclear reactor shouldn't be too hard, and would give an excuse to use the new stock radiator parts.

that would be pretty nice - at the moment, I am putting the regular KSPI reactors into cargo bays. If you make a stock-based reactor, I could put together MM configs to convert them to the KSPI reactors - there are two different generator parts, and at least 4 different reactor types in KSPI, so I would end up with 6 parts with the same model then...

although, truthfully, I think the reactor-in-cargo-bay may make more sense in a realism sense. Also, practically speaking, I am also then able to attach small convenient parts (science experiments, antennaes, the smallest radiators) to the reactor in the protection of the cargo bay. The Electric Engines parts pack has Mk2-form batteries (they seem to not quite match up to either Squad's or your mk2 parts).

That said, that parts pack mainly has some decent electric propellor parts, and some electric-turbojet parts. They are all of the regular cylindrical persuasion though.

They are weaker than similar fueled parts (being basically really advanced propellors, rather than something like a nuclear thermal turbojet), but have the advantage of working in any atmosphere, and not requiring fuel (great for spaceplanes ).

I would LOVE to have aerodynamic solar panels - I love making tiny little electric planes in early career for Kerbin (or later for a Duna lander and the like) (or just for fun), and all the current options either have terrible drag profiles, or require me to land to recharge [without ripping off the panel].

[SuicidalInsanity]

Work slowly progresses on Mk3 stuff:

WIP engine for heavy/superheavy planes, should also help with landings.

2.5m jet engine, with working thrust reverser.

[TrainEngie]

Work slowly progresses on Mk3 stuff:

WIP engine for heavy/superheavy planes, should also help with landings.

http://i.imgur.com/anO6rnA.gif

2.5m jet engine, with working thrust reverser.

Yay, thrust reversers!

Wait, how do you get the shadows in KSP? I can't get shadows in my KSP install.

I have a few requests (ordered from seemingly easy to seemingly difficult)

1.25 meter and 1.875 meter version of the 2.5 meter jet (just resize it, right?)

Double-decker MK3 crew cabin with fuel

1.875 meter engine nacelle

1.875 meter turbojet engine

[CptRichardson]

@juanml82; For Mk3, right? Easy enough. The rapier clone will be useful; I just have to figure out a decent looking model for it.

@ABZB; Perhaps; I can see a mk2 electric engine being fairly useful. I'm not so sure about mk3, mainly because the low thrust of ion engines doesn't seem to be the best choice for superheavy spaceplanes, but maybe some sort of heavy MPDT or VASiMR engine might work...

Regardless of what form they might take, it does raise the question of power generation. I could try making some solar panels in aerodynamic housings suited for spaceplanes. Alternatively, hacking together a halfway decent mk2 nuclear reactor shouldn't be too hard, and would give an excuse to use the new stock radiator parts.

For the Mk3 Rapier, take some cues from Nertea? Rocket mode is a twin aerospike design that tapers to points from the top and bottom of the Mk3 fuselage, while between them is a massive turboramjet?

[SuicidalInsanity]

"Good-Enough-For-Now" texture on the engines and made a resized 1.25m variant.

@TrainEngie; No idea on the shadows, I don't remember adjusting any graphics settings,although I do vaguely remember something about no shadows on Linus KSP, which might be it?

2.5m and 1.25m versions of the engine are up on my github dev release of the mk3 stuff.

A double-decker MK3 crew cabin with fuel is a decent idea, I'll add it to the list. Not so sure about the 1.875m stuff

@CptRichardson; Huh, that's one way to do it. I'll have to take a look at Nertea's stuff, then.

Edited July 25, 2015 by SuicidalInsanity
everyone likes pics, right?

[TrainEngie]

"Good-Enough-For-Now" texture on the engines and made a resized 1.25m variant.

(Dactyl with thrust reversing engines)

@TrainEngie; No idea on the shadows, I don't remember adjusting any graphics settings,although I do vaguely remember something about no shadows on Linus KSP, which might be it?

2.5m and 1.25m versions of the engine are up on my github dev release of the mk3 stuff.

A double-decker MK3 crew cabin with fuel is a decent idea, I'll add it to the list. Not so sure about the 1.875m stuff

@CptRichardson; Huh, that's one way to do it. I'll have to take a look at Nertea's stuff, then.

totally want those engines! What is their performance?

[SuicidalInsanity]

@TrainEngie;They're a sort of middle ground between the stock jets. The 1.25m one there is currently 1.4 tons, 110 thrust, 5600 isp. I think I might need to increase their weight slightly since the 'Wheesley' is 1.5 tons. If you want them now you can grab the dev version mk3 stuff from the OP.

In general progress news, got some model reworks done:

The front hatch I was never able to consistently to work, so I removed it, and increased the cockpit are about 20%. I sort of like it this way better, so unless there's outcry the front hatch is gone for good.

I also reworked the Rontgen Atomic Jet:

It now looks like a proper nuclear engine!

I also found an old WIP cocpkit that I reworked for mk2:

Texturing is still sort if WIP, and it needs an IVA of course, but there's now a bubble canopy fighter cockpit for those who want it. The model went through a few iterations of other potential nose shapes if you guys think its currently too swordfish for your tastes.

Depending on how things go, I hope to have an update out in a few weeks.

Edited July 29, 2015 by SuicidalInsanity

[Yokito Zumi]

What about extending the first Cockpit, and added Shielded Airlocks on the sides (fit to the shape of the MK2 system) for leaving the cockpit? would compensate for the Door at the front

[MaverickSawyer]

Hey, since you're doing some Mk 3 stuff, can you toss in a decoupler? I've actually found a use for one.

[senoiurkabls]

I think it's time we blow this scene, get everybody and the stuff together. That cockpits got a carry a lot of resources you know, since the engines going to be right behind it, maybe raise it higher so that it we can look back like in a real bubble. The swordfish 2 shall fly once more!

Edited July 30, 2015 by senoiurkabls

[SuicidalInsanity]

@Yokito Zumi;That might work, I'll give it a try.

@MaverickSawyer;No problem; consider it done. Out of curiosity, whats the use you found?

@senoiurkabls; Heh, yeah. That ship was the main inspiration for the cockpit. Given its size, there's room for decent tankage, so no worries there. I don't want to raise the bubble too far, since aerodynamics are a concern, but keep in mind the deceptive size of the mk2 parts - that bubble as is will offer a bigger, better field of view than the mk1 inline cockpit.

See you space cowboy...

Edited July 31, 2015 by SuicidalInsanity

[MaverickSawyer]

@MaverickSawyer;No problem; consider it done. Out of curiosity, whats the use you found?

Made a VTOL lander based around the Mk 3 cargo bays, and it just looked... wrong to jump from the Mk 3 to a 3.75m decoupler. And I was planning on using the Mk 3-3.75m adapter to cap off the upper stage of the rocket. I wound up wrapping the whole thing in a fairing in the end, and made the mission work just fine:

That said, I found that one must open the cargo bay doors before an engine will fire in it... Rather annoying little "safety" feature. Jeb was most displeased.

[senoiurkabls]

So if we are going to get a cockpit inspired by the swordfish II then why not the engine? The full name as given by the wiki is a "Rolls-Royce AF-15C axial fusion aero-spike turbine" coupled with a fusion reactor, which sounds sorta believable, a fusion rocket engine hooked up to a turbine with the exhaust going through an aero-spike, with a high degree of gimball, with of course thurst reversers, in a mark2 form factor so it can be used with other aircraft, in space ISP of 600 and a surface ISP of 600 at zero going up with speed to 1800 at mach .75 makes it just as op as the other engines in this pack (hehe) a sorta universal thrust of 400 going up to 650 at mach speeds

Edited August 1, 2015 by senoiurkabls
HYPE TRAIN

[SuicidalInsanity]

@senoiurkabls: I sorta want to stay within the realm of stock tech, so no fusion reactors. I am making a thrust reverser equipped rocket, though. As far as I know, you can only change engine thrust with speed and the ISP with atmospheric pressure via the velcurve and atmosurve in engine .cfgs. Is there a way to change ISP based on speed?

[senoiurkabls]

I can go mach 3 on the deck with the other engines of this pack, believe me we are far from stock already

[SuicidalInsanity]

The M2X engines provide on average around 150% thrust compared to their stock counterparts, for about 150% of stock engine weight. As for stock engine performance:

Stock Aero, never went above 250m; I hit mach 1 by the end of the runway with the Whiplash. RAPIER was air-breathing mode only.

[senoiurkabls]

Not the jet engins , the dual cycle engines. You can push insane mach values at see level. (don't change it).

I'll probably try to make it myself, problem being it's a giant sphere and I'd like it to intergrate nicely. Oh well I'll make a post with some badly modeled tube with an even crapper texture some time in the near future with

Edited August 3, 2015 by senoiurkabls
DONT STOP HYPE TRAIN

[SuicidalInsanity]

Worked on some custom FX today

Shock diamonds still need tweaking. I might play a little with the plumes color gradients but overall I think they turned out decent enough.

[CrisK]

My two cents: I think that the engines should have values that are roughly 2x as high as the stock engines. Otherwise there's no advantage (other than appearance) of using these engines over a bicoupler and stock engines. Actually, the bicoupler route is currently a much better way to go.

Also, the ramjet's values are very strange. It does well above mach 3 in atmospheric flight, but it doesn't have the power to get a plane up to mach 3. Also, spaceplanes will explode at mach 4, so the efficiency is a benefit that can't actually be utilised.

[Svm420]

My two cents: I think that the engines should have values that are roughly 2x as high as the stock engines. Otherwise there's no advantage (other than appearance) of using these engines over a bicoupler and stock engines. Actually, the bicoupler route is currently a much better way to go.

Also, the ramjet's values are very strange. It does well above mach 3 in atmospheric flight, but it doesn't have the power to get a plane up to mach 3. Also, spaceplanes will explode at mach 4, so the efficiency is a benefit that can't actually be utilised.

That's not how physics work. Bigger does not auto mean twice as good. That is how a ramjet works. They are great for non kerbal size systems with non ridiculous thermodynamic numbers lol. Feel free to overpower the engines in your install

[SuicidalInsanity]

In regard to engine balancing, I went for the ~150% thrust for ~150% weight compared to stock because I found it was a nice balance - It granted more power than using single 1.25m engines, but if a player needed even more power, then the option of paying the additional mass cost of a coupler and extra engine was available to them. For an engine that does have a 200% power/weight value, look at the MATTOCK - it's basically two RAPIERS bolted together, and its crazy powerful. In regard to the ramjets, they are working as intended - lower efficiency at low mach and true potential unlocked post mach 3. If I had made them true ramjets, they wouldn't produce any thrust below ~700m/s. As is they should have enough power to get a craft to that speed; Crisk, what sort of craft and flight profile are you using?

[CrisK]

That's not how physics work. Bigger does not auto mean twice as good. That is how a ramjet works. They are great for non kerbal size systems with non ridiculous thermodynamic numbers lol. Feel free to overpower the engines in your install

The tone of your post could perhaps be a little more polite.

In regard to engine balancing, I went for the ~150% thrust for ~150% weight compared to stock because I found it was a nice balance - It granted more power than using single 1.25m engines, but if a player needed even more power, then the option of paying the additional mass cost of a coupler and extra engine was available to them. For an engine that does have a 200% power/weight value, look at the MATTOCK - it's basically two RAPIERS bolted together, and its crazy powerful. In regard to the ramjets, they are working as intended - lower efficiency at low mach and true potential unlocked post mach 3. If I had made them true ramjets, they wouldn't produce any thrust below ~700m/s. As is they should have enough power to get a craft to that speed; Crisk, what sort of craft and flight profile are you using?

I've been building replicas of real-world planes. You have a good point. Maybe I've been approaching the ramjet from the wrong angle. They might work better on long-distance drones.

[MaverickSawyer]

Worked on some custom FX today

http://i.imgur.com/WkQQkA4.png

Shock diamonds still need tweaking. I might play a little with the plumes color gradients but overall I think they turned out decent enough.

Shiny!