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

[Fizwalker]

I dunno.... I could see it in a few different designs.... (P36/40.... F4F, F6F, F4U, Spitfire/Hurricane.... Fw-190, Bf-109... All have a similar designs to a razorback -- oh yeah, P-51A thru C). I can see the objection tho.... All of those were subsonic, and the only similar designs that made it to supersonic flight were Soviet Migs (Mig-21 comes to mind, thanks to qromodynmc--Love the Sky Raider myself)

 

That as may be tho.... May I suggest a 2 or 3 Kerbal version of the "Birdcage" cockpits?  Would love to create some trainers (Like the T-6 Texan) for my career mode!  Thank you for your consideration

 

Love the mod.... And I am pretty sure I am not getting to space for quite awhile now..... >.>

[SSgt Baloo]

The Stryker Mod seems to have several cockpits (postwar era) with "razorback" bits. Some of the command pods (1.25M) have the beginnings of a razorback on the back (with an additional attachment node at the upper back, for the razorback pieces), and there are straight and tapered razorback parts that can be attached to the upper node at the back of the cockpit, so you can run the razorback all the way back to the tail, if that's what you want. I'd like to see a piece that can substitute for the first razorback bit that could fit onto the back of a cockpit and make it look like the upper left side view in following image:

And cockpits appropriate to the interwar and WWII era for them to attach to would be nice, too. Love the above suggestion for a tandem-seating trainer cockpit. Does anyone have plans to make a 1.25m inline cockpit with side-by-side seating? That way I could make a BAC Lightning Trainer homage.

Like this guy:

[Fizwalker]

5 hours ago, SSgt Baloo said:

The Stryker Mod seems to have several cockpits (postwar era) with "razorback" bits. Some of the command pods (1.25M) have the beginnings of a razorback on the back (with an additional attachment node at the upper back, for the razorback pieces), and there are straight and tapered razorback parts that can be attached to the upper node at the back of the cockpit, so you can run the razorback all the way back to the tail, if that's what you want. I'd like to see a piece that can substitute for the first razorback bit that could fit onto the back of a cockpit and make it look like the upper left side view in following image:

And cockpits appropriate to the interwar and WWII era for them to attach to would be nice, too. Love the above suggestion for a tandem-seating trainer cockpit. Does anyone have plans to make a 1.25m inline cockpit with side-by-side seating? That way I could make a BAC Lightning Trainer homage.

Like this guy:

Or for something like the A-6 Intruder !  Do love the BAC Lightning tho.  Never saw too many over-under engine arrangements for aircraft....

 

SSgt Baloo, the P-75A's cockpit kind of reminds me of the P-39 Airacobra....  Thank you for the suggestion for Stryker!

Edited March 13, 2017 by Fizwalker

[SSgt Baloo]

15 hours ago, Fizwalker said:

SSgt Baloo, the P-75A's cockpit kind of reminds me of the P-39 Airacobra....  Thank you for the suggestion for Stryker!

 

I always thought the original cockpit canopy for the P-75 looked like something right out of Buck Rogers.

On 3/7/2017 at 7:09 AM, Citizen247 said:

Sure, I hope it didn't come across as I was attacking anyone. I was just trying to point out the difficulties involved with replicas and KSP. You pretty much have to install mods like RealFuels that lower the weight of parts in order to get anything like a functional replica of real aircraft.

 

I don't bother making accurate copies of real planes. The best you can do without parts modeled on the exact plane you're doing is an approximation anyway. It's kind of like building with Lego, in that respect. You can only go so far before you have to willingly suspend your disbelief that the plane you just made actually looks like the real one.

[Citizen247]

It doesn't matter what it looks like. The point is you can't make replicas at all due to part weight. You need engines many times more powerful than they should be.

[Fizwalker]

2 minutes ago, Citizen247 said:

It doesn't matter what it looks like. The point is you can't make replicas at all due to part weight. You need engines many times more powerful than they should be.

Well of course you can't make exact replicas.  The originals aren't jig saw puzzles-- The parts are designed specific for that craft.  By using the parts we have, we accept that there will be differences and so the best we can do is approximate the looks of the original. One either accepts those limitations and does it for their own gratification, or one doesn't and does something else.

I am not sure what your point is.

 

[Citizen247]

13 minutes ago, Fizwalker said:

Well of course you can't make exact replicas.  The originals aren't jig saw puzzles-- The parts are designed specific for that craft.  By using the parts we have, we accept that there will be differences and so the best we can do is approximate the looks of the original. One either accepts those limitations and does it for their own gratification, or one doesn't and does something else.

I am not sure what your point is.

 

If you actually read my post, you might find it easier to know what my point was. You can start with the sentence you quoted that literally says it's not about the looks of the craft. I've not once talked about how the craft looks. Not once.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Citizen247

[kiwinanday]

Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful these planes are?

 

[SSgt Baloo]

Quite.

[Fizwalker]

2 minutes ago, Citizen247 said:

If you actually read my post, you might find it easier to know what my point was. You can start with the sentence you quoted that says it's not about the looks of the craft, before you started talking about looks. 

If you stop and think about what I said, you'll understand my point. No one is contesting that the models we build in KSP are not exact rcopies. Only that they look similar.  Point of fact, we all KNOW they aren't exact, and in knowing this accept the limitations the game places on us.  My point is that what you said, is something everyone knows, accepts, and has settled that looks are the closest we can get.  I don't understand your point because your point is like saying "the sky is blue" on a cloudless day.  Everyone but the colorblind can see that.

[Citizen247]

4 hours ago, Fizwalker said:

If you stop and think about what I said, you'll understand my point. No one is contesting that the models we build in KSP are not exact rcopies. Only that they look similar.  Point of fact, we all KNOW they aren't exact, and in knowing this accept the limitations the game places on us.  My point is that what you said, is something everyone knows, accepts, and has settled that looks are the closest we can get.  I don't understand your point because your point is like saying "the sky is blue" on a cloudless day.  Everyone but the colorblind can see that.

I understand your point, it's just completely irrelevant to anything I said, which you'd know if you actually bothered to read and think about what I said. I can tell you haven't bothered to read what I wrote, because the conversation thus far is basically this:

Me: I'm not talking about looks.

You: So you're talking about looks?

Me: No, I'm not talking about how it looks.

You: So you're talking about looks then. Everyone knows you can't make replicas that look exactly the same.

 

I'm. NOT. Talking. About. How. The. Craft. LOOKS.

When you've bothered to read what I wrote, get back to me. I have no further desire to be the stand in for your strawman.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Citizen247

[blackheart612]

I guess we can conclude now that you can't make a part's performance as good as the real thing considering the weight of the stock parts. So what else can we do but just make it look as close to the real one as possible while still being flyable, or if possible, with similar performance capabilities.

Another conclusion: Sometimes, communication is a difficult thing  I think points were just misunderstood.

[qromodynmc]

8 hours ago, blackheart612 said:

I guess we can conclude now that you can't make a part's performance as good as the real thing considering the weight of the stock parts. So what else can we do but just make it look as close to the real one as possible while still being flyable, or if possible, with similar performance capabilities.

Another conclusion: Sometimes, communication is a difficult thing  I think points were just misunderstood.

it's kinda impossible, lot of variables to effect performance. I feel a lot better when using far, planes stall properly there, only reducing thrust will end up close to irl.

edit-

I tested this to see how it performs in far;

too good when taking off (%70 efficiency would be better, realistic)

I kept throttle around %60-70, it actually felt pretty realistic acceleration wise.

sea level top speed was around 610kmh, which may be bit good for ww2 stuff, but considering kraken is griffon engine, it's normal i think.

high alt performance is bit disappointing, i expected 700+ kmh around 2-3k (because of scaled atmo) but it was actually slower there. But we also dont have superchargers )) so it's okay.

other than these, your configs work fairly well with far.

Edited March 14, 2017 by qromodynmc

[tetryds]

41 minutes ago, qromodynmc said:

felt pretty realistic

Well this actually doesn't mean anything, but you are right they are not too bad.

Check out old BAD-T 2 configs, you may only need to nerf static thrust a bit, other than that they are based off actual propeller engines (the engine cfgs were made by ferram himself).

[Fizwalker]

11 hours ago, Citizen247 said:

I understand your point, it's just completely irrelevant to anything I said, which you'd know if you actually bothered to read and think about what I said. I can tell you haven't bothered to read what I wrote, because the conversation thus far is basically this:

Citizen247: I'm not talking about looks.

**Fizwalker: Looks are the closest we can get (Misunderstood text: You are talking about looks.)

Me: No, I'm not talking about how it looks.

**Fizwalker: Yes, we know. Looks are the closest we can come within the limitations of the game. People know, and accept this. (Misunderstood text: So you're talking about looks. Everyone knows you can't make replicas that look exactly the same...--- How did you get this interpretation?  Just....  Ok, here's a more accurate interpretation: "So you're talking about Weight then. Everyone knows you can't make replicas that Weighs the same."

 

I'm. NOT. Talking. About. How. The. Craft. LOOKS.

When you've bothered to read what I wrote, get back to me. I have no further desire to be the stand in for your strawman.

**Edited to reflect how the conversation has really gone.

 

This convinces me that you've not read what I wrote. Either that, or you are deliberately misunderstanding what I am saying. I KNOW you aren't talking about looks. I have agreed that you cannot create something in the game with the exact same performance, and weight as the real world craft (Said that in the second post).  This is actually the third (3) time saying that. What I said is-- Has been my point throughout:

Looks

Are

Really

The

Closest

You

Can

Come

To

Building

A 

Replica

And

People 

Accept

That.

(Nowhere in that statement am I saying you are talking about looks. In fact, nowhere in any of my posts has that been true. I cannot even see how you would get that interpretation from them. Again, third time saying this.)

[Citizen247]

Maybe learn how the English language works, because there's nothing in any of your posts that even suggest the interpretation you're claiming. Although frankly you're probably just lying, either way i don't plan on reading another post of yours.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Citizen247

[Fizwalker]

3 minutes ago, Citizen247 said:

That is not what you said, but hey if you're desperate to lie go right ahead, I'll never be reading a post of yours again.

Not my problem.

[Fizwalker]

Here is what I meant.  Take the A6M2.  Mitsubishi didn't have to construct it from pre-fabricated parts as we do in KSP. The wing, fuselage, and various parts were built FOR that plane.  The plane was also designed around the bloody engine and a set of flight characteristics the IJN wanted.  In KSP we CANNOT DO THAT.  All we have are jig saw pieces of prefabricated parts (which have their own  generalized mass/weight--to be used in the widest variety of applications), and the best we can do  is make it look like the plane. Maybe I didn't say that as well as I could have, but that is what I meant with my first response.

 

If you didn't understand, bloody well ask me to clarify.  If you don't want to read this, that's fine... That's on you.

[halowraith1]

this guy gets the mass, dimensions and power pretty much spot on: 

 

[razark]

We get it.  Y'all both have big impressive ones.

Now put them away.

[kiwinanday]

Can we please knock this off and get back to showing off pretty planes, offering support, and other general non-hostile faffery? Life's too short to be fighting over KSP.

See? Airplane. Not a replica. Just does fly-y stuff. Well.

 

[Fizwalker]

Very cool!

[fourfa]

Question for anyone - I'm trying to set up a custom starting tech tree that forces Wright Brothers flying contraptions before real planes or rockets.  I was able to fly pretty successfully with this:

using one of the KAX props.  I'd prefer to use the early-aviation props in this pack, but whereas KAX gives you near-full thrust at 0.0m/s, the Spad and Baron engines (I'd like these as the starting techs) only ramp up to like 4kN at a standstill.  Which is not quite enough to get moving on the runway on girder skids - put it on the fixed wheels, no problem (I want these later in Aviation), or give it a little nudge with a seperatron, no problem.

Looking in the cfg for the difference in zero-speed thrust between this and KAX and I don't get it.  Ideally there's something I can adjust in just those two engines to get more stationary thrust, as all later engines will have wheels available.

[Citizen247]

29 minutes ago, fourfa said:

Looking in the cfg for the difference in zero-speed thrust between this and KAX and I don't get it.  Ideally there's something I can adjust in just those two engines to get more stationary thrust, as all later engines will have wheels available.

You'd need to change the velCurve in the engines module. A MM patch a long the lines of:
 

@PART[fokkerprop]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleEngines]
	{
		@velCurve
		{
			key,10 = 0 1
		}
	}
}

Should make the Baron generate full power while at a standstill. I've not tested this at all though, so I can't promise anything. It's the velCurve you need to alter though.

If you look in the engine config files you can find out which key needs to be altered, with the first key being key,0 followed by key,1 and so on. The first number is the speed in mach number, the second is the engine output. So 0.5 0.5 would mean the engine gives half maximum output at half the speed of sound.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Citizen247

[Red Iron Crown]

@Citizen247 @Fizwalker That's quite enough sniping at each other, thank you. Please speak to each other respectfully and without condescension or don't speak to each other at all.