Lisias Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 (edited) On 2/24/2025 at 6:05 PM, Manul said: Some landing gear parts had been misbehaving since KSP v 1.4 update and it was 7 years ago. Later KSP updates didn't affect this mod so it counts as "still works" (it's not flawless but it didn't get any worse for the past 10 major KSP updates) Yep. They are being worked, but not exactly on a fast pace. https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/issues/3 @averageksp, on the bright side, we have some proposed fixes being tested on the Experimental Branch (use coldj on the search): https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/releases Install the latest A+ (currently this one) and then the latest Experimental (currently this one). Unless something else happens, I'm planning to spend this day working on A+ (it's Carnival around here). Edited March 3 by Lisias Forgot a mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike88 Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 How are TWR calculated for the engines? I was trying to make a sea plane based of the Vought Kingfisher with the Bumblee engine. After multiple attempts I finally got a prototype that could land in the kerbin sea without flipping over. However I'm struggling to get it back airborne as I usually hit 20m/s and cant go any faster on the water(disabling the waves in scatterer would probably help). I downloaded the Kingfisher(Cessna) Mk2 from blackhearts kerbalx and noticed that it has a higher TWR than my prototype, and can easily take off from the water. After swapping the the cat turboprop from the Kingfisher/Cessna to my prototype plane my TWR nearly doubled. The cat is rated at 25kn of thrust and the bumblee at 52kn. Obviously the cat weighs a lot less than the bumblee. However if I switch over to the count engine, which has the same thrust rating as the cat but 10 times the weight, I'm getting the same TWR ratio as the cat engine. Shouldn't the much more powerful Bumblee have a higher TWR? I've also experimented swapping out the various engines included in the mod and for the most part all of the 20-25kn WWI type engines seem to offer a higher TWR than the 40-60kn WWII engines. Am I missing something here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 11 minutes ago, Spike88 said: How are TWR calculated for the engines? Less than ideally. Originally these engines used Firespitter engine model, that was tailored to emulate piston engines using propelers. The conversion to ModuleEngine(FX or not) wasn't the happiest possible, because these engines are tailored to be either rocket engines or jet engines, where the performance and fuel consumption are completely different. My intention, once more pressuring issues is tackled down, is to provide an alternate (perhaps a variant?) configuration using back the original modules - as soon as I cook a way to make this module to be detectable by MJ2 and Atmospheric Autopilot. Until there, I think it's unwise to change anything as it will break everybody's current designs - so, yeah, whatever we have now is going to linger to preserve current (and previous) savegames. 18 minutes ago, Spike88 said: The cat is rated at 25kn of thrust and the bumblee at 52kn. Obviously the cat weighs a lot less than the bumblee. However if I switch over to the count engine, which has the same thrust rating as the cat but 10 times the weight, I'm getting the same TWR ratio as the cat engine. Shouldn't the much more powerful Bumblee have a higher TWR? Under what conditions? Please note that you are comparing a piston engine with a turbo-prop. On a very naive comparison, it's like comparing an old Ford V8 Flathead (85HP) with a Honda L inline 4 cylinders turbo engine (72 hp). You will get way more raw power from the V8 - eventually, under the right RPM, once the engine is warm and assuming you are on a low altitude place where the atmospheric pressure is higher. Otherwise, it will be beaten by the Honda L every time - unless it's an endurance test, where the V8 will surely win on the long run. However, both engines are still piston engines - they are still similar enough. On aircrafts, a turbo-prop is a completely and radically different engine than a piston, not to mention that a radial piston engine is also pretty different from a water cooled inline engine! Give this a peek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike88 Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 That makes sense for comparing the Cat to the Bumblebee. However, aren't the Spud, Baron piston engines like the bumblebee? They all offer higher TWR, despite higher weights but lower thrust ratings. Mind you I'm just looking at the TWR in the SPH with KER and not actually flying them to compare, so I'm not sure if the TWR is a factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 3 hours ago, Spike88 said: That makes sense for comparing the Cat to the Bumblebee. However, aren't the Spud, Baron piston engines like the bumblebee? They all offer higher TWR, despite higher weights but lower thrust ratings. Hum.... I'm unsure if I had ever noticed this... However, I think I detected the reason: velCurve { key = 0 0.9 key = 0.05 1.1 key = 0.1 0.7 <yada yada yada> One of the thingies that make propelled piston engines still relevant on aviation niches is that they accelerate from 0 to max pretty quickly - the best acrobatic planes, as the Pitts Extra, still use them exactly by this reason. Jet and turbo-props engines, on the other hand, are way more powerful... eventually. You will get that power, but way later than one would get form a piston. The author decided to try to emulate this behaviour by multiplying the trust by 1.1 on pretty initial stages of the acceleration, and then suddenly dropping to 0.7. Perhaps it would be the reason for this TWR problem? 4 hours ago, Spike88 said: Mind you I'm just looking at the TWR in the SPH with KER and not actually flying them to compare, so I'm not sure if the TWR is a factor. TWR is an factor for every engine , and one of the reasons everybody switched from pistons to turbo-prop when possible: same or better trust for less weight. Most planes spend 90% of their time cruising, where any piston advantage would just not be relevant and all the drawbacks would bite harder. But surely KER is tailored to cope with Rocket and Jet Engines, as well the rest of KSP. I never noticed this, I will give this a try on the following hours while I test some changes I did today, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike88 Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 1 hour ago, Lisias said: One of the thingies that make propelled piston engines still relevant on aviation niches is that they accelerate from 0 to max pretty quickly - the best acrobatic planes, as the Pitts Extra, still use them exactly by this reason. Jet and turbo-props engines, on the other hand, are way more powerful... eventually. You will get that power, but way later than one would get form a piston. The author decided to try to emulate this behaviour by multiplying the trust by 1.1 on pretty initial stages of the acceleration, and then suddenly dropping to 0.7. Perhaps it would be the reason for this TWR problem? I had check this in the config, but didn't really understand what it meant. I will say the Kingfisher/Cessna with the Cat engine just gets up to 50m/s while my kingfisher with the bumblee does get up to 140m/s. It's just on the water I can't get mine above 20m/s while the Cessna will go up to 30+. Either way I completed the contract I needed for a sea plane using the Kingfisher/Cessna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted March 3 Share Posted March 3 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Spike88 said: I had check this in the config, but didn't really understand what it meant. I will say the Kingfisher/Cessna with the Cat engine just gets up to 50m/s while my kingfisher with the bumblee does get up to 140m/s. The Bumblebee is being reported by KER to have only 5.201kn of trust, and not 52kn as defined in the ModuleEnginesFX. This is essentially wrong, as this engine at his best performance speed (0.5 mach) and altitude (5500 or near it, I think) can generate up to 78 kn of trust according to its curves. I'm concluding that KER is calculating the TWR based on the stationary trust, what's only reliable for rocket engines - not even Jet engines can be handled this way, 2 minutes ago, Spike88 said: It's just on the water I can't get mine above 20m/s while the Cessna will go up to 30+. Either way I completed the contract I needed for a sea plane using the Kingfisher/Cessna. Check this link for how to minimize drag when taking off from Water! https://ksp.lisias.net/crafts/aircrafts/Misc/2024/08/08_A-Seaplane-Study/ Edited March 3 by Lisias Hit "Save" too soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 ANNOUNCE Release 26.6.2.4 Experimental is available for downloading, with the following changes: Small adjustments on ModuleCargoBay for passengerdoor mk1cargodoorjr Adding proper ModuleCargoBay for airramp Thanks for Manul for allowing us to use his Dummy.mu! I spent the whole day experimenting with the ModuleCargoBay, and learnt some thingies that I'm prototyping to be delivered on the next Experimental, hopefully to be delivered in way less time than this one. Thanks for @Manul for graciously allowing us to use his Dummy.mu file. Dude, if what I'm planning to do works, this mesh will be probably the single most shared mesh in Kerbal History. Install Instructions Download 26.6.2.2 and install it. Download 26.6.2.2-HotFix and install it, overwriting any existing files. Download 26.6.2.4 Experimental and install it. The rationale is that a lot of small changes and fixes are going to be published on Experimental before reaching the Main distribution, and it's stupid to download an install a 100MB download just because less than 16KB of data had changed. The Experimental packages are cumulative - you only need to install the latest one, bluntly ignoring the older Experimental packages. What's Next (but not necessarily on the next Release - but I will do my best, ordered by priority): The crazy idea I had. https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/issues/14 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/issues/3 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/issues/6 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/issues/5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenartia Posted March 4 Share Posted March 4 16 hours ago, Lisias said: ANNOUNCE Release 26.6.2.4 Experimental is available for downloading, with the following changes: Small adjustments on ModuleCargoBay for passengerdoor mk1cargodoorjr Adding proper ModuleCargoBay for airramp Thanks for Manul for allowing us to use his Dummy.mu! I spent the whole day experimenting with the ModuleCargoBay, and learnt some thingies that I'm prototyping to be delivered on the next Experimental, hopefully to be delivered in way less time than this one. Thanks for @Manul for graciously allowing us to use his Dummy.mu file. Dude, if what I'm planning to do works, this mesh will be probably the single most shared mesh in Kerbal History. Install Instructions Download 26.6.2.2 and install it. Download 26.6.2.2-HotFix and install it, overwriting any existing files. Download 26.6.2.4 Experimental and install it. The rationale is that a lot of small changes and fixes are going to be published on Experimental before reaching the Main distribution, and it's stupid to download an install a 100MB download just because less than 16KB of data had changed. The Experimental packages are cumulative - you only need to install the latest one, bluntly ignoring the older Experimental packages. What's Next (but not necessarily on the next Release - but I will do my best, ordered by priority): The crazy idea I had. https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/issues/14 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/issues/3 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/issues/6 https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/issues/5 This reminds me, has there been any movement on the CKAN front? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apelsin Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 Hi, I'm trying out the helicopter parts and noticing that "thrust" is stuck at 0 regardless of collective. I have FAR installed but that doesn't seem to be the source of the problem. Am I missing something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisias Posted March 5 Share Posted March 5 (edited) On 3/4/2025 at 9:45 PM, Apelsin said: Hi, I'm trying out the helicopter parts and noticing that "thrust" is stuck at 0 regardless of collective. I have FAR installed but that doesn't seem to be the source of the problem. Am I missing something? Well, it works for me: Send me your full KSP.log and the craft file so I can see what's happening. However, I don't use FAR, so there's a good chance FAR may be the problem. ---- POST EDIT --- In time... What's the A+ version you are using? -------- On 3/4/2025 at 4:01 PM, Grenartia said: This reminds me, has there been any movement on the CKAN front? Soon™. I'm starting to be confident that my work is fixing things without screwing anything - I'm spending some time playing with it again and somehow I'm being able to detect and even diagnose some problems that I weren't before! https://github.com/net-lisias-ksp/AirplanePlus/issues/3#issuecomment-2699983820 Edited March 6 by Lisias POST EDIT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defoma Posted Thursday at 08:50 PM Share Posted Thursday at 08:50 PM I'm working on an experiment to give Waterfall capability for all AirplanePlus jet engines. Here's the Cheetah engine! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.