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

[Jognt]

I've sent in a few pull requests for fixes/tweaks to a few part cfgs. Mainly to do with ModuleCargoBay functionality. I think I did the PR properly, let me know if there's a problem.

[blackheart612]

On 11/29/2019 at 10:39 PM, Jognt said:

I've sent in a few pull requests for fixes/tweaks to a few part cfgs. Mainly to do with ModuleCargoBay functionality. I think I did the PR properly, let me know if there's a problem.

Oops, I just realized I may or may not have made a boo-boo. Am I supposed to close them? I have no idea what to do after I've checked them.  Please inform me of what I should do if I made a mistake. Thanks for the changes regardless by the way. If I did it wrong, I'll confirm it on your next pull request.

[Jognt]

44 minutes ago, blackheart612 said:

Oops, I just realized I may or may not have made a boo-boo. Am I supposed to close them? I have no idea what to do after I've checked them.  Please inform me of what I should do if I made a mistake. Thanks for the changes regardless by the way. If I did it wrong, I'll confirm it on your next pull request.

I’m not sure what ‘close’ does (I’m fairly new to github too) but if you approve of changes in a pull request, you can merge them into your master (or another?) branch. 

I’ll send a new pull request your way  

Edit: if someone with github voodoo knowledge knows how this works in more detail, I’m all ears too  

Edited December 1, 2019 by Jognt

[sturmhauke]

Merge means to combine the updates in the pull request into the destination branch. Close means to reject the changes.

[Catto]

i think there is a glitch with the KT6C engine, Whenever i use i on a plane, The plane forcefully rolls right. Is there any way to fix this?

[blackheart612]

On 12/8/2019 at 4:49 AM, siklidkid said:

i think there is a glitch with the KT6C engine, Whenever i use i on a plane, The plane forcefully rolls right. Is there any way to fix this?

Hmmm, is it not the engines having different thrusts? I feel like KSP sometimes have problems with the mirroring mechanism and the thrusts are opposite on each side. It's been a while since it came up on my tests though, but then again I don't use the engine unless Im changing something on it or Im using it on career mode.

-

Also, I've updated to proper 1.8.1 I used both github and patch that was uploaded here detailed in the changelog:

DDS conversion of some of the files to DXT5 ( @klgraham1013 )
Fixes on modulecargobay and bulkheadprofiles for payload parts* ( @Jognt )

*Mk1 Passenger Door
*Mk1 Nose Trunk CRG-NT
*Mk1 Junior Cargo Bay CRG-50-0

I left it uploading earlier while I was away so Im only able to update a few hours after I have uploaded. But there's the fixes! Don't forget to post here if there are more, or contribute on github if you want, the license is changed now too so it's more lenient.

[klgraham1013]

@blackheart612

Missing textures  :  Short Tail Connector A , Short Tail Connector B , Small Nose Cone B , Small Nose Cone Stubby

[CaptainPyke]

On 12/20/2017 at 2:14 AM, Usgiyi said:

The Size 2 Cargo Bay CRG-15 (size2short.cfg) has sorta reversed open/closed detection. The drag model works correctly, increasing drag as the doors open. Cargo inside gets drag when the doors are closed and no drag when the doors are open.
I had to reverse these settings in the animation module...

    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleAnimateGeneric
...
        revClampDirection = false true
        revClampSpeed = true false
        revClampPercent = true false
    }

and change the cargo bay module closed position from 1 to 0 to get it to work correctly.

    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleCargoBay
...
        closedPosition = 1      closedPosition = 0
...
    }

I'm still seeing this almost 3 years late, so I'm assuming there is still no fix for this.  Part clipping is off, so this isn't a killer or anything, but if a solution can be found, I am all for it.

[blackheart612]

On 12/12/2019 at 8:34 PM, klgraham1013 said:

@blackheart612

Missing textures  :  Short Tail Connector A , Short Tail Connector B , Small Nose Cone B , Small Nose Cone Stubby

Hmmm, is missing textures a result of the new DXT5 requirement?

20 hours ago, CaptainPyke said:

I'm still seeing this almost 3 years late, so I'm assuming there is still no fix for this.  Part clipping is off, so this isn't a killer or anything, but if a solution can be found, I am all for it.

I do remember tending to this way back when but that's if my memory serves me right. So all the payload parts for you gets drag when it's closed?

[Manwith Noname]

48 minutes ago, blackheart612 said:

Hmmm, is missing textures a result of the new DXT5 requirement?

No. It's a result of Squad restructuring the cones directory.

On 10/29/2019 at 6:54 PM, Manwith Noname said:

@blackheart612

Heads up. The stock nosecones have had a bit of a reshuffle so some of your cones configs are pointing to the wrong place. New path should be...

texture = placeholder , Squad/Parts/Aero/cones/Assets/Cones

You're just missing the Assets folder.

Also, if you are going to edit configs, you might want to remove the "ModuleJettison" from the cf34. There's no attachment on the front or fairing mesh defined within the files so it spams the log with errors when placed in the editor and probably when in flight on a craft using it.

[Ruedii]

On 11/19/2019 at 8:52 AM, Manwith Noname said:

Kind of. DXT3 has a different algorithm for the alpha layer compared to DXT5. You can convert a DXT3 texture to DXT5 but depending on the original artwork, you may well be missing information. Yes, that information was missing in the DXT3 texture distributed within the mod, so you can say you as an end user who has been playing with the mod isn't missing anything but it would be nice to have the original artwork converted at source and getting the better results. The following spoiler contains an image that show two results of alpha layer compression, DXT5 on the left and DXT3 on the right.

  Hide contents

 

Variant switching is a core feature of the game, no DLC required.

This looks like an issue with the conversion program used, not the algorithm.   DXT5 normally supports better quality alpha with fewer artifacts. 

However, if the material was created to take advantage of the artifacts, you need to simulate them in the conversion.

[Ruedii]

Stubby nosecones, and short tails are still missing textures.  I haven't checked all the other parts.

I think the engines are all fixed, now.  Big thumbs up for that!

Edited December 16, 2019 by Ruedii

[blackheart612]

I've tested it on my steam copy now, fixed the issues and the CF34 too. Everything's working as intended now. Sorry for multiple updates with incomplete fixes, I wasn't able to test before. I've updated it again, but now I guarantee it loaded and I was able to play on my latest version!

[klgraham1013]

I'm not sure your fix got merged into the release.  After adding it myself, I noticed this shading issue with the Booms.

[blackheart612]

7 hours ago, klgraham1013 said:

I'm not sure your fix got merged into the release.  After adding it myself, I noticed this shading issue with the Booms.

I assume it's the obvious polygon edges? This is actually a problem for structures like these when it's shortened like this, as far as I remember. I at least tried what I can do about this and found no fix back when I was looking at it. I'm self taught on blender so I may be missing something but to my knowledge, this is a known issue and I can't fix it so far.

[Nyarlathotep-]

A turboprop engine like what the Lear Fan's would probably fit this mod well.

[qromodynmc]

16 hours ago, Nyarlathotep- said:

A turboprop engine like what the Lear Fan's would probably fit this mod well.

Sexy plane, thanks  When it comes to engine, if you have robotics dlc, you can probably make the same engine with it, if you dont have it, it still looks doable with bit of trickery.

[AirShark]

19 hours ago, Nyarlathotep- said:

A turboprop engine like what the Lear Fan's would probably fit this mod well.

Well there is the Predator engine which is a pusher-type engine. Not exactly the same, but close.

 

-

 

On a side note, it would be nice to someday see a Fenestron tail rotor added to KSP, and a folding rotor blade like that found on the SH-60 or AW101 Merlin. 

[blackheart612]

On 12/27/2019 at 7:24 AM, AirShark said:

Well there is the Predator engine which is a pusher-type engine. Not exactly the same, but close.

 

-

 

On a side note, it would be nice to someday see a Fenestron tail rotor added to KSP, and a folding rotor blade like that found on the SH-60 or AW101 Merlin. 

FS actually has fenestrons. I think that's one of the reasons why I didn't make one, aside from the fact that it was probably a lot of stuff to do under the hood due to the amount of blades. I studied the FS fenestrons though.

On a side note, I saw jacksepticeye has AirplanePlus installed in his recent video. That's pretty cool!

[Nyarlathotep-]

On 12/26/2019 at 12:48 PM, qromodynmc said:

Sexy plane, thanks  When it comes to engine, if you have robotics dlc, you can probably make the same engine with it, if you dont have it, it still looks doable with bit of trickery.

Breaking ground's "engines" are terrible, about the only thing they have going for them is that they can be customized, other than that they are worse than prop engines from any mod I have used in every objective way.

[Manul]

5 hours ago, Nyarlathotep- said:

Breaking ground's "engines" are terrible, about the only thing they have going for them is that they can be customized, other than that they are worse than prop engines from any mod I have used in every objective way.

Try to adjust blades pitch to achieve maximum performance. The problem is that you need to adjust pitch every time you accelerate/decelerate. I use joystick's extra axis, but this can also be done with a keyboard

[qromodynmc]

5 hours ago, Nyarlathotep- said:

Breaking ground's "engines" are terrible, about the only thing they have going for them is that they can be customized, other than that they are worse than prop engines from any mod I have used in every objective way.

I'd not call them terrible, amount of customisation they offer is amazing, i also get quite realistic performance from them. Only thing i hate is they have no sound. (yet)

[Jacke]

Constant-speed propellers, with automatically adjusting pitch, were developed in WW2.  Should be in KSP too.

[Nyarlathotep-]

19 hours ago, qromodynmc said:

I'd not call them terrible, amount of customisation they offer is amazing, i also get quite realistic performance from them. Only thing i hate is they have no sound. (yet)

When mods like this exist, Breaking Ground's props are in fact terrible

[BlinAndVodka238]

Does this support Realism Overhaul?