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

[blackheart612]

On 3/8/2020 at 10:37 PM, Horus said:

Nice to see this mod still alive

All rotor engines (those used for helicopters) are somewhat upside down in VAB\SPH and their attachment nodes are also turned 180°

Is it a known issue or have I installed something wrong?

This was actually really old so I forgot the reason why, they are meant to be surface attached as opposed to attached with a node, that is at least sure to me. Usually they are things I copy from firespitter which I studied for the modules that these engines use are the reason why.

On 3/29/2020 at 4:25 PM, moguy16 said:

i am an encountering an issue where a plane with stationary biplane gear will start to drift around upon coming out of time warp, and if i try to counter it stuff get funky,
i tried reapplying the gear to make sure it wasn't a rotation thing and it was still there,

i tried building an entirely new aircraft, still drifts

i had a friend try and change the configs for me, still drifts

however the gear works okayish when not timewarping, 

the only thing that fixed this was switching the gear entirely 

here is an image of the plane (sorry for the over qualification it's the only one i could find)

-snip-

here are the configs my friend sent me (they still won't work)

-snip-

Ever since a few patches ago, landing gears have been through a hellish amount of changes. Wheels are one of the most difficult, least documented parts of KSP. And this is as far as my understanding goes. It just happens despite the wheels working.  On my recent play through actually, even without wheels, the anti-roll landing skids still slide despite being just an object basically. So I guess it's also a KSP ground mechanic problem, I'm not sure... I'm sorry

4 hours ago, siklidkid said:

The tail rotors are broken. Whenever i use a helicopter with them, even the helicopters you made, The helicopters spin out of control. Please help me.

Ive been using helicopters on career mode and they are fine, assuming you did everything right, the problem I would guess is it's attached on the right side of the craft. As far as I know firespitter module tail rotors should be attached on the left side (refer to all sample crafts). That's on me if that's the problem as I wasn't clear on that...

[Catto]

12 minutes ago, blackheart612 said:

This was actually really old so I forgot the reason why, they are meant to be surface attached as opposed to attached with a node, that is at least sure to me. Usually they are things I copy from firespitter which I studied for the modules that these engines use are the reason why.

Ever since a few patches ago, landing gears have been through a hellish amount of changes. Wheels are one of the most difficult, least documented parts of KSP. And this is as far as my understanding goes. It just happens despite the wheels working.  On my recent play through actually, even without wheels, the anti-roll landing skids still slide despite being just an object basically. So I guess it's also a KSP ground mechanic problem, I'm not sure... I'm sorry

Ive been using helicopters on career mode and they are fine, assuming you did everything right, the problem I would guess is it's attached on the right side of the craft. As far as I know firespitter module tail rotors should be attached on the left side (refer to all sample crafts). That's on me if that's the problem as I wasn't clear on that...

Still broken. I did install firespitter parts pack and put the parts in the Airplane plus firespitter. Maybe that's what's wrong.

[moguy16]

2 hours ago, blackheart612 said:

This was actually really old so I forgot the reason why, they are meant to be surface attached as opposed to attached with a node, that is at least sure to me. Usually they are things I copy from firespitter which I studied for the modules that these engines use are the reason why.

Ever since a few patches ago, landing gears have been through a hellish amount of changes. Wheels are one of the most difficult, least documented parts of KSP. And this is as far as my understanding goes. It just happens despite the wheels working.  On my recent play through actually, even without wheels, the anti-roll landing skids still slide despite being just an object basically. So I guess it's also a KSP ground mechanic problem, I'm not sure... I'm sorry

Ive been using helicopters on career mode and they are fine, assuming you did everything right, the problem I would guess is it's attached on the right side of the craft. As far as I know firespitter module tail rotors should be attached on the left side (refer to all sample crafts). That's on me if that's the problem as I wasn't clear on that...

is there ANY way to fix this? i want to use the aircraft on a carrier and it would be hard when i have them drifting all over the place, also how can i stop the drifting

[moguy16]

also sorry for bothering you again, but wasn't this cockpit part of the mod?

i am looking for it but can't find it anywhere

[Gregory TheGamer]

Hi,

I've recently started playing KSP again xD...

Anyway, on topic. Do you have potential plans for size 3 and size 4 airframe parts? Size 2 is amazing, but there are bigger things available... Size 4 should be max though... Absolutely gigantic compared to size 2 in my imagination.

Cheers

[Daniel Prates]

6 hours ago, moguy16 said:

also sorry for bothering you again, but wasn't this cockpit part of the mod?

i am looking for it but can't find it anywhere

If I am not mistaken, that cockpit is from a mod called STRYKER'S. Try it out. I am curious too if it will work in 1.9. Then report back to us here please!

About the landing gears.... the absolute best LG mod is KERBAL FOUNDRIES - no offense to other mods, but it just is. The degree of configurations you can put into any gear part is just amazing.

In any case, there are a few rules to make your craft less uncontrollable in the runway. First thing you have to do, is to  take away all breaking power from your nose wheel or tailwheel. You only need it on the main landing gears. If breaking causes your nose to pitch down, it is vectoring nose-down towards the ground and possibly forcing your plane to veer to one side or the other. The second thing is to check if your main wheel is close enough to the CoM. It has to be offset just so that the weight falls towards the correct side (in case, your tailwheel or nosewheel), but other than that, it cannot be too far, as it will also cause control problems. And lastly, check how the forces flow through your airframe. The thrust  vector is aligned with the CoM, or is it passing above it? The higher, the more it forces your nose against the ground, which is problematic. 

[moguy16]

i do have kerbal foundries, but absolutly love the biplane gear included in this mod, and i don't think the problem is with the brakes orr COM (but that will help me fix other unrelated problems in my other aircraft so thanks) 

and i am not using 1.9 i use 1.8

also: where can i get a link for stryker? their download links are all down

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by moguy16

[Manul]

9 hours ago, Gregory TheGamer said:

size 3 and size 4 airframe parts?

There are some nice size 3 parts for An-225 in Lack's Stock Extension (SXT continued)

[Gregory TheGamer]

2 hours ago, Manul said:

There are some nice size 3 parts for An-225 in Lack's Stock Extension (SXT continued)

Oh I know, but I'm pretty sure they that pack does not have a passenger cabin... Size 4 is nowhere to be seen though. So I think it might make a nice addition.

[Daniel Prates]

9 hours ago, moguy16 said:

but that will help me fix other unrelated problems in my other aircraft so thanks

Those are the most common design issues that make a plane deviate, specially so when you are breaking. But there are other factors too. Having to break hard in a short runway is usually a sure recipe to veering off, in real life as in the game. I don't know the particulars of your plane. Post a picture of it, with the CoT, CoM and CoL highlighted on the SPH so we can see it!

[moguy16]

Just now, Daniel Prates said:

Those are the most common design issues that make a plane deviate, specially so when you are breaking. But there are other factors too. Having to break hard in a short runway is usually a sure recipe to veering off, in real life as in the game. I don't know the particulars of your plane. Post a picture of it, with the CoT, CoM and CoL highlighted on the SPH so we can see it!

i didn't mean that quite literally with a specific aircraft, but too many of my planes have veered off so this can help me diagnose or even fix the problem

do you know where can i get stryker? all their download links are down

[Daniel Prates]

8 minutes ago, moguy16 said:

i didn't mean that quite literally with a specific aircraft, but too many of my planes have veered off so this can help me diagnose or even fix the problem

do you know where can i get stryker? all their download links are down

That plane you posted way above. Show it on the SPH with the centers on, I would like to see it. Its the one you reported having issues with. I'm curious.

Cant say about Stryker, I'll take a better look though.

[moguy16]

9 minutes ago, Daniel Prates said:

That plane you posted way above. Show it on the SPH with the centers on, I would like to see it. Its the one you reported having issues with. I'm curious.

Cant say about Stryker, I'll take a better look though.

ok so i managed to get a download link (can't remember where though) V.2 

the game opened, but the parts were okayish at best, the textures were missing, (like the short tails from this mod) and some of the nodes didn't work

if someone can find the source i'd like it if they could share it with me

as for the plane i'll see what i can do, but the issue wasn't plane specific

Edited April 1, 2020 by moguy16

[Daniel Prates]

6 minutes ago, moguy16 said:

ok so i managed to get a download link (can't remember where though) V.2 

the game opened, but the parts were okayish at best, the textures were missing, (like the short tails from this mod) and some of the nodes didn't work

if someone can find the source i'd like it if they could share it with me

So you really don't want to show that monoplane posted on the sunset pic earlier, huh? Ok. Insofar I will keep thinking it performes badly on landings due to some design flaw, and not an "issue".

There are two more things you always have to check on your design, to mitigate t/o and landing control on the runway which may appear to be (but are not) landing gear issues.

1. Deactivate all control wheels. They conflict with the control surfaces.

2. Is the rudder effective enough? Try another part, or increase authority.

Those two, with the three I mentioned earlier, are normally the true reasons to blame when you think you have landing gear issues.

 

 

[moguy16]

Just now, Daniel Prates said:

So you really don't want to show that monoplane posted on the sunset pic earlier, huh? Ok. Insofar I will keep thinking it performes badly on landings due to some design flaw, and not an "issue".

There are two more things you always have to check on your design, to mitigate t/o and landing control on the runway which may appear to be (but are not) landing gear issues.

1. Deactivate all control wheels. They conflict with the control surfaces.

2. Is the rudder effective enough? Try another part, or increase authority.

Those two, with the three I mentioned earlier, are normally the true reasons to blame when you think you have landing gear issues.

 

 

no i'd like to share it, it is just that loading ksp will take some time, and i moved to another copy of the game, and due to bad naming it was probably replaced
if you want to you can probably find it in one of these files, it uses b9 part switch, tweakscale, all tweak and bd armory
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1gekfjoCY5jYTpRGRn0JQs1PAniSy3ftx
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1twCJ0TNX_-5uRnvSDiyUHJQzSOzKcCK3
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1oaNZmndi1a_TTKppDsWW7NA7mNAAZH_d

also blackheart replied a few posts up and said that the issue was with the game not the plane

[Gregory TheGamer]

On 4/1/2020 at 11:30 AM, Gregory TheGamer said:

Oh I know, but I'm pretty sure they that pack does not have a passenger cabin... Size 4 is nowhere to be seen though. So I think it might make a nice addition.

Oh and @blackheart612 to add up on my previous messages, great uses would be cargo aircraft. I forgot to mention the possible uses for such huge fuselages. A 3.75 m Hull is big, but sometimes not quite big enough. An example: I want to build a base on the south pole. Some parts for bases are simply too big transport  in an aircraft. Lift is not an issue, as the modular wing pieces in this mod allow you to build wing for heavy-duty purposes. Size 3 would be 3.75, size 4 would be 5 meters, and size 5, the largest of the bunch, and impressive 6.5 meters or something like that... Makes transporting proper base pieces over atmospheric planets much easier. Or passenger aircraft with a huge capacity. Just an idea though so I don't expect you to do anything with it... Keep up the great work by the way, still love the mod! Stay healthy as well during these times. 

[Manul]

1 hour ago, Gregory TheGamer said:

Some parts for bases are simply too big transport  in an aircraft.

I barely made it. F9, F9, F9 and F9.

Fairing? Yes, I tried to use it but it explodes on deployment.

[Gregory TheGamer]

1 hour ago, Manul said:

I barely made it. F9, F9, F9 and F9.

Fairing? Yes, I tried to use it but it explodes on deployment.

Haha, look cool! But not what I initially had in mind. Shows though that what I said is correct. It's possible, but a pain to do.

[Manul]

On 4/4/2020 at 12:57 AM, Gregory TheGamer said:

But not what I initially had in mind.

Yes, carrying parts of huge ships is not what airplanes are supposed to do. This base is made of SM Marine parts and the main part is from Large Ships pack (it's designed to keep aircraft inside not to fit inside an aircraft).

Edited April 5, 2020 by Manul

[Daniel Prates]

34 minutes ago, Manul said:

Yes, carrying parts of huge ships is not what airplanes are supposed to do. This base is made of SM Marine parts and the main part is from Large Ships pack (it's designed to keep aircraft inside not to fit inside an aircraft).

Is SM Marine still working btw?

[Manul]

4 hours ago, Daniel Prates said:

Is SM Marine still working btw?

Why it shouldn't? Even better than before, huge parts colliders had been broken since 1.4 update due to Unity bug, after 1.8 update they started working, you can land on a carrier without crashing into invisible wall.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Manul

[FahmiRBLX]

On 4/4/2020 at 2:46 AM, Gregory TheGamer said:

A 3.75 m Hull is big, but sometimes not quite big enough. An example: I want to build a base on the south pole. Some parts for bases are simply too big transport  in an aircraft. Lift is not an issue, as the modular wing pieces in this mod allow you to build wing for heavy-duty purposes. Size 3 would be 3.75, size 4 would be 5 meters, and size 5, the largest of the bunch, and impressive 6.5 meters or something like that...

Must take note that most parts in this mod is made mainly as a replica for real-life airplanes. Take the Size 2 fuselages as an example. It fits very well for narrowbody jets such as the A320, 757, and even smaller transport aircraft such as the C-130, C-123 Provider, etc.

While Size 3 (3.75m) is more suitable for jumbos such as the 777 and 747, which virtually shared the same fuselage diameter, which leaves space for Size 2.5 (3.125m) for widebodies narrower than the well-known Boeing Jumbos (A300-A330 sans A320, 767, 787). For the A380, @blackheart612 can go with Mk3S4, which is the 5m equivalent of the Mk3 parts.

So to ease things (from existing to suggestions) up, here you go:

• Tubular
  • Size 0 = 0.625m = Tiny engines (e.g the Kitty and Tiger) or cockpits with windows above the fuselage (Take SXT's for example)
  • Size 1 = 1.25m = (Usually) Private / charter aircraft fuselages, fighter jet fuselages,  CFM56-based jets or large turboprops
  • Size 1.5 = 1.875m = CRJs, Embraers (or Embruh like what avgeeks love to call), 1960-70s High-Bypass Turbofans that powered jumbos, huge Cold War turbojets
  • Size 2 = 2.5m = Big Bois Regionals (737 (and Early-Boeing Jets), A320, 747 upper deck), the Two Gianormous Jets (GE90 (we need an even higher thrust one based on the -115B with swept fan blades, the Stock one is -94B (straight blades are dead giveaway) and not OP enough tbh) & GE9X)
  • Size 2.5 = 3.125m (A300-A340 (excluding A320), 767)
  • Size 3 = 3.75m (777, 747 main deck, Beluga's cargo hold, C-17)
  • Size 4 = 5m (uhh... Beluga's cargo hold?)
• Mk3Sx
  • Mk3S0 = 0.625m Mk3 (tiny little fighter fuselage, as tail booms for twinboom designs or as floats)
  • Mk3S1 = 1.25m Mk3 (News choppers such as the Bells, maybe some larger WW2 fighters?)
  • Mk3S1.5 = 1.875m Mk3 (Beechcraft 1900, Hueys, some larger helis n' stuff)
  • Mk3S2 = 2.5m Mk3 (WW2 bombers such as B-24, Lancaster, Halifax, Ju-52, Tupolev ANT TB-bombers) (747's upper deck may use this form factor as well, it's up to OP)
  • Mk3S2.5 = 3.125m Mk3 (Vickers VC-10?)
  • Mk3S3 = 3.75m Mk3 (Dreamlifter's cargo hold? VC-10? Space Shuttle?)
  • Mk3S4 = 5m Mk3 (A380, Dreamlifter's cargo hold, should have an adapter to standard 747 parts, hinge may come from this mod since Stock ones are too flimsy to build something larger, harder, better, faster, stronger than a girder-legged spider)

Which means Size x.x is for 'exotic' cross-sections which 'rarely' show up in the (virtually) Stock game (No DLCs, just other mods n' stuff).

Spoiler

But yea before everybody preach me I know 1.875 emerged in the stock game, but in form of DLC or other mods, while 3.125m often emerge in other mods, but never in the Stock, even the DLCs.

So there may be more use for those parts than the ones mentioned, so what's up for us is being creative, but some quality-of-life parts such as more landing gear options (e.g bogied LY-35-height LY-60, LY-10-height LY-99, LY-99-height LY-35 landing gears, Size x radial Liquid Fuel Mounts for different fuselage sizes and shapes) could be more important for now.

Edited April 6, 2020 by FahmiRBLXian

[Daniel Prates]

6 hours ago, Manul said:

Why it shouldn't?

Well the thread is closed, there are several incompatibility messages, and I don't know if you noticed, but there is, literally, an old man with a pitchfork waving his fist in the air saying "get off my lawn you damn kids!"

Joking aside, the thread is very disencouraging, how were we supposed to know it "unbroke" after 1.8?! I sure am glad I ran into your post!

[Manul]

8 hours ago, Daniel Prates said:

 if you noticed, but there is, literally, an old man with a pitchfork waving his fist in the air saying "get off my lawn you damn kids!"

I know, there are reasons why this mod will not be updated, but it's mostly a huge set of parts and parts-only mods are not easy to brake. There are some DLLs that support custom behavior of parts like hoverskirts and APUs and they still work. Of course, there are some issues like DXT3 textures and broken Paintshop but it does not cause any trouble. Missing or excessive brackets in part configs do cause trouble (it took me hours to find the reason why I have 5 resource definitions of Electric Charge instead of 1), but i don't think that any version of KSP supports syntax errors so it's not incompatibility Unfortunately there is no way to fix this with MM patch I could share, it requires manually adding and removing brackets in parts cfgs.

[Daniel Prates]

3 minutes ago, Manul said:

I know, there are reasons why this mod will not be updated, but it's mostly a huge set of parts and parts-only mods are not easy to brake. There are some DLLs that support custom behavior of parts like hoverskirts and APUs and they still work. Of course, there are some issues like DXT3 textures and broken Paintshop but it does not cause any trouble. Missing or excessive brackets in part configs do cause trouble (it took me hours to find the reason why I have 5 resource definitions of Electric Charge instead of 1), but i don't think that any version of KSP supports syntax errors so it's not incompatibility Unfortunately there is no way to fix this with MM patch I could share, it requires manually adding and removing brackets in parts cfgs.

Well anyway thanks for the heads up. I will install it and see what parts can be salvaged and which cant.That is what janitor's closet is there for!