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

[SpaceToad]

These engine parts are INCREDIBLE. I hope you continue to add on to these  Any chance you might add turbojets and turbofans? If so, I have a few suggestions...

A CFM-56 Turbofan would be SICK. Look at those reversers! https://i.ytimg.com/vi/0UlLnq2Wbn4/maxresdefault.jpg

A Pratt and Whitney F119 would be sick too. The iconic design would be great for supermaneuverable fighters and (potentially) spaceplanes!

Of course, those are just ideas, and I would love to see what you make next. If you need any help with ANYTHING don't hesitate to ask, Ill gladly help to the best of my abilities.

[JTpopcorn]

Really nice engines!

I definitely think adding the Il turboprop would be cool. Or maybe just some bigger engines.

As it relates to balance, you might be able to have the engines thrust be partially based on the current speed of the craft, which would set a "speed limit" for the given engine. This a plane with decently high mass, to have enough thrust for takeoff, without also breaking any sound barriers.

[blackheart612]

@OrbitalBuzzsaw I already did, almost right before you could say it

@SpaceToad, @JTpopcorn I may go retro first (up to biplane) before going modern (helicopters and jets).

I believe the engine thrust can only be modified with atmospheric pressure so the curves couldn't be based from the speed the plane is on. Don't worry though. Rest assured, Tanner is doing his best to balance the engine performance and as close as the real ones as we can.

[SpaceToad]

@blackheart612 Sounds good! I'd be glad to help if you would like.

[blackheart612]

@SpaceToad Thank you very much for the offer. I really appreciate it. Sadly, there isn't much to do as we are not in any rush. It's a small mod after all. So we are actually a bit lax (especially because I'm thinking of the mod's road map in my mind most of the time). I hope you understand. If you have any problems though, don't hesitate to ask. Maybe I can help.  

[JTpopcorn]

17 hours ago, blackheart612 said:

I believe the engine thrust can only be modified with atmospheric pressure so the curves couldn't be based from the speed the plane is on. Don't worry though. Rest assured, Tanner is doing his best to balance the engine performance and as close as the real ones as we can.

Actually, there is also a velocity curve in addition to the Atmospheric curve (See Goliath Engine Curves)

Spoiler

velCurve
        {
            key = 0 1 -0.1543096 -0.1543096
            key = 0.61 0.79 0 0
            key = 1.5 0.964 0 0
            key = 2 0.31 -3.278422 -3.278422
            key = 2.1 0 -0.9205825 -0.9205825
        }
        atmCurve
        {
            key = 0 0 0 0
            key = 0.072 0.085 1.172947 1.172947
            key = 0.337 0.37 0.98425 0.98425
            key = 1 1 1.179067 1.179067
        }

Basically, it prevents the engine from going faster by reducing thrust as velocity increases. As the player, you don't really notice it, because the plane settles to a "maximum" speed.

I just think it add realism when dealing with prop planes, because they can produce lots of thrust, but it drops off at high speeds.

[blackheart612]

@JTpopcorn Welp, scrap what I said then. Forgive my ignorance. I checked our configs and we use velcurve and velcurveISP. I long gave up on curve editing so Tanner does the job. Like I said, he does everything to keep everything feel as real as they can. He takes into account supercharging in high altitudes as well and makes sure our props don't go supersonic.

[SpaceToad]

8 hours ago, blackheart612 said:

@SpaceToad Thank you very much for the offer. I really appreciate it. Sadly, there isn't much to do as we are not in any rush. It's a small mod after all. So we are actually a bit lax (especially because I'm thinking of the mod's road map in my mind most of the time). I hope you understand. If you have any problems though, don't hesitate to ask. Maybe I can help.  

I'm glad to hear you guys are taking it easy and slow .

[blackheart612]

@SpaceToad Of course, we don't a lot to do so it's pretty nice when real life affairs and modding affairs don't conflict.

On update, this will probably added in a later release but I discovered that the shape of the nose of the Yak-3 very closely resembles a spitfire. I'm worried that this looks more like spitfire than my previous model. I'll try getting into it and modify the mesh to make the old one look more like a spitfire. Here's the engine I'm talking about:

I added sounds to the new Japanese engine today. So there's that.

[Guest]

Is this the kind of mod that stops being worked on, or the kind of mod that keeps living?

Edited June 18, 2016 by Murican_Jeb

[blackheart612]

@Murican_Jeb It will keep on being worked on as long as I have parts to add. I still have a lot of them in mind so it will continue to live. Tanner and I will also keep it updated whenever ksp updates.

...And to be honest, no mod maker wants to stop working on their mods. Especially if the people enjoy what the mod makers enjoy doing. It's just that things happen, real life interferes or other problems, some mods I've seen had potential but many people turned for something already popular. No mods starts to stop being worked on. Every mod and its maker is always wanted by everybody supporting it, including the maker itself, to stay and live. But modding is worked on our free time, we don't ask for anything, some people do ask for donations, but modding - it's the enjoyment of making it and the support of the users is what keeps it going. But if something more important comes up, it can't be helped to stop the development.That's most likely why you see some dead mods out there. But as long as the authors are there and active, they are there to update the mods. 

[SpaceToad]

34 minutes ago, blackheart612 said:

@Murican_Jeb It will keep on being worked on as long as I have parts to add. I still have a lot of them in mind so it will continue to live. Tanner and I will also keep it updated whenever ksp updates.

...And to be honest, no mod maker wants to stop working on their mods. Especially if the people enjoy what the mod makers enjoy doing. It's just that things happen, real life interferes or other problems, some mods I've seen had potential but many people turned for something already popular. No mods starts to stop being worked on. Every mod and its maker is always wanted by everybody supporting it, including the maker itself, to stay and live. But modding is worked on our free time, we don't ask for anything, some people do ask for donations, but modding - it's the enjoyment of making it and the support of the users is what keeps it going. But if something more important comes up, it can't be helped to stop the development.That's most likely why you see some dead mods out there. But as long as the authors are there and active, they are there to update the mods. 

This could not have been said better.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

Moving on, wing panels are... where?

[DuoDex]

This feels almost like the new KAX. Such quality of modelling, attention to detail, et cetera.

I have a question though - with what mod did you make those planes in the album? Especially their wings.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

2 hours ago, DuoDex said:

This feels almost like the new KAX. Such quality of modelling, attention to detail, et cetera.

I have a question though - with what mod did you make those planes in the album? Especially their wings.

The mod and B9Pwings

[theonegalen]

Bug report: KSP seems to think the propeller of the Kraken should cause drag, so a Kraken-powered aircraft is actually slower than a Marlin-powered one, even if the plane is otherwise identical.

[blackheart612]

@OrbitalBuzzsaw I put wing panels on hold as it seemed like a bigger add-on than I expected. I currently favor procedural wings again because it's given me more control over my wing design with little part count. If I do work it out and make a small number of parts that can resemble World War plane wing designs closely, I'll release it hopefully.

@DuoDex I like KAX, I still do. I'm still using it. I have high respect for keptin and the work he has made. Many aspects of this mod has been inspired by the desire of more powerful KAX-like engines. It goes hand in hand with KAX so I myself dislike disregarding it. But I'll leave what mods to install to the users' discretion. Just throwing my opinion out there.  (Plus the wings are indeed PWings in the album)

@theonegalen That's my fault, thanks for reporting. I fixed it today, should be there on the next release. Along with 2 new engines once the configs are done.

[blackheart612]

Meanwhile, I'm checking out cockpits. I'll try airlock and ladders later. Do note these are all tests and I *may* not release them soon enough. Even if I do, there will be no IVAs (although it bothers me that it has no IVAs). Quick import and test, it looks damn fine. The model might be average though. The texturing is just a placeholder, as I said, just a quick test.

*mod parts: retextured procedural tank, procedural wings

[Tanner Rawlings]

okay, ive began work on the velocity/altitude curves for the engines, right now im only doing it for the A6M engine as no one has it in any current designs and i do not risk breaking any saves but can still get feed back, bear with me as for me to get the curves just right i will need feedback and lots of testing

Thanks to those of you making suggestion ect. though i do not post often i do read often

Edited June 21, 2016 by Tanner Rawlings

[blackheart612]

Release 3.0

Latest Changelog:

Added two more engines, K-2800 "Bumblebee" Radial Engine and K-14 "Divine Wind" Radial Engine;
Added second type of short tail boom;
Added a variant to the K1710 "Whirlwind" Engine;
Fixed the "Kraken" Engine having a lot of drag;
Converted textures to DDS (previously MBM)

 

Go check out the album in the OP if you want to see screenshots, I have updated it to accommodate the latest release.

Edit: I tested this on 1.1.3 please report if there are any issues, especially mismatch in sound and propeller animations if there are any.

Edited June 22, 2016 by blackheart612

[trevisan7]

Awesome mod, nice one for who loves to build old airplanes with piston engines =D

But well. i've detected problems =/ , hope my review can help you;

 

KAX seems to work fine with the reverse system and sound, it uses the same plugin as you do (firespitter), so it may not be the problem.

Airplane Plus has issues with this, maybe it's how the code behaves, i've tryed working on this but since it's a "try and error" it was a no success =(

https://youtu.be/tyLVLm4tvFw

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, i've managed to change the audio of the engines with my ones, if you want them i'll need to fix some issues with the pitch of the audio first =P

I'm using ModuleManager 2.6.25

Edited June 23, 2016 by trevisan7

[kiwinanday]

Hello! Love the mod, prop planes are so much fun to play around with. My only question is thus:

I take my KSP airplane design a little too seriously, and I'm trying to find the best engine for a twin-engined fighter-bomber (think DeHavilland Mosquito meets ME 410 Hornisse meets HE 219 Uhu). I built a spreadsheet of the engine on-paper statistics, but I've found a few things to point out/seek clarification on:
1) their on-paper values are awfully uneven (see spreadsheet screenshot below)—is this intentional?

2) the real-world values for fuel flow I'm getting are far different from the listed values. The fuel consumption values listed below are for twin Krakens, calculated by taking the Fuel Flow value at 8,000m, and multiplying it by 2. As you can see, they're FAR below the listed fuel consumption—is this only for a certain altitude? [note: I used AtmosphereAutopilot () to hold altitude and speed, giving me time to take measurements)

3) the engines have a tendency to flameout above 220m/s (425kts), though disabling and reenabling AA sometimes fixes this, so it may be an external conflict.

Spoiler

A pic of the beast in question, with the Krakens as currently equipped—their thrust vector (not thrust-vectoring) is noticeably off the cG centerline, hence the hopeful switch to radials. Wing-loading is still too high (250 kg/m^2—20% greater than the Mosquito, 10% greater than the P-61, but 83% of that of the HE 219 or ME 410)

 

Edited June 23, 2016 by kiwinanday
Image re-link

[blackheart612]

@trevisan7 I have no idea why the reverse thrust is not working. I'm still looking into it. But what I do know is it works if you reverse the thrust while in the hangar (before you launch). Then you can switch it freely after that. I hope to disable the free reversing of thrust though since it's quite unlikely to reverse the thrust like that irl especially at that speed. Also, what sound bug? I don't hear any problems except if it's the right channel audio? The sound on your video seems like you have the wrong idle power sound. I think that's the Marlin's. Did you not make any changes to the configs?

@kiwinanday The engine statistics is how tanner rawlings made it as how he perceived the real life performance would be, based on records, iirc. Regardless, the engines do differ in performance from each other and not necessarily in a tiered or balancing way but rather, in a variety of engine design and performance way.

Engine performance and fuel consumption are indeed affected very much by altitude and velocity. So you they would really differ especially because they have lower TWR compared to each other. Some have a little boost in performance because of the superchargers but some are better as low altitude engines and are superior in such altitude.

Also, 220m/s is about the fastest a ww2 plane can go. It's very fast.

[trevisan7]

@blackheart612

About the sound, yea, the problem is the right channel audio =P, the sound at idle is a custom one that i've placed on, so the sound itself is not the issue, only the right channel.

About the reverse thrust, i'm trying to understand the issue too.

I'll check if i can fix the audio problem for you, so you'll have one less problem to worry about

[kiwinanday]

12 hours ago, blackheart612 said:

@kiwinanday Engine performance and fuel consumption are indeed affected very much by altitude and velocity. So you they would really differ especially because they have lower TWR compared to each other. Some have a little boost in performance because of the superchargers but some are better as low altitude engines and are superior in such altitude.

So, since I dunno if anyone else has, should I build a spreadsheet of each engine's performance at various altitudes (0km–8km, in 1km increments) and speeds (300-425kts (150-220m/s))? I imagine it would consist of fuel flow, from which you could deduce endurance based on a fixed amount of fuel at varying airspeed levels—kinda a mix of my two spreadsheets up there.

I'm thinking:

	300kts	325kts	350kts	375kts	400kts	425kts
0km
1km
2km
3km
4km
5km
6km
7km
8km

(props don't like going above 8km or 425kts)