[1.3.1 <= KSP <= 1.12.5] KAX - Kerbal Aircraft Expansion KAX — Under Lisias' Management — v2.8.1.0 [2021-0824]

[Lisias]

METAR

I found an error on a KAX part that will tax you with extra drag and less stiffness - one of the attachment nodes from KAXmedTail was wrongly set.

I'm still working on some improvements on KAX, so a release with this fix will not be available right now. Until there, the following patch will solve the issue for users of the current KAX release:

@PART[KAXmedTail]:FINAL
{
	%node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -10.8, -0.9, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
	%bulkheadProfiles = size2, size1
}

Shove this on a file called KAXmedTailANFix.cfg or something, somewhere in your GameData - this time, I suggest to do it inside the GameData/KAX directory (completely the opposite from what I usually recommend) because the next KAX version will have this tackled down, and this time you will want to get rid of this patch when installing the new release.

Cheers!

[Noname117]

Tried to get this to work on KSP 1.12.5 with a fairly large modlist. Got an error on initial game load:
 

Loading has failed due to an unhandled error

Failure in subsystem : Part compilation
Part: e50 Electric Propeller Engine (KAX/Parts/KAX_electricProp/KAX_electricProp/KAXelectricprop)

System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at ModuleResourceIntake.GetInfo () [0x0002d] in <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0 
  at PartLoader.CompilePartInfo (AvailablePart newPartInfo, Part part) [0x0024e] in <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0 
  at (wrapper dynamic-method) PartLoader+<CompileParts>d__56.PartLoader+<CompileParts>d__56.MoveNext_Patch0(PartLoader/<CompileParts>d__56)
  at KSPCommunityFixes.Performance.KSPCFFastLoader+<FrameUnlockedCoroutine>d__62.MoveNext () [0x0006c] in <c08d6ea084ba41369dbf89fe1fba85db>:0 

Any idea what is causing it, and how to fix it?

Edited October 15, 2023 by Noname117

[Lisias]

12 minutes ago, Noname117 said:

Tried to get this to work on KSP 1.12.5 with a fairly large modlist. Got an error on initial game load:
 

Loading has failed due to an unhandled error

Failure in subsystem : Part compilation
Part: e50 Electric Propeller Engine (KAX/Parts/KAX_electricProp/KAX_electricProp/KAXelectricprop)

System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at ModuleResourceIntake.GetInfo () [0x0002d] in <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0 
  at PartLoader.CompilePartInfo (AvailablePart newPartInfo, Part part) [0x0024e] in <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0 
  at (wrapper dynamic-method) PartLoader+<CompileParts>d__56.PartLoader+<CompileParts>d__56.MoveNext_Patch0(PartLoader/<CompileParts>d__56)
  at KSPCommunityFixes.Performance.KSPCFFastLoader+<FrameUnlockedCoroutine>d__62.MoveNext () [0x0006c] in <c08d6ea084ba41369dbf89fe1fba85db>:0 

Any idea what is causing it, and how to fix it?

Apparently it's missing a dependency. Did you installed Firespitter? If yes, send me a full KSP.log and I will check what's happening.

[Noname117]

I do have Firespitter installed. Here's a screenshot of my GameData folder at the moment. Had to reboot to get another log, and it's certainly not the only error I'm getting, but it is the one that's forcing the game to close.

The KSP Log

[Lisias]

19 minutes ago, Noname117 said:

I do have Firespitter installed. Here's a screenshot of my GameData folder at the moment. Had to reboot to get another log, and it's certainly not the only error I'm getting, but it is the one that's forcing the game to close.

The KSP Log

There's something wrong on your Firespitter installation:

[ERR 06:42:04.411] [ShipTemplate]: No Resource definition found for RESOURCE

[WRN 06:42:04.411] PartLoader Warning: Variable SSS_Tier not found in Part
[LOG 06:42:04.412] FSCoolant not found in resource database. Propellant Setup has failed.
[ERR 06:42:04.413] Module ModuleEnginesFX threw during OnLoad: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at ModuleEngines.SetupPropellant () [0x000a4] in <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0
  at ModuleEngines.OnLoad (ConfigNode node) [0x000d7] in <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0
  at PartModule.Load (ConfigNode node) [0x001ab] in <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0

No to mention that you have a rogue DLL installed on the wrong place!

[LOG 06:37:54.410] Load(Assembly): /Firespitter
[LOG 06:37:54.411] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\SteamLibrary\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\Firespitter.dll

Remove all Firespitter related files from your rig and reinstall from scratch. The latest Firespitter release can be found on https://github.com/snjo/Firespitter/releases

[Noname117]

Thanks very much. I'll do and get back to you. Just wasn't able to find the most recent Firespitter link it seems and got an outdated version.

EDIT: I'm actually now really extra confused how the rogue DLL got in there now. I have an extra folder where I basically got everything together and then copy+pasted it into the KSP GameData folder, and with only the Squad, SquadExpansion, Custom Flags, and ModuleManager files kept in the KSP GameData from my previous mod removal. I didn't find the rogue DLL in the folder I got everything together in, but it was somehow in the main GameData folder.

Edited October 15, 2023 by Noname117

[Lisias]

22 minutes ago, Noname117 said:

EDIT: I'm actually now really extra confused how the rogue DLL got in there now. I have an extra folder where I basically got everything together and then copy+pasted it into the KSP GameData folder, and with only the Squad, SquadExpansion, Custom Flags, and ModuleManager files kept in the KSP GameData from my previous mod removal. I didn't find the rogue DLL in the folder I got everything together in, but it was somehow in the main GameData folder.

One thing that now and then happens to me is an unintended (and unattended) "quick click" over a file while moving the mouse - sometimes, the computer is overloaded with something else and then it takes some time to process the "unclick" event - and then acts as we were dragging the file. Kraken knows how many times this happened to me.

(on MacOS, the information used by a process are retained for some time in the case the user closed the program by accident, but this completely screws us up when we close the a big program like KSP purposely and then open it again - or another version of it - damn, this royally screws me up, as the memory consumption goes into the stratosphere and the machine gets sluggish, making it more prone to the problem)

[Noname117]

18 minutes ago, Lisias said:

One thing that now and then happens to me is an unintended (and unattended) "quick click" over a file while moving the mouse - sometimes, the computer is overloaded with something else and then it takes some time to process the "unclick" event - and then acts as we were dragging the file. Kraken knows how many times this happened to me.

(on MacOS, the information used by a process are retained for some time in the case the user closed the program by accident, but this completely screws us up when we close the a big program like KSP purposely and then open it again - or another version of it - damn, this royally screws me up, as the memory consumption goes into the stratosphere and the machine gets sluggish, making it more prone to the problem)

Yeah, that might've happened.

Anyways, reinstalling Firespitter and removing that file seems to have fixed this issue. Also just did another reload to fix a few more issues (why does Ferram have an extra Scale_Redist.dll file in it's plugins folder???) and everything seems to be running well enough! Thanks much for the help!

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, Noname117 said:

(why does Ferram have an extra Scale_Redist.dll file in it's plugins folder???)

Long story made short, in the past the Scene was used to with some pretty nasty practices as having tons of copies of the same DLL to avoid having to handle dependencies.

With many and many copies of the same DLL on the system, the C# runtime ended up creating a thingy called APP Domain for each new one - it's like a partition inside the VM, shielded from the other ones. And so calls for these APP Domains were made using a thingy called Serialization, that it's something like a thousand times slower than calling the code inside the same App Domain.

Then they tried to fix that recently, short-circuiting any duplicated DLL to pinpoint the first one found - but by then they created another problem, since the firstly loaded DLL usually was the older (we name the files using the version, and KSP loads things ordered by ASCII), leading to a worst problem - broken dependencies due deprecated versions intalled on the rig besides the correct one being there too.

Then they tried to fix this other problem, but some DLLs hadn't the version information they needed - and then KSP halted the loading, effectively fixing a problem by creating another even worse.

Right now I don't know anymore how KSP is handling the problem, because I got fed up and wrote a thingy called Module Manager Watch Dog that monitors the system and barks when something (knowingly) bad is detected on the system preventing the user from getting screwed.  (It would not help you on this exact problem, because MMWD doesn't sniffs into other authors' work without a reason - but I'm considering a Watch Dog for Firespitter now, as it's evident that it may screw things when installed wrongly).

Cheers!

Edited October 15, 2023 by Lisias
tyops as usulla...

[Lithium-7]

I did a little bit of math and found something odd.
The two entry-level prop engines (at least in Unkerballed Start) are the A7 AeroSport and D-25 Radial. The D-25 has about a quarter of the AeroSport's efficiency and double its thrust, so you'd think it would fit its description as a heavy, inefficient and powerful (entry-level) heavy lifter engine, right?
But... because the D-25 is so much heavier than the AeroSport, its TWR is actually only half that of the AeroSport, so it can actually lift less weight.
A7 AeroSport: 9.8 TWR
D-25 Radial: 4.94 TWR
Is this intentional? It seems like a pretty significant oversight. I'm having difficulty imagining any use cases for the D-25 as it stands.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Lithium-7

[Lisias]

7 hours ago, Lithium-7 said:

But... because the D-25 is so much heavier than the AeroSport, its TWR is actually only half that of the AeroSport, so it can actually lift less weight.
A7 AeroSport: 9.8 TWR
D-25 Radial: 4.94 TWR
Is this intentional? It seems like a pretty significant oversight. I'm having difficulty imagining any use cases for the D-25 as it stands.

Yes. The AeroSport is a turbo-propeller engine, while the D-25 is a piston radial engine. The modelling is more or less accurate to the Real Life™ counterparts.

And it's by design.

If you want to build WW2 or early Cold War airplanes, the piston engines are the way to go.

If you want to build modern era, general aviation aircrafts, you use the AeroSport.

This is a (pretty cartoonish, admittedly) simulator, not a SHMUP.  The technological level of the part is part of the use case.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Lisias
Entertaining grammars make slightly less entertaining.

[Lithium-7]

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

Yes. The AeroSport is a turbo-propeller engine, while the D-25 is a piston radial engine. The modelling is more or less accurate to the Real Life™ counterparts.

And it's by design.

If you want to build WW2 or early Cold War airplanes, the piston engines are the way to go.

If you want to build modern era, general aviation aircrafts, you use the AeroSport.

This is a (pretty cartoonish, admittedly) simulator, not a SHMUP.  The technological level of the part is part of the use case.

Fair enough, I just assumed that the design was meant to ensure every engine had a viable gameplay-related use case, like how stock engines appear to be balanced.
I don't think the comparison is accurate, though, considering that stock Kerbal Space Program is not a SHMUP.

[Lisias]

1 minute ago, Lithium-7 said:

Fair enough, I just assumed that the design was meant to ensure every engine had a viable gameplay-related use case, like how stock engines appear to be balanced.

Stock parts are anything but balanced: the first space flight was not manned. The first powered aircraft was not a jet engine. Turboprops were invented after the jet engines.

The very reason for KAX to exist is to provide aircraft parts to fill the Stock gaps on the tech tree, so you can fulfil the initial aircraft contracts with more historically accurate parts if you want to add a challenge to the game.

Or just play sandbox and do nice historical things like

(craft by kcs123)

8 minutes ago, Lithium-7 said:

I don't think the comparison is accurate, though, considering that stock Kerbal Space Program is not a SHMUP.

You are criticising  the "balance" of  the parts as they were power ups on a SHMUP game.

You are essentially telling us that the following aircrafts are exactly the same thing:

 

[Lithium-7]

20 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Stock parts are anything but balanced: the first space flight was not manned. The first powered aircraft was not a jet engine. Turboprops were invented after the jet engines.

The very reason for KAX to exist is to provide aircraft parts to fill the Stock gaps on the tech tree, so you can fulfil the initial aircraft contracts with more historically accurate parts if you want to add a challenge to the game.

Or just play sandbox and do nice historical things like

(craft by kcs123)

You are criticising  the "balance" of  the parts as they were power ups on a SHMUP game.

You are essentially telling us that the following aircrafts are exactly the same thing:

 

That isn't what I meant. I never intended to be confrontational, I was just unaware of your intention with KAX.
When I say balanced, I didn't mean... realistic? I must admit I don't understand why you interpreted it that way. KSP stock parts are unrealistic for the sake of game balance; I'm fully aware of this fact.
I only meant to clarify where I was coming from. I never said that there was no difference between turboprops and piston-radial engines. As a matter of fact, I'm not even familiar enough with aircraft engines to notice that the two were from completely different eras entirely(though this is partly because of stock KSP's art style homogenizing the two from a layperson's perspective).
My question had nothing to do with realism. I never mentioned realism because I simply hadn't considered it.
Your reply, however- more so this latest one than the first- does come off as more than a little bit presumptuous and rude.
I'm not even criticizing the balance. I was confused about the balance. I just did some math, thought the result seemed a bit weird, and asked for clarification. That's it.

[Lisias]

TL;DR:

• I'm not criticising being criticising by you. I'm criticising the criticising itself
  • ergo, I'm not criticising you neither
• I'm not mad by being criticising - sometimes I'm a bit annoyed, but never mad about it.
  • (but being annoyed is on the Maintainer's job description, so it's my problem - not yours)
• Please understand that I'm talking about how you did something, not about you doing it.

 

6 hours ago, Lithium-7 said:

That isn't what I meant. I never intended to be confrontational, I was just unaware of your intention with KAX.

Neither do I. I'm in "engineer mode", I'm trying to address the problems, not the people. We, engineers (being from Software or anything else) have this habit of going straight to the point, without mincing words - usually jumping straight to the throat of the problem.

We are problem solvers, and we don't solve problems by being tender to them - on this subject, we are pretty aggressive: we want them dead.  

What leads to the point that triggered my "engineering solving mode": you wasted your time working on a problem you think you found without the necessary background. I'm not even complaining about my time, because I don't see explaining KAX's designs as a waste of time (it can be a bit annoying sometimes, but this is my problem).

But your time and effort I would prefer to be used on problems that are really problems, what we will not manage to get if you jump into conclusions without the proper background. There're things on KAX that need improvement for sure and I'm unaware, these are the problems I would prefer people focusing on.

 

6 hours ago, Lithium-7 said:

When I say balanced, I didn't mean... realistic? I must admit I don't understand why you interpreted it that way. KSP stock parts are unrealistic for the sake of game balance; I'm fully aware of this fact.

The key word is "immersive". Players need immersion in order to be involved on a simulation, otherwise what we get is a Fantasy game with unusual rules.

Anyone with the most basic knowledge of the Space Race or even the initial attempts of Flight (on Air and on Space) have problems with the current Tech Tree, and you will find evidences on add'on authors trying to fix them on this very Forum, on the most diverse tech trees (or the very interesting Unkerballed Start).

The very purpose of an Add'On (or "mod") is exactly to provide something not found in the base game, not to just extent it - we are not Private Division's employees, we are not free workmanship to be used to do their work. We do things because we want them in the base game, because we think the base game is incomplete or unbalanced or whatever - i.e., we are not extending the game, we are kinda of rewriting it as we want it to be.

A bit at a time.

So, by definition, talking about game balance on an Add'On that thinks the game is unbalanced and so need some parts is, well, a pleonasm and a redundancy by itself.

KAX is one of these Add'Ons, trying to fix a terrible gap on the Tech Tree - damn, starting your first airplane with jet engines? Seriously?

 

6 hours ago, Lithium-7 said:

I only meant to clarify where I was coming from. I never said that there was no difference between turboprops and piston-radial engines. As a matter of fact, I'm not even familiar enough with aircraft engines to notice that the two were from completely different eras entirely(though this is partly because of stock KSP's art style homogenizing the two from a layperson's perspective).

Yes, and that's the "problem". You weren't able to identify the engine's use cases because you don't have knowledge enough to understand them. And, so, ended up wasting your time and efforts on calculations and theories that were completely unfunded.

I.E., you missed the whole point of the Add'On at best, and the point of modding KSP at worst.

 

6 hours ago, Lithium-7 said:

My question had nothing to do with realism. I never mentioned realism because I simply hadn't considered it.

But yet, simulations need to have some degree of realism otherwise we lose the immersion and the game lose its meaning.

That's the different between a SHMUP and a KSP game session using BDArmory.

 

6 hours ago, Lithium-7 said:

Your reply, however- more so this latest one than the first- does come off as more than a little bit presumptuous and rude.
 

We are going to need to agree on disagree on this one. I'm not meaning to be rude, but I'm not going to be subjected by what I consider rudeness neither (i.e., disrespect for my time).

 

6 hours ago, Lithium-7 said:

Your reply, however- more so this latest one than the first- does come off as more than a little bit presumptuous and rude.
I'm not even criticizing the balance. I was confused about the balance. I just did some math, thought the result seemed a bit weird, and asked for clarification. That's it.

Well, you said (emphasis are mine): 

17 hours ago, Lithium-7 said:

Is this intentional? It seems like a pretty significant oversight. I'm having difficulty imagining any use cases for the D-25 as it stands.

And this is a criticise:

Quote

 criticise

1. indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way.

But, and again, I'm not criticising you by criticising me - you are entitled to disapprove something I do, and you are welcome to pinpoint my faults (otherwise I would not be aware of them and, so, will not fix them - failing on my role as Maintainer).

Of course, I'm entitled to agree or not.

I'm criticising your criticising because I would like a better use of your time and efforts, in a more productive way.

Of course, you are entitled to agree or not.

 

6 hours ago, Lithium-7 said:

I just did some math, thought the result seemed a bit weird, and asked for clarification. That's it.

Yep, and a clarification I tried to provide.

Our communication failure was probably due the assumption that I got annoyed or offended by being criticised (or whatever), while I was being plain objective and straight to the point. On my line of duty, we consider this polite - why forcing the reader to read 20 words when the message can be sent using 10? Their time is so valuable as mine.

Edited November 20, 2023 by Lisias
Entertaining grammars made slightly less entertaining…

[Lithium-7]

2 hours ago, Lisias said:

TL;DR:

• I'm not criticising being criticising by you. I'm criticising the criticising itself
  • ergo, I'm not criticising you neither
• I'm not mad by being criticising - sometimes I'm a bit annoyed, but never mad about it.
  • (but being annoyed is on the Maintainer's job description, so it's my problem - not yours)
• Please understand that I'm talking about how you did something, not about you doing it.

 

Neither do I. I'm in "engineer mode", I'm trying to address the problems, not the people. We, engineers (being from Software or anything else) have this habit of going straight to the point, without mincing words - usually jumping straight to the throat of the problem.

We are problem solvers, and we don't solve problems by being tender to them - on this subject, we are pretty aggressive: we want them dead.  

What leads to the point that triggered my "engineering solving mode": you wasted your time working on a problem you think you found without the necessary background. I'm not even complaining about my time, because I don't see explaining KAX's designs as a waste of time (it can be a bit annoying sometimes, but this is my problem).

But your time and effort I would prefer to be used on problems that are really problems, what we will not manage to get if you jump into conclusions without the proper background. There're things on KAX that need improvement for sure and I'm unaware, these are the problems I would prefer people focusing on.

 

The key word is "immersive". Players need immersion in order to be involved on a simulation, otherwise what we get is a Fantasy game with unusual rules.

Anyone with the most basic knowledge of the Space Race or even the initial attempts of Flight (on Air and on Space) have problems with the current Tech Tree, and you will find evidences on add'on authors trying to fix them on this very Forum, on the most diverse tech trees (or the very interesting Unkerballed Start).

The very purpose of an Add'On (or "mod") is exactly to provide something not found in the base game, not to just extent it - we are not Private Division's employees, we are not free workmanship to be used to do their work. We do things because we want them in the base game, because we think the base game is incomplete or unbalanced or whatever - i.e., we are not extending the game, we are kinda of rewriting it as we want it to be.

A bit at a time.

So, by definition, talking about game balance on an Add'On that thinks the game is unbalanced and so need some parts is, well, a pleonasm and a redundancy by itself.

KAX is one of these Add'Ons, trying to fix a terrible gap on the Tech Tree - damn, starting your first airplane with jet engines? Seriously?

 

Yes, and that's the "problem". You weren't able to identify the engine's use cases because you don't have knowledge enough to understand them. And, so, ended up wasting your time and efforts on calculations and theories that were completely unfunded.

I.E., you missed the whole point of the Add'On at best, and the point of modding KSP at worst.

 

But yet, simulations need to have some degree of realism otherwise we lose the immersion and the game lose its meaning.

That's the different between a SHMUP and a KSP game session using BDArmory.

 

We are going to need to agree on disagree on this one. I'm not meaning to be rude, but I'm not going to be subjected by what I consider rudeness neither (i.e., disrespect for my time).

 

Well, you said (emphasis are mine): 

And this is a criticise:

But, and again, I'm not criticising you by criticising me - you are entitled to disapprove something I do, and you are welcome to pinpoint my faults (otherwise I would not be aware of them and, so, will not fix them - failing on my role as Maintainer).

Of course, I'm entitled to agree or not.

I'm criticising your criticising because I would like a better use of your time and efforts, in a more productive way.

Of course, you are entitled to agree or not.

 

Yep, and a clarification I tried to provide.

Our communication failure was probably due the assumption that I got annoyed or offended by being criticised (or whatever), while I was being plain objective and straight to the point. On my line of duty, we consider this polite - why forcing the reader to read 20 words when the message can be sent using 10? Their time is so valuable as mine.

Ah. This is one of those cases where the impossibility of telling tone through text becomes a problem.
I apologize for wording my question poorly, when I said oversight, I hadn't meant to say that I thought it was an oversight, just that it appeared to be one from what I could tell at the time, assuming that my initial assumption about the design intent was right- and I had, naturally, begun to suspect it wasn't, as KAX did always appear to be a very deliberately designed add-on.
Like...
"If KAX is meant to be tuned in a very stockalike way, this is an oversight. If it's meant to be more realistic, this is not an oversight."
That's why I brought up stock balancing(which I now realize would've better been phrased as tuning).

The reason why I thought you were rude was because I've encountered similar situations on the internet before, where people have made very similar replies with the full intent of being rude. This looks enough like that that I couldn't interpret it any other way, as I've never encountered this engineer mode thing before.
Sorry for getting defensive! No hard feelings, right?

[Lisias]

On 11/20/2023 at 7:32 PM, Lithium-7 said:

I apologize for wording my question poorly […]

No apologies necessary. Miscommunication happens, and when the sides don't share a common mother tongue and culture, it happens a lot.

Usually I would say "let's not do it again and everything will be fine", but that would be naive from me. None of us intended this to happen, and yet none of us made anything purposely wrong - so there's really nothing to be "fixed" and, so, well… This is probably going to happen again eventually. 

So I would just say instead "everything is fine, and if this happen again, we will handle it as we did this time and it will be fine the same".  :)

Worst case scenario, I walk from the discussion a couple days to put my temper under control and come back later.  I'm grumpy, not evil!

(not what happened this time, see below)

 

On 11/20/2023 at 7:32 PM, Lithium-7 said:

Sorry for getting defensive! No hard feelings, right?

Apologies not necessary, really. Had you didn't got defensive and just walked away, we would not have the chance to make amends and the exchange would be a complete waste - so, really, no apologies necessary.

No hard feelings at all. Don't worry about, I'm grumpy, not evil.  

Note: I'm on a temporary medical condition that is hindering my ability to operate computers, but yet still have some pressuring issues on Day Job© and so I end up prioritising my "stamina" on Day Job© and ended up neglecting you in the mean time. There's not too much I can do about until I'm healthy again, so I ask your patience in the near future about my response time!

Cheers!

Edited November 22, 2023 by Lisias
tyops, tyops, tyops everywehre!!!

[Lithium-7]

15 hours ago, Lisias said:

No apologies necessary. Miscommunication happens, and when the sides don't share a common mother tongue and culture, it happens a lot.

Usually I would say "let's not do it again and everything will be fine", but that would be naive from me. None of us intended this to happen, and yet none of us made anything purposely wrong - so there's really nothing to be "fixed" and, so, well… This is probably going to happen again eventually. 

So I would just say instead "everything is fine, and if this happen again, we will handle it as we did this time and it will be fine the same".  :)

Worst case scenario, I walk from the discussion a couple days to put my temper under control and come back later.  I'm grumpy, not evil!

(not what happened this time, see below)

 

Apologies not necessary, really. Had you didn't got defensive and just walked away, we would not have the chance to make amends and the exchange would be a complete waste - so, really, no apologies necessary.

No hard feelings at all. Don't worry about, I'm grumpy, not evil.  

Note: I'm on a temporary medical condition that is hindering my ability to operate computers, but yet still have some pressuring issues on Day Job© and so I end up prioritising my "stamina" on Day Job© and ended up neglecting you in the mean time. There's not too much I can do about until I'm healthy again, so I ask your patience in the near future about my response time!

Cheers!

That's okay!
And by the way, FWIW, I always find a way to slot KAX into my addons list. I just like having prop engines available, but AirplanePlus is usually too big since I try to keep my install lightweight wherever possible. I appreciate the short list of parts for that reason; a lot of redundant parts tend to bloat file size.
My career campaigns always start by touring the home planet using aircraft, so having early-game propeller engines is handy.

[Zmeya]

I've had the large radial engines overheat on me if I don't add enough radiators and/or fly too high, I find it kinda funny.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Zmeya

[Lisias]

7 hours ago, Zmeya said:

I've had the large radial engines overheat on me if I don't add enough radiators and/or fly too high, I find it kinda funny.

Yep. On piston engines, you pay a price for the extra kick.

The intended real life counter part, Pratt&Whitney R-4360 Major Wasp, had the exact same problem - you need to use an oil radiator to keep the engine working at higher RPM.

An oil radiator (as well an intercooler) part is something that are in the plans to be implemented this year, but got delayed - as usual - due RealLife™ and DayJob© demands.  Oh, well, soon will be seasons again.

In the mean time, you can try the Engine Pre Cooler as a step gap  on large airplanes.

On smaller fighters, they just took the toll : they never used the engine at max throttle for too much time otherwise the engine would fail by overheating. It's the meaning of Military Power (initially War Emergency Power): a power regime that the engine can sustain for a brief time, but will meltdown if used continuously without extra hardware.

Since that extra hardware cost mass, they are used only on heavy fighters and bombers that could absorb that extra mass with little to no cost on performance.

 

[Lisias]

This beauty is too good to let it go unchecked, and I didn't found a better place for it as KAX has the engine used!

1909 French Blériot XI - allegedly the oldest airworth airplane in the World.

 

 

[LTQ90]

Great vid. I love the button at 0:30. Incredible how planes have evolved since this day. There was a serie on TV when i was a child "les faucheurs de marguerites" which tells the story of this crazy optimistics guys.

[Lisias]

And this is yet another one that you can try to build with KAX (and the wings of Open Cockpit as well some colouring add'on):

 

And for the dues that really enjoy understanding these marvellous machines, a relatively comprehensive walkthrough :

 

(The craft on this last video is a D17 - you can tell it as the flaps are on the upper wings, while the ailerons are still on the lower ones - older ones have both on the bottom wing)

On 12/8/2023 at 1:22 PM, LTQ90 said:

Great vid. I love the button at 0:30. Incredible how planes have evolved since this day. There was a serie on TV when i was a child "les faucheurs de marguerites" which tells the story of this crazy optimistics guys.

Excellent hint! And I found it on Youtube!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5rvz4PJxbc&list=PLTVjl-yczKuo7Puo0O6qNpVSZUjQmKIX5

[LTQ90]

i just watch the first one, i keep the second for later. at the engine startup the camera angle is very interesting. Make me remember some pictures  of cars design from the 30.

And the landing is so smooth, for me it seems very unatural to have a tailwheel and the fear of breaking too strong.