Jump to content

[0.22] B9 Aerospace Pack / R4.0c / New pods, IVAs, engines, fuselages & structures

bac9

By bac9
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Hocki

Hocki

Posted
Posted
I'm curious, what is the diference between the ASAS and the ACU?

The ACU doesn't lock on to a specific place, when on, it will hold the craft still, but you can still control it and move the orientation of it. When moved to a new orientation it will hold the craft still there.

Sorry, I'm bad at explaining things :) Hope you understood it though. . :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taverius

Taverius

Posted
Posted
Could the next update include some crew-tanks for the S2, Mk2, and HL fuselages? Please?

You mean S2W? S2 has 2m, 2-crew and 6m, 6-crew cabins.

Well, a) it won't get off the runway, B) if it did it probably needs twice as many engines anyway but I haven't got past structural testing yet, and c) the strutting needs redoing because I'm still working out what needs strutting. I believe the struts are from the KW pack and it has a MJ 1.9 pod & TT wheels, other than that I don't think I added anything. Maybe you'll get the same issue as I have & know how to fix it...

Does remind me of some Soviet aircraft, somehow. http://tinyurl.com/d9pksd3

I've played with and modified it a little ... I suggest you take a look at the static analysis pane with the fuel toggle on empty. You might like it. Or not. Depending on how much you like backflips :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smunisto

smunisto

Posted
Posted

I will post the craft file of the following SSTO I am trying to build later tonight.

The problem with v. 2.4(didn't even notice there is 2.5 already) -

The setup is basically this:

Cockpit -> S2/HL Adapter -> LFO Large HL Fuel tank -> 3x HL Large cargo bays -> S2/HL Adapter inverted(tail section) -> 2.5m Nerva Engine. Note that this is the main section, but it is the one having problems. The SSTO flies ok with this setup, but without the cargo(a DEMV DROP with a RAT 4 Inside) and even empty is quite oversensitive, even with precise controls enabled. This is a design issue and i will resolve it on my own.

But now the real issue: Due to CoM and CoL aligning issues I have tried changing the above to the following:

Cockpit -> S2/HL Adapter -> 3x HL Large cargo bays -> LFO Large HL Fuel tank -> S2/HL Adapter inverted(tail section) -> 2.5m Nerva Engine

No matter how I strut the whole thing, when getting dropped on the airstrip with the tank at the back, the tank and the whole tail section detaches itself from the front. The funny thing is - it stays strutted to the side HL extensions, so the only way to find out if this happened is when the doors on the bay don't close(because it is no longer part of the SSTO). Funnily enough i still have control over the NERVA attached at the back of the tail section.

Now, i wonder - the craft went through several variations and updates. One of the major ones was the change in all of the strutting - from the KW Heavy Struts(220 000 strength mind you) to some black ones(look immensely better), called EAS 5 i think(no idea which mod they are from), which have like 2 500 strength or so.

I don't really know any points of reference to compare these strength values to so I want to ask if you think the craft falls apart because of the type of struts or because of the way of strutting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
colmo

colmo

Posted
Posted
The ACU doesn't lock on to a specific place, when on, it will hold the craft still, but you can still control it and move the orientation of it. When moved to a new orientation it will hold the craft still there.

Sorry, I'm bad at explaining things :) Hope you understood it though. . :P

Sounds great - much like MechJeb's Killrot, but simpler and on a part. Is it toggled by main SAS control or via an action key (which is likely better, and allows both ACU and ASAS on the same plane, useful for space-planes)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hocki

Hocki

Posted
Posted
Sounds great - much like MechJeb's Killrot, but simpler and on a part. Is it toggled by main SAS control or via an action key (which is likely better, and allows both ACU and ASAS on the same plane, useful for space-planes)?

What I've said counts for the aviation part, the stock one. If these are the same, they will be triggered with the main SAS control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taverius

Taverius

Posted
Posted
Cockpit -> S2/HL Adapter -> 3x HL Large cargo bays -> LFO Large HL Fuel tank -> S2/HL Adapter inverted(tail section) -> 2.5m Nerva Engine

No matter how I strut the whole thing, when getting dropped on the airstrip with the tank at the back, the tank and the whole tail section detaches itself from the front. The funny thing is - it stays strutted to the side HL extensions, so the only way to find out if this happened is when the doors on the bay don't close(because it is no longer part of the SSTO). Funnily enough i still have control over the NERVA attached at the back of the tail section.

Now, i wonder - the craft went through several variations and updates. One of the major ones was the change in all of the strutting - from the KW Heavy Struts(220 000 strength mind you) to some black ones(look immensely better), called EAS 5 i think(no idea which mod they are from), which have like 2 500 strength or so.

I don't really know any points of reference to compare these strength values to so I want to ask if you think the craft falls apart because of the type of struts or because of the way of strutting?

The EAS-5 are from my mod, the black retexture is from Tiberion's NovaPunch.

Please try it in 2-5, some of the configs did not have the updated connection strenghts due an overwrite error when packaging 2-4.

In any case, when assembling HL please remove the side HLX to check that the center section is indeed attached together, as sometimes back sections added after the sides like to attach to one of the sides instead.

Another thing to note on heavy aircraft is to not attach the main landing gear to the fuselage. Using HL you can attach them to the side HLX, otherwise to the wings or anyway with one part in between the two, otherwise the impact of the craft getting dropped onto the runway gets passed straight to the fuselage and tends to snap it.

Finally, please be sure to post the craft ... tuning connection strenghts is hard, as the actual strength is weighted by the mass of the part.

For now I've done a global value, soon I will update with pre-weighted connection strenghts but to tune its important to have problem cases :)

P.S. the only sane way I've found to have a craft be stable throughout its fuel envelope and with cargo present or not is to distribute the fuel on either side of the cargo bay and arrange the plane so that the CoM is in the middle of the cargo bay.

What I've said counts for the aviation part, the stock one. If these are the same, they will be triggered with the main SAS control.

They are functionally identical. This also means that you should only really have 1 or the other, as the ASAS is old code and cannot be toggled or attached to action groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Van Disaster

Van Disaster

Posted
Posted
I've played with and modified it a little ... I suggest you take a look at the static analysis pane with the fuel toggle on empty. You might like it. Or not. Depending on how much you like backflips :D

Indeed, I was probably going to shift a fuel tank or two to the tail at some point ( or just get rid of some - I'm not used to judging the fuel capacity of those parts yet ) and just by glancing at it you can tell it is really lacking in pitch authority. Having it shake itself apart during taxi tests was a rather larger worry, given I've had the same problem with other FAR-based aircraft - practically always related to the triangular structural wing segment. If you didn't get that particular problem then I suspect I shall have to reinstall a bunch of things.

I've found using the TT wheels cushions impact on the runway enough that you can attach them to the fuselage - I don't like attaching landing gear to wings usually because wings have a habit of bending, which can then steer you off the runway.

If we're going to have to strut everything, it'd be cool if someone made some parts with grooves in them that you could run struts through; that way they'd look integral rather than the mess we currently end up with. Either that or just recesses so we can attach struts externally & have most of the strut itself inside the part. I realise that would bump polycount up a bit, but is that a bother with this engine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Castun

Castun

Posted
Posted
VlQWo2Mm.jpg

I don't get it, why is mine so dark in comparison? I think mine was taken while in Kerbin's shadow which is why there is so little light...but why don't I have a brightness or gamma setting either? Is there supposed to be? Maybe I can just add a low-power light to the outside above the cockpit that will help...shed some light on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sarbian

sarbian

Posted
Posted
I don't get it, why is mine so dark in comparison? I think mine was taken while in Kerbin's shadow which is why there is so little light...but why don't I have a brightness or gamma setting either? Is there supposed to be? Maybe I can just add a low-power light to the outside above the cockpit that will help...shed some light on the subject.

You have fallback shader activated ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
khagar

khagar

Posted
Posted (edited)
What's there to animate in protective railings?

I mean, that protective railings will be unpack like Telus-LV Bay Mobility Enhancer. Maybe with illumination both at your stairs.

Edited by khagar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Castun

Castun

Posted
Posted
You have fallback shader activated ?

Shouldn't be, I'll have to double check when I get home though. Maybe running it in windowed mode has something to do with it? I usually keep it windowed since I have multiple monitors and I don't have to Alt+Tab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zacho

Zacho

Posted
Posted

Doing remote RemoteTech comsat launches and needed a ground base to do circularize burn controls. So a few mods to the awesome I8-L and i got this..

KSP2013-04-2509-09-16-33_zps323ac2f0.png:original

I8-L-C Mod

Had a nice flight at 16km up and got up to about 870m/s with Taverio's configs for the engines. Could have gone faster, but was getting over heating on the engines. Only used about 1/6th or so fuel doing it.

Love love this pack, when i start to do manned missions it will be used a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Murchadh

Murchadh

Posted
Posted

I would just like to chime in quick....this mod is simply incredulous in both its quality and usefullness. I loaded it up and after 10 minutes of playing around I have decided to completely ditch four days' work on a craft I was building and restart with parts from this pack. I have a 101 new design ideas floating around in my head now. Honestly, the quality is astonishing (I totally love the "concept art" look, which totally fits into the kind of thing I want to build)!!

So, thanks! I really hope you continue your work with this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smunisto

smunisto

Posted
Posted (edited)
The EAS-5 are from my mod, the black retexture is from Tiberion's NovaPunch.

Please try it in 2-5, some of the configs did not have the updated connection strenghts due an overwrite error when packaging 2-4.

In any case, when assembling HL please remove the side HLX to check that the center section is indeed attached together, as sometimes back sections added after the sides like to attach to one of the sides instead.

Another thing to note on heavy aircraft is to not attach the main landing gear to the fuselage. Using HL you can attach them to the side HLX, otherwise to the wings or anyway with one part in between the two, otherwise the impact of the craft getting dropped onto the runway gets passed straight to the fuselage and tends to snap it.

Finally, please be sure to post the craft ... tuning connection strenghts is hard, as the actual strength is weighted by the mass of the part.

For now I've done a global value, soon I will update with pre-weighted connection strenghts but to tune its important to have problem cases :)

P.S. the only sane way I've found to have a craft be stable throughout its fuel envelope and with cargo present or not is to distribute the fuel on either side of the cargo bay and arrange the plane so that the CoM is in the middle of the cargo bay.

I think i already managed to fix the problem with the craft falling apart - the linked setup is already stable in 2.5, but I am attaching it for your purposes. Please bear in mind it uses a handful of mods:

1. Your own pack.

2. B9(duh)

3. Protractor

4. DEMV DROP 4

5. KW Rocketry

6. KSPX maybe

7. KAS

http://www.2shared.com/file/FnFZRhD6/Space_Cargo_I_7_Engines

Now i just have to find out if i can get it in orbit :)

Edited by smunisto
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Photonically

Photonically

Posted
Posted

Wow, the work that has gone into this is amazing! Are there any plans for smaller one-man pods in future? Would be awesome to be able to make small planes/rovers/whatever in your great art style.

Regarding the structural panels: the attachment nodes are currently on their sides - is there an advantage to this? I feel they would be more useful in the centre, as in the stock panels, as the panels are already radially attachable on their sides anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sabor

Sabor

Posted
Posted

I took one of the ships from the pack, modified it a wee bit with landing gear, flipping the cargo bay, and a few other small changes, and I came up with something that Air drops large cargo loads

4DCA194CD1EB3A0AC65380F613585C015043FDD1

3AB2DE269885144D9F164470E141AA955E70C6D1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Van Disaster

Van Disaster

Posted
Posted

I'd really love a Mk2 cargo bay, if there's suggestions being taken. Doesn't have to be Mk2 sized completely, just Mk2 compatible at the ends, can be swollen in the middle somewhat. Using a bunch of adapters for the existing smaller bay makes for a really long plane. You could just about fit well designed Mk1-diameter bits in there if it was gently bulged, would be useful for satellite launches & dropping tiny rovers and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
khagar

khagar

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yeah, something like that, with separately switchable light like on ledders to see that it established at the dark side of planet in space or in the night.

Edited by khagar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...