randyrules711 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Not really ive gotten to 1.5 km/s in a ravenspear Mk4 with the engines replaced with turbojetsI had this plane up to 2.1 km/s at one point. It left the atmosphere. I can't seem to re-create that, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naf5000 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 That's because it currently has no unique IVA, and the MK1 IVA is being used as a stand-in.As noted here and here , due to a ksp engine limitation, only one animation is available to a GameObject, so it now lights up rather than retracts.Oh. Ah well, thanks anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilC Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Any chance we could get a hollow version of the "S2 Fuselage Wide Body 3.75m Adapter"?The new wide body bay is awesome, but you cannot use the ramp load tail with it properly - this would solve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Firespitter animation plugin has a way around this limitation, IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilC Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Oh and could we have the H50 legs use the new anim system, so we can start them deployed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castun Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I love the B9 Pack. It is brilliant. However, there is one thing I would request:I am a horrible pilot. I need mechjeb. However, the huge surface deflections make mechjeb rather.... Jittery. What I have done to fix this is I have decreased the maximum deflection angle to 5 degrees on all control surfaces.It seems to smooth out the flight.I've had to do something similar with the engine gimbal ranges, including all the stock and addon rocket engines. ASAS / MechJeb overcorrects for being the slightest bit off, and would cause the plane / rocket to wobble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow86 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Looks like a lot of work went into this mod, but I feel I've to point out a couple of things.While the detail of some parts is fantastic, many others (if the inspiration albums are anything to go by) seem extremely plain and barely textured. Even if the models themselves seem to be just fine. And I feel that clash of detail consequently makes those parts less than compatible with existing stock material. It just wouldn't look very good to mix and match, and such compatibility should be a primary objective for any parts mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firov Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) Changing the default area in the cfg file from "area = 0.00025" to "area = 0.000025" seems to bring the amount of air to a similar, albeit a bit lower, level of others intakes, but the part still generates a huge drag with FAR, huge as in a small plane will fly like a brick amount. The CF34 (this engine is so beautiful) and TFE731 have the same huge airflow, and a huge drag on any plane they are in.You truly have no idea how much time, effort, and frustration you just saved me with this one post. I have been bashing my head against the wall of extreme drag caused by those variable geometry intake engine mounts for the last day and have had very limited success. I originally didn't even consider that the engine mounts/intakes might be the problem and so have been trying to make more and more sophisticated wings, never realizing that I was solving the wrong problem. Thank you!Now, with regards to my earlier comments, I take back everything I said. Using the FAR mod, the variable geometry engine mounts and intakes aren't overpowered, they're massively underpowered. To the extent of being completely broken. The drag on these at transonic speeds is so extreme that at high speeds they effectively prevent the craft from accelerating while climbing without greater than 20 degrees AoA, which generally causes stalls anyway, hence my recent focus on more and more complex/sophisticated wings. At this point, I've got more design hours spent on wings than the entire aerodynamics team behind the F22 Raptor, I imagine.To elaborate, while the Taverius shock intakes intake a lot less air, cutting out at around 20k assuming 1 intake per engine, they also have less than half the drag associated with them at transonic speeds. I've got a link to two example craft below which weighs around 40 tons and uses 4 D-30F7 turbojets. They are identical in every way but the intakes used. The craft using the Taverius shock cones has a CD of around .35 at transonic speeds, while the other craft, using the RBM engine mount, has a CD of .75 at those same speeds. The fact that the RDM's generate a lot more intake air than the shock cones doesn't matter, since the RMB craft can't accelerate beyond ~ Mach 1.1-1.2 on jets alone without stalling out and descending into denser atmosphere, thus slowing down even more. To get around this would require more engines. A lot more engines.The difference is so extreme that the shock cone spaceplane is easily able to get into orbit with delta-v to spare, while the RBM intake spaceplane can't get above 20km and mach 1.2.As a fix, I'd suggest decreasing the air intake for the variable geometry intakes to around the levels of the shock cone, while also decreasing the drag to similar levels.Taverius, Bac. Please. Look at my example craft below. They have an info-drive describing my usual ascent profile. They require PWing, KWRocketry, TV Aerospace, and FAR. The drag I'm seeing here, along with the intake air amounts absolutely can not be right. Something is broken. The RBM engine mount is beautiful, and I'd really hate for it to remain effectively unusable because of this.Drag Example CraftEDIT - It's nice. Thanks to Huelandeer, I'm finally able to get this into orbit, just like I originally wanted. No more fiddling with implausible wings that can handle >20 degrees AoA at transonic speeds. Now for the cargo variant. Edited June 5, 2013 by Firov Adding screenshot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilC Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 It seems though that the RNM intake is utterly ridiculous.I used to have 4 ram intakes on my SSTO for every engine - now with 1 RNM intake per engine, whereas I had to work for a 72k orbit, I now have trouble keeping my apo to below 250k, even on a 5deg ascent - the thing rockets out the atmo like a bat out of hell. Whereas before I could lift 40 tons, now it is more like 75 or 100.See for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evilC Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 LOL, try this recipe for a little WTF??:Go into VAB, start with drone core, add a jumbo64 fuel tank (36 tons of weight - this is our "payload")8x symmetry, add 8 RNM intakes to the jumbo64.Repeat - stack the 2nd set of RNMs on top of the 1st setAdd 8x stock mk1 jet fuel fuselagesAdd 8x turbojets= 36 tons VTOL to 75k apo on about 1 ton of jet fuelWho needs first stage rockets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rifter Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 (edited) Now, with regards to my earlier comments, I take back everything I said. Using the FAR mod, the variable geometry engine mounts and intakes aren't overpowered, they're massively underpowered. To the extent of being completely broken. The drag on these at transonic speeds is so extreme that at high speeds they effectively prevent the craft from accelerating while climbing without greater than 20 degrees AoA, which generally causes stalls anyway, hence my recent focus on more and more complex/sophisticated wings.So that's why whenever I pulled the nose up with the YF-28 at > 20km the engine output would suddenly shoot up. Mystery solved:) Edited June 5, 2013 by rifter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 So Bac, can we expect some new space plane parts in 0.21? :3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekan1k Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Veeltch, that's a bit early to be asking. 0.20.2 just came out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wjolcz Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Yeeeee, I know. But I'm just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SalmonellaDingDong Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Glad I decided to check the thread. These intakes have been making my planes unflyable. I get to 15k and can't go higher or get any speed. Good to know it's not just me. B9, please fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanier Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Can we please get some bigger landing gear? Maybe powered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SalmonellaDingDong Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Try the TV aerospace pizza pack, it has different sized gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digestif Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 This pack makes me reveal evil inside of me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaDealer Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Can we please get some bigger landing gear? Maybe powered?TT's Modular MultiWheels has all your landing gear solutions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhaosCorp Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 TT's Modular MultiWheels has all your landing gear solutions...meh...TT needs to update his stuff and fix the plugins first.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaDealer Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 meh...TT needs to update his stuff and fix the plugins first....MultiWheels functions OK once you make it .20 compatible with the .bat file solution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhaosCorp Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 MultiWheels functions OK once you make it .20 compatible with the .bat file solution...sure they work, but not updated, and causing slowdowns.....squad even has the wheels listed by name in 'known issues' support thread....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaDealer Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 sure they work, but not updated, and causing slowdowns.....squad even has the wheels listed by name in 'known issues' support thread.......They work perfectly fine for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moxzot Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Can we please get some bigger landing gear? Maybe powered?No plans for landing gear at the moment. The game lacks mirroring to support proper asymmetrical gear models and landing gear module lacks support for multiple wheel sets, which renders large gears a lot less useful. Maybe at some point in the future when these issues will be resolved, but no, not anytime soon.Thats what he told to me cause i agree if your gonna make something make it right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohm Machre Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I love the B9 Pack. It is brilliant. However, there is one thing I would request:I am a horrible pilot. I need mechjeb. However, the huge surface deflections make mechjeb rather.... Jittery. What I have done to fix this is I have decreased the maximum deflection angle to 5 degrees on all control surfaces.It seems to smooth out the flight.What I do is I press CAPS, which makes all user input to controls gentler.It also works with MechJeb, and ceases the stutters while keeping you pinpoint straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts