Jump to content

[WIP] Nert's Dev Thread - Current: such nuke, wow

Nertea

By Nertea
in KSP1 Mod Development

 Share

Recommended Posts

Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted
That's a very... pudgy looking shuttle shuttle design.

I dunno if people are gonna like the look of it, compared to the B9 stuff

It's a good thing that I don't particularly mind it not looking like B9 stuff then ;)

Nert,

Do you expect your new spaceplane parts to support any of the following:

1) FAR/NEAR? These days with so many mod packs being configured exclusively for modified aerodynamics (B9...) its practically mandatory to have installed.

2) The new "stock" lifting bodies as seen with the SP+ parts?

Yees, both should end up being supported.

I build and fly the occasional spaceplane, if you're still looking for testers to cra-er- fly your WIP parts.

Sure. Once I finish updating SSPX and NFT.

that's true I suppose.

But I still feel like the nose and the leading edges should be a little bit... sharper

The nose is decently sharp, I just have a shock cone intake on it which blunts it off quite sharply

It prefers to be called 'curvy' :P

Keep up the great work Nert. I can't wait to use the new 3.75 parts.

Should be soon... I hope to have them ready tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomoo

Bomoo

Posted
Posted

God damn, that spaceplane fuselage system. I'm not trying to butter you up or anything, but incredible work. Not sure if I've popped in to say so before!

I'm curious about how you're planning to do docking adapters, however. If you ask me, the most convenient way (speaking for myself as a builder) would be to do it like the space shuttle - a docking module, potentially with a telescoping 1.25m tube and docking port, that fits inside the cargo bay (the original small KSO shuttle did it this way, for example). This is opposed to the SP+/stock way of doing it, where the docking adapter is a self-contained fuselage segment. That way if you're running a mission that doesn't require docking, you just pull that sucker out of the cargo bay for some extra space - no need to drastically rearrange the craft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well, you can all have a test of the MkIV parts if you like. I appreciate general input, but mainly I'm looking for feedback on the general shape, concept and (vaguely) balance. Parts are textureless and in some cases don't look that great, so be warned.

I'm also testing out GitHub as a more comprehensive workflow with this, so get the test from my GitHub release page

God damn, that spaceplane fuselage system. I'm not trying to butter you up or anything, but incredible work. Not sure if I've popped in to say so before!

I'm curious about how you're planning to do docking adapters, however. If you ask me, the most convenient way (speaking for myself as a builder) would be to do it like the space shuttle - a docking module, potentially with a telescoping 1.25m tube and docking port, that fits inside the cargo bay (the original small KSO shuttle did it this way, for example). This is opposed to the SP+/stock way of doing it, where the docking adapter is a self-contained fuselage segment. That way if you're running a mission that doesn't require docking, you just pull that sucker out of the cargo bay for some extra space - no need to drastically rearrange the craft.

There are a few ideas I am thinking of:

  • Openable nosecone with extending docking port
  • Integrating docking port into crew cabin
  • Specific "slice" with port like SP+

Your idea seems interesting, but for some reason I don't really like it :P. I think if I did it, I would put it in SSPX and make it a 1.25 or 2.5m airlock+extending port part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
I.O.M.

I.O.M.

Posted
Posted

I played around with the MkIV parts for a few minutes. So far I really like them! It reminds me of the blended-wing design of the X-48

vzAKzyq.jpg

I have a few critiques though. The cockpit seems a bit too light given it's size. Maybe bumping it up to 6 tons would do. Also, the wings seem to attach to the fuselage parts a little higher than they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomoo

Bomoo

Posted
Posted (edited)

Fair enough if you don't like it.

I'm down for the SP+ slice, but I would ask you to consider giving it doors that match the payload bay doors, so that it looks like one compartment when opened. The pre-stock SP+ clampo slice was set up this way, for example. It's purely a cosmetic thing, but the new stock Mk2 clampo has this way of opening that doesn't sit flush with the payload bay doors, and it aggravates my OCD somethin' fierce.

Edit: though given the width of the Mk4 fuselage, that might not make a whole lot of sense.

Edited by Bomoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomoo

Bomoo

Posted
Posted

As for feedback, if you want mine, I think what's there looks great. Payload bay is very roomy, and offers lots of flexibility for different payloads from what I've seen of it. Was able to fit a 2.5m lander with just enough clearance for the landing legs, for example.

I regret that I can't really offer balancing feedback, as the whole spaceplane thing is still very much witchcraft to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sean Mirrsen

Sean Mirrsen

Posted
Posted

Okay, tried them out. A cluster of 4 RAPIERs lifted a cockpit with two empty cargo bays and 3 LFO segments into orbit no problem. It all seems to fly well enough, although I have to agree that the mass of the cockpit module is a little low. 6 tons would probably be more fitting, even if it's mostly an empty aerodynamic shell - it has no less stuff in it than the Mk1-2 pod, and is much larger, so the extra weight would make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomoo

Bomoo

Posted
Posted
Sure. I had based it on the Mk2 cockpit which is basically 1t/kerbal.

Now that I know for sure that a Mk3 replacement is coming in 0.26, I'm not sure how motivated I'll be to work on this. We'll see!

Pity, though I suppose it makes sense and I'd do something similar in your position. Though, speaking for myself, I'd rather be using parts textured by someone who knows what they're doing than one of Squad's mostly incompetent interns and new hires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
landerote

landerote

Posted
Posted

Wow Nertea, amazing threat, I've been admiring your models for hours. I didn't update yet to .25 and I'm keeping my old installation till I got everything compatible, so I've some of the parts missing and dying to start using them

Mmm, nice. If you are not motivated with this, what about a Airbus-Beluga type spaceplane, with frontal loading. I'm starting to sketch myself, but there is a lot to learn yet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well I'm pretty sure Porkjet will be doing the Mk3 revamp, so I'm confident the texture work will be as good as mine ;).

Part of the point of doing spaceplane parts though was to break out of my current comfort zone and work on better hull texturing methods, so I should really still do it for my own personal growth. It might be done before 0.26 too hehe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bomoo

Bomoo

Posted
Posted (edited)
Well I'm pretty sure Porkjet will be doing the Mk3 revamp, so I'm confident the texture work will be as good as mine ;).

Cool, cool. I didn't realize he was contracted past 0.25, but it'd be a damned shame if they dropped him after this first pass of SP+ inclusion. Wasn't he working on a bunch of new parts for SP+ 1.4 when the news came? Be crummy if those never saw the light of day.

Also, a bit of feedback on the Mk4, if I may. I experienced some trouble with balancing my Mk4 spaceplane. The main trouble was the CoM being too far to the rear. Way I built it was Cockpit, 3x payload segment, LFO segment, tail segment. I think I'll agree with the need for the cockpit to be heavier as a ballast thing if nothing else. Also connected to this: maybe consider adding a modest fuel capacity to all segments? B9 does this in a very snazzy way, allowing you to select whether you want a structural fuselage, LFO, LF, or monoprop.

One thing that I'm digging about this fuselage system is the flat keel (is that the right term for the underside?), allowing me to very comfortably add landing gear. Adding rear landing gear's a bit of a problem with B9's 3.75m spaceplane fuselage, for example. A problem with the flat keel, however, could be clearance issues with the payload. I noticed that payloads which comfortably fit inside the bay doors on the top have a tendency of clipping through the fuselage on the bottom.

4FB3F0C48AA614698C915B1E377F1F43B50A6A1B

Edited by Bomoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reblobic

Reblobic

Posted
Posted

Hey Sean,

I was referring to this post nertea made a while ago.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/51395-WIP-Nert-s-Models-Current-MKIV-Spaceplane-Parts/page22

You posted the old Orion solar panels. The solar panels I posted above are the panels planned for the NASA ARM solar tug.

Nertea showed both the orion panels(which were eventually added in Near Future Solar) and the larger tug solar panels, which weren't.

Thanks for responding though :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...