Nertea Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 That's a very... pudgy looking shuttle shuttle design.I dunno if people are gonna like the look of it, compared to the B9 stuffIt'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... sharperThe nose is decently sharp, I just have a shock cone intake on it which blunts it off quite sharplyIt prefers to be called 'curvy' 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomoo Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 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 pageGod 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 portIntegrating docking port into crew cabinSpecific "slice" with port like SP+Your idea seems interesting, but for some reason I don't really like it . 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.O.M. Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 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-48I 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomoo Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 (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 October 12, 2014 by Bomoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 Well, it's not certain that I'll do that slice, even. This is the way it's going at the moment: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomoo Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 First attempt at putting something together. Flies like crap, but that's mostly because it's a first pass, and I'm generally terrible at balancing spaceplanes, tending to go for looks first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted October 12, 2014 Author Share Posted October 12, 2014 Very nice. I've finished up the last of the first group of parts; I hope to start unwrapping soon, just going to wait maybe a day or two for general feedback to come in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomoo Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomoo Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 A tiny bit of liftoff assistance was needed. Am I imagining things or did the SRB exhaust plume get huge in the latest patch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted October 14, 2014 Author Share Posted October 14, 2014 Yeah, I tend to have trouble getting the parts to take off. Of course, that's been my problem for most of my plane designs, so I figured it was just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Mirrsen Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Do they have the winglet module, so that they have some body lift, like the Mk2 parts? Their surface area is huge, I'd imagine they net a decent lift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted October 14, 2014 Author Share Posted October 14, 2014 Yes they do, though I can't say that I have the values correct yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Mirrsen Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Hm. Can I help test? I'm usually good with spaceplanes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted October 14, 2014 Author Share Posted October 14, 2014 Yeah, there's a prerelease link on the previous page. Anyone can grab it, I'll add it to the OP at lunch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomoo Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 "Wasn't trying to buzz the tower, I swear; I'm just that bad at runway landings." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Mirrsen Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted October 15, 2014 Author Share Posted October 15, 2014 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomoo Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landerote Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 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 themMmm, 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted October 15, 2014 Author Share Posted October 15, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomoo Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 (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. Edited October 16, 2014 by Bomoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reblobic Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Hey Nertea,Love all your work around here, Near Future definitely is a must have for my game.I was wondering if you ever plan to add this solar panel from way back in this thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Mirrsen Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Those have been in Near Future Solar for a while now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reblobic Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Those have been in Near Future Solar for a while now.https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4152380/KSPScreens/25/screenshot88.pnghttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4152380/KSPScreens/25/screenshot135.pngHey 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/page22You 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 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.