Nertea Posted June 23, 2015 Author Share Posted June 23, 2015 That picture above actually contains a Mk4 to 2.5mX2 adapter . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Sierra Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 That picture above actually contains a Mk4 to 2.5mX2 adapter .THen that's everything I could possibly need provided there's some gigantor engines to stuff on there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted June 23, 2015 Author Share Posted June 23, 2015 Three planned: CUTLASS: 2.5m RAPIER, using a torroidal aerospike design that looks cool but may not actually workKE-90: Lower power and for cruisin' based on the GE-90Unnamed turbojet engine: probably based on the J58 or something. Will probably do these when I get tired of fuselage pieces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowfish Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Isn't the whiplash already sorta based on the J-58? I think something based on the Olympus 593 would be more useful - very high thrust and designed for a reasonably fuel efficient cruise at mach ~2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Mirrsen Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 As far as adapters go, I think a Mk3+2x1.25m (or maybe 6x1.25m, depending on whether you can fit a triangle of 1.25m nodes on either side of the Mk3) would be needed, because a transition through the 3.5m adapter wouldn't look as good. I can't think of any other potentially useful ones, but since the Mk4 fuselage isn't vertically symmetric and the adapter layout could have multiple uses (i.e. as a front or a tail piece), maybe have two versions of the Mk3+2x1.25m (or, again, however many 1.25m), with the Mk3 node aligned with the top, and the bottom of the Mk4 profile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loppnessmonsta Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 What about maybe mk4 to 1x2.5m+4x1.25 (plus the two lobes)? So the two outer lobes, a central 2.5m, and then 4 1.25m arranged around the 2.5m. Or maybe 6 arranged around the 2.5m. Whatever fits. That would be useful for varied engine clusters. But, as you say, boring to do. Something perhaps less boring: What about a cockpit with windows on the bottom surface instead of (or maybe in addition to) the top? Like for an airship or bomber or something. Maybe put some retractable blast shields so it can do re-entry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cipherpunks Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Top left and top middle: mesh and fuel switching. Most fuel-containing parts (and even cargo bays) can now swap their fuels out. There's 4 combinations - LF, LF/MP, LF/OX, LF/OX/MP. There's texture and mesh variations for each... Those two images show a LF/OX/MP fuselage and a pure LF one. Hm, what about LqdHydrogen/Oxidizer and pure LqdHydrogen? And maybe (just maybe) ArgonGas/Xenon too?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Sierra Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 Hm, what about LqdHydrogen/Oxidizer and pure LqdHydrogen? And maybe (just maybe) ArgonGas/Xenon too?...This demands the question of how many of us will use it with cryo engines/NFP? If not that many, unnecessary. If lots, then yeah, good ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiana Posted June 24, 2015 Share Posted June 24, 2015 This demands the question of how many of us will use it with cryo engines/NFP? If not that many, unnecessary. If lots, then yeah, good ideas.If not, then I'm sure a quick MM patch can add those swaps into the tanks, based on their dry volume and the mass of the appropriate fuels. If you need some aid, I can read up a bit and give some sample configs for the IS fuel swap module. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admac Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I liked the Iguana parts for my unmanned jets, as a stubby lil nose, but that was the one and only use I had for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 Isn't the whiplash already sorta based on the J-58? I think something based on the Olympus 593 would be more useful - very high thrust and designed for a reasonably fuel efficient cruise at mach ~2Yeah, it's more of a question of looks rather than functionality. It's more like "what engine has an interesting looking butt, that would look ok at 2.5m"?As far as adapters go, I think a Mk3+2x1.25m (or maybe 6x1.25m, depending on whether you can fit a triangle of 1.25m nodes on either side of the Mk3) would be needed, because a transition through the 3.5m adapter wouldn't look as good. I can't think of any other potentially useful ones, but since the Mk4 fuselage isn't vertically symmetric and the adapter layout could have multiple uses (i.e. as a front or a tail piece), maybe have two versions of the Mk3+2x1.25m (or, again, however many 1.25m), with the Mk3 node aligned with the top, and the bottom of the Mk4 profile?The mk3 fuselage, being about 3.75m high, is about 90% of the height of the total Mk4 profile, so it's not goiWhat about maybe mk4 to 1x2.5m+4x1.25 (plus the two lobes)? So the two outer lobes, a central 2.5m, and then 4 1.25m arranged around the 2.5m. Or maybe 6 arranged around the 2.5m. Whatever fits. That would be useful for varied engine clusters. But, as you say, boring to do. Something perhaps less boring: What about a cockpit with windows on the bottom surface instead of (or maybe in addition to) the top? Like for an airship or bomber or something. Maybe put some retractable blast shields so it can do re-entry.Hah, that's kinda cool sounding. Hm, what about LqdHydrogen/Oxidizer and pure LqdHydrogen? And maybe (just maybe) ArgonGas/Xenon too?...Only those models for now. Potentially more later, but I really wanted each tank type to have its own model variant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowfish Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Yeah, it's more of a question of looks rather than functionality. It's more like "what engine has an interesting looking butt, that would look ok at 2.5m"?.For a larger turbojet you could also look at the GE4, but the end looks pretty similar to the J-58 anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Sierra Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I really wanted each tank type to have its own model variant.Given how gorgeous your NFP tanks are, I won't object to this plan.And holy sh** the J58 gets hot!I trust you have intentions to include this glorious purply shock diamond effect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemiaCloud Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Can you update the mk4 stuff to 1.0? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yemo Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) It just means that the tank mesh in the side pod disappears and is replaced by a frame. I feel poorly about double jointed doors, though they will probably happen for any ventral cargo bays.Hard to see on the pictures thus released, but I did improve the visibility from the windows - they're more vertical now and have a slice for pilots to see down.But anyways, here are some new pictures: I have mostly completed the textures for the cockpit, cargo bays and fuselages, and in addition did the drone core. Probably going to knock out the service bay and start work on some adapter next, though I won't have time to do anything until the weekend. http://nertea.the3rdage.net/ksp/mk4reduxW2.jpgNew comments required: I need to completely change the adapters from the last version - the hull is just too large to be compatible with the previous layouts. I also want to keep them to a minimum number, because they're very boring to make and take time out of more interesting parts.I have confirmed for sure:Mk4 to 2x 1.25 m (on the sides) and 2x 2.5 m Mk4 to 2x 1.25 m (on the sides) and 1x 3.75 m These have the same profile as the cockpit, so the shoulder pieces can mount on the 1.25m nodes nicely. I'm for sure deprecating the Mk4 to 2x 1.25m and 1x 2.5m, it just doesn't work at all. So I guess... what else? I'll allow perhaps two more. Also, did anyone really use the Iguana adapter (short fat one)?Looks great!For thrust balancing between 2 engine sets, would it be possible to make aMk4 to 2x1.25m (sides), 1x3.75m and then 4x1.25m (perhaps a little offset compared to the sides and the 3.75m, to fit them in terms of width) between the center one and the sides?An arrangement like this, with a total of 6x1.25m and 1x3.75m:o8O8oedit: If that is not possible with 3.75m center, then perhaps with one 2.5m center mount instead?Such a configuration would allow 2 different engine sets (eg one air breather set and one lfo set) with comparable though different thrust potential.I m wondering what happens to all those "old" 2.5m Mk4 models?It would be a real shame to leave them, they were my favorite system with this diameter, though I m really looking forward to the new big spaceplane system. Edited June 25, 2015 by Yemo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 For a larger turbojet you could also look at the GE4, but the end looks pretty similar to the J-58 anyway.Olympus 593 does have a nice back bit, at least has a bit of character.Can you update the mk4 stuff to 1.0?Haha.Looks great!For thrust balancing between 2 engine sets, would it be possible to make aMk4 to 2x1.25m (sides), 1x3.75m and then 4x1.25m (perhaps a little offset compared to the sides and the 3.75m, to fit them in terms of width) between the center one and the sides?An arrangement like this, with a total of 6x1.25m and 1x3.75m:o8O8oedit: If that is not possible with 3.75m center, then perhaps with one 2.5m center mount instead?Such a configuration would allow 2 different engine sets (eg one air breather set and one lfo set) with comparable though different thrust potential.I m wondering what happens to all those "old" 2.5m Mk4 models?It would be a real shame to leave them, they were my favorite system with this diameter, though I m really looking forward to the new big spaceplane system.They sit on my HD and collect dust until I find the willpower to do all the necessary 1.0 fixes to drag cubes, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonrd463 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Can you update the mk4 stuff to 1.0?Nertea has already made it clear, specifically in the last few pages, that he is NOT updating the mod pack. You're basically on your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowfish Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Olympus 593 does have a nice back bit, at least has a bit of character.Minor point - that's not the production version, just a prototype (the production version had These nozzles). Not that it matters if you're just using it as a reference... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yemo Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Whoops, just noticed that I felt so compelled to comment on those pictures that I did not read the last page where loppnessmonsta already suggested such an adapter layout.Might I suggest keeping the old Mk4 parts under that name to be adjusted to 1.0.x in the future and eg naming the new parts Mk6?It would have a nice symmetry to it, where the even numbers are the wide version of the diameter.Mk1 is special in that regard, since it is 1.25m.Mk2 is the wide version able to contain 1.25m.Mk3 can contain 2.5m parts, but is more boxed shape.MkIV can contain 2.5m parts, but is wider and thus better for rovers and such.Mk5 does not exist yet but would likely be an enlarged Mk3 or similar being able to hold 3.75m.Mk6 wide body able to contain 3.75m parts. Edited June 25, 2015 by Yemo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Sierra Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Whoops, just noticed that I felt so compelled to comment on those pictures that I did not read the last page where loppnessmonsta already suggested such an adapter layout.Might I suggest keeping the old Mk4 parts under that name to be redone in the future and eg naming the new parts Mk6?It would have a nice symmetry to it, where the even numbers are the wide version of the diameter.Mk1 is special in that regard, since it is 1.25m.Mk2 is the wide version able to contain 1.25m.Mk3 can contain 2.5m parts, but is more boxed shape.MkIV can contain 2.5m parts, but is wider and thus better for rovers and such.Mk5 does not exist yet but would likely be an enlarged Mk3 or similar being able to hold 3.75m.Mk6 wide body able to contain 3.75m parts.What would be the point? With Mk3 you can already haul 2.5m payloads. The core concept of the redesign was that Mk3 more or less invalidated this mod's niche, so when in doubt, make it bigger! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yemo Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 What would be the point? With Mk3 you can already haul 2.5m payloads. The core concept of the redesign was that Mk3 more or less invalidated this mod's niche, so when in doubt, make it bigger!Mk4 is much more suitable for wide body payload like rovers. Also it has a really nice look to it and offers nice tails and ramps and such.2.5m payloads are really common, especially considering base and station building, so having this kind of shuttle variety was/is really great.And imho the Mk4 system had a wider range of suitable roles considering its special properties.I ll try to find an old screenshot or craft file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Sierra Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Old Mk4 profile was incapable of handling the rovers I needed to handle. New Mk4 fixes that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yemo Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Old Mk4 profile was incapable of handling the rovers I needed to handle. New Mk4 fixes that.And I m glad that Nertea designs a new 3.75m+ version.I was just pointing out that the old Mk4 provides quite a few capabilities which Mk3 does not accomodate for the many people who have 2.5m+ cargo.In addition to the benefit of providing more variety and a more modern look than the Mk3 which is derived from the "80s" spaceshuttles.As well as the "extra" pieces like engine mounts.Oh, and I liked the Iguana for specialized craft. Edited June 25, 2015 by Yemo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riocrokite Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Old Mk4 profile was incapable of handling the rovers I needed to handle. New Mk4 fixes that.yah, also seems that new mk4 will be much better suited for MFS rover frames which is great Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Sierra Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 yah, also seems that new mk4 will be much better suited for MFS rover frames which is great http://i.imgur.com/wtsCpSV.pngThat a 2.5 or 3.75 diameter fairing?If 3.75 its gonna be tight but the more square shape of the bay area will make it work well. 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.