[WIP] Nert's Dev Thread - Current: various updates

[Donziboy2]

You're flying a boat . . . yeah its gonna not exactly wanna cooperate. Stems from lack of appropriately sized control surfaces methinks. I use hefty RCS to compensate. Seems to work.

More like Titanic lol.

[Jafar_Ironclad]

http://imgur.com/a/b9KeQ

[BudgetHedgehog]

Peas and rice, I'd underestimated the size of the MkIV-2... that's bloody gigantic!

[Herr Doktor Strangemember]

Is anyone aware of any mods that conflict with this mod, I seem to be missing several parts. The cockpit most noticeably. I've switched to aggressive texture management with no luck, tried a new career game and sandbox game, but since I have 129 mods any educated guesses where I should start looking for a conflict. BTW thanks Nert for all the work.

[Captain Sierra]

Is anyone aware of any mods that conflict with this mod, I seem to be missing several parts. The cockpit most noticeably. I've switched to aggressive texture management with no luck, tried a new career game and sandbox game, but since I have 129 mods any educated guesses where I should start looking for a conflict. BTW thanks Nert for all the work.

These parts share texture sheets to cut down on memory usage (since I believe Nert uses 1024 textures; how else do you get this degree of awesome detail?). They're very sensitive to file structure. Be sure you've dropped the contents of the Gamedata folder in the zip straight into your Gamedata folder.

Its also possible that ATM is messing with it, but that would then affect a lot of other mods, likely including some in your install.

[BFGfreak]

hey nert I have a question, how did you learn to texture in the first place. I mean I know that what you have now is the result of at least a year of model making, but where did you get your first steps from?

[billkerbinsky]

• A couple fuselage parts have unwelded seams (if you see any let me know)
  

The service bay appears to have this problem on the rear edge between the inner walls and the back panel - if I'm looking at a two-part craft (cockpit followed by service bay) from above, I can see the SPH floor patterns in the crack when panning around with the camera above and to the rear). I'm guessing the inner side walls are shorter than the part because I'm seeing the same when I follow the service bay by a large cargo bay.

- - - Updated - - -

• Texture colour matching needs to be done still (particularly for the adapters, tails and the cockpit)
  

The cockpit has darker areas on the lower leading edge (which I'm assuming is intended to represent heat shielding as seen on the shuttle and similar vehicles). I'd think the nose cones (docking port and "snoopy") should be that darker color rather than the lighter main body color..

Also I tried the Stockalike Station Parts EVAC-U-8 immediately aft of the cockpit in a cargo bay as an inline docking adapter and.. it's not really big enough - if you position it so it doesn't clip into the doors when closed, the cargo doors when open are higher than the end of the docking tube.

[riocrokite]

hi Nertea,

Thanks for making new MK4 big enough to house Mobile Frame System rovers inside \o/. Additionaly bottom-opening cargo bay version is totaly cool concept, tail openable cargo-bay is well designed, all in all - pure awesomeness

The only extra thing IMHO (if you still have energy ) to add to this behemoth would be airbus beluga style cargobay:)

So all in all 2-3 more parts, extra-high cargobay in 2 lengths (i.e. 5m and 2.5m) and aerodynamic adapter cap (i.e. 2m long) for ends so it's compatible with the rest of mk4 parts.

Example below - sorry for ugly schematics (lack of time = windows paint )

Edited July 13, 2015 by riocrokite

[billkerbinsky]

The only extra thing IMHO (if you still have energy ) to add to this behemoth would be airbus beluga style cargobay:)

So all in all 2-3 more parts, extra-high cargobay in 2 lengths (i.e. 5m and 2.5m) and aerodynamic adapter cap (i.e. 2m long) for ends so it's compatible with the rest of mk4 parts.

The beluga has its cargo hatch in the forward "end caps" and the cargo is offloaded right over the cockpit; that seems like it would be doable within the constraints of KSP part models.

(in contrast, Boeing's Dreamlifter hinges the tail section, and the older Super Guppy hinges just aft of the cockpit..)

[Captain Sierra]

hi Nertea,

Thanks for making new MK4 big enough to house Mobile Frame System rovers inside \o/. Additionaly bottom-opening cargo bay version is totaly cool concept, tail openable cargo-bay is well designed, all in all - pure awesomeness

The only extra thing IMHO (if you still have energy ) to add to this behemoth would be airbus beluga style cargobay:)

So all in all 2-3 more parts, extra-high cargobay in 2 lengths (i.e. 5m and 2.5m) and aerodynamic adapter cap (i.e. 2m long) for ends so it's compatible with the rest of mk4 parts.

Example below - sorry for ugly schematics (lack of time = windows paint )

http://i.imgur.com/nHqCAoE.png

I see your intent, and I ask what on Kerbin are you intending to haul? Only thing that really doesnt fit in the Mk4 bays gracefully right now is 3.75m stuff (and even still it fits, just not gracefully).

Concept: cool

Justification: undetermined

Ultimately I'd be curious to see if Nertea considers this out of scope or not. The pack is about stupidly large transport planes after all.

The beluga has its cargo hatch in the forward "end caps" and the cargo is offloaded right over the cockpit; that seems like it would be doable within the constraints of KSP part models.

(in contrast, Boeing's Dreamlifter hinges the tail section, and the older Super Guppy hinges just aft of the cockpit..)

A C-17 style upwards-opening cockpit/ramp is currently planned for the base Mk4 profile. If Beluga-style fuselages were added too, maybe some additional cargo ramps could become a thing.

[riocrokite]

I see your intent, and I ask what on Kerbin are you intending to haul? Only thing that really doesnt fit in the Mk4 bays gracefully right now is 3.75m stuff (and even still it fits, just not gracefully).

Concept: cool

Justification: undetermined

Ultimately I'd be curious to see if Nertea considers this out of scope or not. The pack is about stupidly large transport planes after all.

A C-17 style upwards-opening cockpit/ramp is currently planned for the base Mk4 profile. If Beluga-style fuselages were added too, maybe some additional cargo ramps could become a thing.

Actually there's no need for c-17 / other opening cargobays, beluga-extra high cargo bay could open upwards or downwards (like existing cargobays) and it would be enough; delivering cargo space shuttle style.

Sample usage: Delivering dual 3.75 tanks (side-by-side) to the orbit or similar bulky stuff For example getting LH2 tanks to orbit - they are bulky but light. And it would just look soo cool

[Captain Sierra]

Actually there's no need for c-17 / other opening cargobays, beluga-extra high cargo bay could open upwards or downwards (like existing cargobays) and it would be enough; delivering cargo space shuttle style.

Sample usage: Delivering dual 3.75 tanks (side-by-side) to the orbit or similar bulky stuff For example getting LH2 tanks to orbit - they are bulky but light. And it would just look soo cool

What about using it to deliver stupidly oversized cargo to low gravity planetary surfaces? While definitely not required in the first batch (daring to assume this does become a thing), there are some of us (read: me) who throw mass efficiency out the window and carry it internally all the way, purely for awesomeness factor. Duna plane base delivery anyone?

EDIT:

^^ The first practicality test of drop bays. That cargo plane has a fairly large science rover on board with lots of chutes (all of which have very long semi-deploy times to clear the bay). Gonna go drop it in the desert and see what happens.

Also, I found a bug that some nodes are ever so slightly higher than they should be. When experimenting with a VTOL that was cockpit-drone core-drop bay-drone core-iguana adapter, the adapter and cockpit sat very slightly above everything else. I'm not sure exactly which parts are responsible.

THe phenomenon is also visible going drop bay-armadillo adapter and cockpit-drop bay (as it is on the above plane from the right angles).

EDIT 2: Almost immediately after returning to flight from the previous edit, I noticed another bug. The heavy extended nacelle's intake module is registering as closed. I can spam the open/close button as much as I want but it never changes the status and it does not intake air. I do not know if this extends to the regular nacelle and precooler.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Captain Sierra

[Nothalogh]

What about using it to deliver stupidly oversized cargo to low gravity planetary surfaces? While definitely not required in the first batch (daring to assume this does become a thing), there are some of us (read: me) who throw mass efficiency out the window and carry it internally all the way, purely for awesomeness factor. Duna plane base delivery anyone?

EDIT:

http://i.imgur.com/ax7pn12.png

^^ The first practicality test of drop bays. That cargo plane has a fairly large science rover on board with lots of chutes (all of which have very long semi-deploy times to clear the bay). Gonna go drop it in the desert and see what happens.

Also, I found a bug that some nodes are ever so slightly higher than they should be. When experimenting with a VTOL that was cockpit-drone core-drop bay-drone core-iguana adapter, the adapter and cockpit sat very slightly above everything else. I'm not sure exactly which parts are responsible.

THe phenomenon is also visible going drop bay-armadillo adapter and cockpit-drop bay (as it is on the above plane from the right angles).

EDIT 2: Almost immediately after returning to flight from the previous edit, I noticed another bug. The heavy extended nacelle's intake module is registering as closed. I can spam the open/close button as much as I want but it never changes the status and it does not intake air. I do not know if this extends to the regular nacelle and precooler.

Mother of dog, it makes the largest landing gear look like toothpicks

[Donziboy2]

Any chance in a 1 - 2 and 1 - 3 engine adapter for the rear?

[Captain Sierra]

Mother of dog, it makes the largest landing gear look like toothpicks

On my prototype SSTO (which hauls over 70 tons to orbit mind you) I use 8 of them for the rear wheel trucks. I need that much for braking power.

New bug: something's jank in the Dudley's heating properties. On that test flight, I didnt make it across the KSC continent before the engines blew. I checked thermal debug and they were not conducting at all, and barely convecting or radiating (I was expecting the heat to distribute into the nacelle and make the whole engine pylon warm, then convect off).

Balance notes:

The Dudley is losing thrust as a function of altitude way too quickly. The large cargo planes I (and I expect others) am using it on don't accelerate fast enough to make up for that with the thrust increasing as a function of speed. Does the atmosphere really thin that quick IRL? I was barely making it to 5000m before I couldnt climb without losing speed (and I was having to hold a 7 degree AoA just to maintain level). It could do with a minor thrust bump at rest, definitely needs a more lenient atmo curve, and I'd also suggest dropping the max thrust speed down to mach 1.5 from mach 1.8 (possibly exchanging speed for flight ceiling or something)

To everyone who's name is not Nertea, let the balance discussion over the Dudley begin.

- - - Updated - - -

Any chance in a 1 - 2 and 1 - 3 engine adapter for the rear?

http://i.imgur.com/6AeQGs5.png

Nice plane. (karbonite engines over Nertea's beautiful turbojets? )

You could try something with 1.25 --> Mk2 --> 2x1.25 and then offset in, or you could do what you have there. Its a standard 1.25m node/socket you have to work with so with a shred of creativity you can make something. You appear to have managed above.

[Nothalogh]

I use 8 of them for the rear wheel trucks. I need that much for braking power.

Speaking of that, thrust reversers would be a good thing to have on the Turbojet and the Turbofan

[Donziboy2]

Nice plane. (karbonite engines over Nertea's beautiful turbojets? )

You could try something with 1.25 --> Mk2 --> 2x1.25 and then offset in, or you could do what you have there. Its a standard 1.25m node/socket you have to work with so with a shred of creativity you can make something. You appear to have managed above.

Id use Nertea's engines if they worked on EVE

Edit....

Needs alot more work, manage to get 81T into orbit just barely.

Craft on runway = 282.737T

Monoprop = 1.04T

LFO, O and Karbonite = 112.15T

Payload = 81T

Edited July 13, 2015 by Donziboy2

[Captain Sierra]

Id use Nertea's engines if they worked on EVE

Oh . . . that hellhole. May Kod have mercy on your soul.

EDIT:

Nertea, two more unwelded seams.

The Mk4 side of the Armadillo adapter appears unwelded, and so is the rear edge of the Heavy Extended Nacelle.

EDIT 2:

The plane is getting bigger.

Approaching K-17 level.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Captain Sierra

[Donziboy2]

Just found something interesting...... Things inside the crew bay are not being protected from drag.

[Captain Sierra]

Just found something interesting...... Things inside the crew bay are not being protected from drag.

http://i.imgur.com/3NOA8JQ.png

Conversely, things surface attached to the outside of cargo bays may sometimes be shielded from drag when they shouldn't be (though it is probably safer this way rather than have things in the bay not occluded).

EDIT: REDACTED.

Tends to help when you make sure the wings aren't majorly clipping into the bay interior.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Captain Sierra

[Nertea]

So I assume the cargo ramp works ok? I can finish the model and start texturing now?

Is anyone aware of any mods that conflict with this mod, I seem to be missing several parts. The cockpit most noticeably. I've switched to aggressive texture management with no luck, tried a new career game and sandbox game, but since I have 129 mods any educated guesses where I should start looking for a conflict. BTW thanks Nert for all the work.

Generally problems like this are the result of incorrect installation. Check to make sure directories look like KSP/GameData/MarkIVSystem/Parts/etc

hey nert I have a question, how did you learn to texture in the first place. I mean I know that what you have now is the result of at least a year of model making, but where did you get your first steps from?

There were some crappy textures in Battle for Middle Earth that needed fixing, so I learned how to draw stuff. http://nertea.the3rdage.net/ for my oldest, not so great work. Practiced for a while and became decent.

The service bay appears to have this problem on the rear edge between the inner walls and the back panel - if I'm looking at a two-part craft (cockpit followed by service bay) from above, I can see the SPH floor patterns in the crack when panning around with the camera above and to the rear). I'm guessing the inner side walls are shorter than the part because I'm seeing the same when I follow the service bay by a large cargo bay.

- - - Updated - - -

The cockpit has darker areas on the lower leading edge (which I'm assuming is intended to represent heat shielding as seen on the shuttle and similar vehicles). I'd think the nose cones (docking port and "snoopy") should be that darker color rather than the lighter main body color..

Also I tried the Stockalike Station Parts EVAC-U-8 immediately aft of the cockpit in a cargo bay as an inline docking adapter and.. it's not really big enough - if you position it so it doesn't clip into the doors when closed, the cargo doors when open are higher than the end of the docking tube.

Thanks for the hole notes. Like I mentioned, these are in the "not a bug" category and I'm proceeding slowly part by part to fix these. Yeah I'll need to extend the EVACU-8 further I think.

hi Nertea,

Thanks for making new MK4 big enough to house Mobile Frame System rovers inside \o/. Additionaly bottom-opening cargo bay version is totaly cool concept, tail openable cargo-bay is well designed, all in all - pure awesomeness

The only extra thing IMHO (if you still have energy ) to add to this behemoth would be airbus beluga style cargobay:)

So all in all 2-3 more parts, extra-high cargobay in 2 lengths (i.e. 5m and 2.5m) and aerodynamic adapter cap (i.e. 2m long) for ends so it's compatible with the rest of mk4 parts.

Example below - sorry for ugly schematics (lack of time = windows paint )

http://i.imgur.com/nHqCAoE.png

Possible, I like the idea, but future only. Not for 2.0, 2.1 or 2.2. Same priority as wings.

Also, I found a bug that some nodes are ever so slightly higher than they should be. When experimenting with a VTOL that was cockpit-drone core-drop bay-drone core-iguana adapter, the adapter and cockpit sat very slightly above everything else. I'm not sure exactly which parts are responsible.

THe phenomenon is also visible going drop bay-armadillo adapter and cockpit-drop bay (as it is on the above plane from the right angles).

EDIT 2: Almost immediately after returning to flight from the previous edit, I noticed another bug. The heavy extended nacelle's intake module is registering as closed. I can spam the open/close button as much as I want but it never changes the status and it does not intake air. I do not know if this extends to the regular nacelle and precooler.

It should be set up to only be open when you have nothing at the front. I assume that's how it should work, because there's no way for air to get in there otherwise.

Any chance in a 1 - 2 and 1 - 3 engine adapter for the rear?

http://i.imgur.com/6AeQGs5.png

Probably too specific a use case. That's a case of going simply from 1.25 to 2x1.25, and there are other solutions out there.

On my prototype SSTO (which hauls over 70 tons to orbit mind you) I use 8 of them for the rear wheel trucks. I need that much for braking power.

New bug: something's jank in the Dudley's heating properties. On that test flight, I didnt make it across the KSC continent before the engines blew. I checked thermal debug and they were not conducting at all, and barely convecting or radiating (I was expecting the heat to distribute into the nacelle and make the whole engine pylon warm, then convect off).

Balance notes:

The Dudley is losing thrust as a function of altitude way too quickly. The large cargo planes I (and I expect others) am using it on don't accelerate fast enough to make up for that with the thrust increasing as a function of speed. Does the atmosphere really thin that quick IRL? I was barely making it to 5000m before I couldnt climb without losing speed (and I was having to hold a 7 degree AoA just to maintain level). It could do with a minor thrust bump at rest, definitely needs a more lenient atmo curve, and I'd also suggest dropping the max thrust speed down to mach 1.5 from mach 1.8 (possibly exchanging speed for flight ceiling or something)

To everyone who's name is not Nertea, let the balance discussion over the Dudley begin.

It was my intention to make this more of a high-flying, slower engine. I will spend some time on the thrust curves in the next update to make it do just that. Regarding the heat properties, can you delete PartDatabase.cfg and test again? I think that your drag cube may be broken (that will force regeneration), because this part seems fine for me.

Speaking of that, thrust reversers would be a good thing to have on the Turbojet and the Turbofan

Maybe in 2.4 .

Oh . . . that hellhole. May Kod have mercy on your soul.

EDIT:

Nertea, two more unwelded seams.

The Mk4 side of the Armadillo adapter appears unwelded, and so is the rear edge of the Heavy Extended Nacelle.

EDIT 2:

The plane is getting bigger.

http://i.imgur.com/12S2VtL.png

Approaching K-17 level.

Indeed, the adapters are totally not finished. Texture is not done even. Nice plane though!

- - - Updated - - -

Just found something interesting...... Things inside the crew bay are not being protected from drag.

http://i.imgur.com/3NOA8JQ.png

Odd. Just that one, or are there others?

Conversely, things surface attached to the outside of cargo bays may sometimes be shielded from drag when they shouldn't be (though it is probably safer this way rather than have things in the bay not occluded).

If you get a situation like that, can you please screencap it?

[Donziboy2]

So I assume the cargo ramp works ok? I can finish the model and start texturing now?

Well, I will admit I have not actually driven anything in or out of it. I have lowered and raised it a few times, other then the popping up it does it seems to function.

Probably too specific a use case. That's a case of going simply from 1.25 to 2x1.25, and there are other solutions out there.

Oh well, back to glue and duct tape

Odd. Just that one, or are there others?

In this particular craft its just the crew cabin.....

Below I placed a few extra RTG's for testing. Using Crew Cabin, 1x CRG-120 and 2x CRG-240.

Then went for a ride.

[Captain Sierra]

So I assume the cargo ramp works ok? I can finish the model and start texturing now?

It appears to function fine plugin-wise. The model is currently pretty inconducive to actually driving rovers back up it, so I will give it a more thorough shakedown once it gets its proper model.

Possible, I like the idea, but future only. Not for 2.0, 2.1 or 2.2. Same priority as wings.

Sweet. Cant wait to see what all I can haul to space.

It should be set up to only be open when you have nothing at the front. I assume that's how it should work, because there's no way for air to get in there otherwise.

Then its working as intended (I had circular intakes in front), though I do not believe the stock nacelles share this behavior (will quickly test to confirm).

It was my intention to make this more of a high-flying, slower engine. I will spend some time on the thrust curves in the next update to make it do just that. Regarding the heat properties, can you delete PartDatabase.cfg and test again? I think that your drag cube may be broken (that will force regeneration), because this part seems fine for me.

Will do and will get back to you. Ultimately the thrust problem is that the TDR (thrust-drag ratio) drops below 1 and so you cant climb anymore (I'm stalling out around Mach 0.5 at varying alts, always under 7500m).

If you get a situation like that, can you please screencap it?

If I find a case that isnt caused by my own egregious clipping, I will.

EDIT:

Can confirm that your nacelle behavior is not mimicked by stock, which is why I originally logged it as a bug (since stock didnt do it I wasnt expecting it).

Cannot also confirm that the thermal bug is a fluke. It persisted after clearing modulemanager.physics, and partdatabase.cfg. I will however note that the issue in question appears to occur (at least predictively based on thermal data) with the stock Wheasley engine as well. Going to do some more bugtesting on the premise that this is a mod interaction.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Captain Sierra

[Hellbrand]

also why K17 and not K5

[Nothalogh]

also why K17 and not K5

Because we don't have a nose that opens