Jump to content

PorkWorks dev thread [Habitat Pack] [SpaceplanePlus]

Porkjet

By Porkjet
in KSP1 Mod Development

 Share

Recommended Posts

Naf5000

Naf5000

Posted
Posted

The thing is the underside is uneven along the center, so the wheel attaches at a slight angle. Not significant enough to effect it at slow speeds, but planes are not slow vehicles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
The thing is the underside is uneven along the center, so the wheel attaches at a slight angle. Not significant enough to effect it at slow speeds, but planes are not slow vehicles.

And, don't forget the part where it starts veering to the side as you approach takeoff speed....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DevL

DevL

Posted
Posted

In case someone else ran into this, the latest pre-release changes the name of the of standard cockpit from mk2Cockpit to mk2Cockpit_Standard (thus breaking saves). Editing the save file, globally replacing mk2Cockpit with mk2Cockpit.Standard (notice the dot instead of an underscore) fixes this.

Also, I believe that the included Firespitter DLL is an older version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smunisto

smunisto

Posted
Posted

Porkjet, regarding the texturing work on your Mk2 expansion pack. Do you have any plans to make parts attach more seamlessly? As it currently stands you can clearly notice where they attach to each other due to the textures emphasizing on the edges of the parts themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naf5000

Naf5000

Posted
Posted

That is kinda a KSP thing, though. Seamless parts look great with other seamless parts, but when you start mix-and-matching, you get conflicts. Look at B9; beautiful, seamless parts that clash horribly with any part pack not specifically designed to match. If you indicate the borders of each part, you can be much more versatile with how you use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Porkjet

Porkjet

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yo dawgs. I got some catching up to do

Sorry Porkjet, I didn't mean to rush you. I just liked that cool Blackbird look to it!! :)

lol, No need to be sorry, I'm happy that you guys are looking forward to this stuff. If my replies are sometimes a bit blunt, it just means that I'm a lazy poster.

Okay, Porkjet, I don't know what you did, but you are amazing! After I installed the plane expansion I got a framerate increase, as massive one. I have no idea why, or how, and the fact I am running nearly 20 mods now, if not more, shouldn't help, but it happened. Thank you.

Seriously, WTF?

Haha cool! That's hardly my achievement tho, I guess it's a miracle!

FAR support:


@PART[mk2Cockpit_Standard]
{
	@module = Part
	!dragCoeff = DELETE
	!deflectionLiftCoeff = DELETE
}
@PART[mk2Cockpit_Inline]
{
	@module = Part
	!dragCoeff = DELETE
	!deflectionLiftCoeff = DELETE
}
@PART[mk2CrewCabin]
{
	@module = Part
	!dragCoeff = DELETE
	!deflectionLiftCoeff = DELETE
}
@PART[mk2_1m_Adapter]
{
	@module = Part
	!dragCoeff = DELETE
	!deflectionLiftCoeff = DELETE
}
@PART[mk2_1m_AdapterLong]
{
	@module = Part
	!dragCoeff = DELETE
	!deflectionLiftCoeff = DELETE
}
@PART[mk2_1m_Bicoupler]
{
	@module = Part
	!dragCoeff = DELETE
	!deflectionLiftCoeff = DELETE
}
@PART[mk2FuselageL_long]
{
	@module = Part
	!dragCoeff = DELETE
	!deflectionLiftCoeff = DELETE
}
@PART[mk2Fuselage_LFO]
{
	@module = Part
	!dragCoeff = DELETE
	!deflectionLiftCoeff = DELETE
}
@PART[mk2CargoBayS]
{
	@module = Part
	!dragCoeff = DELETE
	!deflectionLiftCoeff = DELETE
}
@PART[mk2CargoBayL]
{
	@module = Part
	!dragCoeff = DELETE
	!deflectionLiftCoeff = DELETE
}
@PART[deltaWingX]
{
	@module = Part
	@maximum_drag = 0
	@minimum_drag = 0
	@angularDrag = 0
	@dragCoeff = 0
	@deflectionLiftCoeff = 0
	MODULE
	{
		name = FARWingAerodynamicModel
		MAC = 2.16 //Mean chord length in meters
		e = 0.75 //Drag per lift, lower equals more drag
		MidChordSweep = 26 //Angle of line from mid root chord to mid tip chord
		b_2 = 3.76 //Root to tip in meters
		TaperRatio = 0.08 //Ratio of tip chord to root chord
	}
}
@PART[structuralWing1]
{
	@module = Part
	@maximum_drag = 0
	@minimum_drag = 0
	@angularDrag = 0
	@dragCoeff = 0
	@deflectionLiftCoeff = 0
	MODULE
	{
		name = FARWingAerodynamicModel
		MAC = 2.16 //Mean chord length in meters
		e = 0.75 //Drag per lift, lower equals more drag
		MidChordSweep = 44 //Angle of line from mid root chord to mid tip chord
		b_2 = 1.88 //Root to tip in meters
		TaperRatio = 0.08 //Ratio of tip chord to root chord
	}
}
@PART[wingStrake]
{
	@module = Part
	@maximum_drag = 0
	@minimum_drag = 0
	@angularDrag = 0
	@dragCoeff = 0
	@deflectionLiftCoeff = 0
	MODULE
	{
		name = FARWingAerodynamicModel
		MAC = 2.16 //Mean chord length in meters
		e = 0.75 //Drag per lift, lower equals more drag
		MidChordSweep = 62 //Angle of line from mid root chord to mid tip chord
		b_2 = 0.94 //Root to tip in meters
		TaperRatio = 0.08 //Ratio of tip chord to root chord
	}
}
@PART[structuralWing2]
{
	@module = Part
	@maximum_drag = 0
	@minimum_drag = 0
	@angularDrag = 0
	@dragCoeff = 0
	@deflectionLiftCoeff = 0
	MODULE
	{
		name = FARWingAerodynamicModel
		MAC = 1.16 //Mean chord length in meters
		e = 0.75 //Drag per lift, lower equals more drag
		MidChordSweep = 13 //Angle of line from mid root chord to mid tip chord
		b_2 = 3.76 //Root to tip in meters
		TaperRatio = 0.16 //Ratio of tip chord to root chord
	}
}
@PART[wingConnector1]
{
	@module = Part
	@maximum_drag = 0
	@minimum_drag = 0
	@angularDrag = 0
	@dragCoeff = 0
	@deflectionLiftCoeff = 0
	MODULE
	{
		name = FARWingAerodynamicModel
		MAC = 4 //Mean chord length in meters
		e = 0.75 //Drag per lift, lower equals more drag
		MidChordSweep = 0 //Angle of line from mid root chord to mid tip chord
		b_2 = 1.88 //Root to tip in meters
		TaperRatio = 1 //Ratio of tip chord to root chord
	}
}
@PART[wingConnector2]
{
	@module = Part
	@maximum_drag = 0
	@minimum_drag = 0
	@angularDrag = 0
	@dragCoeff = 0
	@deflectionLiftCoeff = 0
	MODULE
	{
		name = FARWingAerodynamicModel
		MAC = 2 //Mean chord length in meters
		e = 0.75 //Drag per lift, lower equals more drag
		MidChordSweep = 0 //Angle of line from mid root chord to mid tip chord
		b_2 = 3.76 //Root to tip in meters
		TaperRatio = 1 //Ratio of tip chord to root chord
	}
}
@PART[elevon1]
{
	@module = Part
	@maximum_drag = 0
	@minimum_drag = 0
	@angularDrag = 0
	@dragCoeff = 0
	@deflectionLiftCoeff = 0
	@ctrlSurfaceRange = 0
	@ctrlSurfaceArea = 0
	MODULE
	{
		name = FARControllableSurface
		MAC = 0.5
		e = 0.9
		nonSideAttach = 1
		maxdeflect = 20
		MidChordSweep = 0
		b_2 = 1.8
		TaperRatio = 1
	}
}
@PART[elevon2]
{
	@module = Part
	@maximum_drag = 0
	@minimum_drag = 0
	@angularDrag = 0
	@dragCoeff = 0
	@deflectionLiftCoeff = 0
	@ctrlSurfaceRange = 0
	@ctrlSurfaceArea = 0
	MODULE
	{
		name = FARControllableSurface
		MAC = 0.62
		e = 0.9
		nonSideAttach = 1
		maxdeflect = 20
		MidChordSweep = -4
		b_2 = 1.8
		TaperRatio = 0.67
	}
}
@PART[elevon3]
{
	@module = Part
	@maximum_drag = 0
	@minimum_drag = 0
	@angularDrag = 0
	@dragCoeff = 0
	@deflectionLiftCoeff = 0
	@ctrlSurfaceRange = 0
	@ctrlSurfaceArea = 0
	MODULE
	{
		name = FARControllableSurface
		MAC = 0.86
		e = 0.9
		nonSideAttach = 1
		maxdeflect = 20
		MidChordSweep = -4
		b_2 = 1.8
		TaperRatio = 0.75
	}
}

Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would it be at all possible to give the lander base some suspension? It's a gorgeous and useful part, but good god is it bouncy.

Nope, I don't think so. Setting up a single suspended leg is already quite complicated, and I find that for building bases, its better to turn off the suspension anyway. I know its not ideal but it seems to work good enough.

The thing is the underside is uneven along the center, so the wheel attaches at a slight angle. Not significant enough to effect it at slow speeds, but planes are not slow vehicles.

They aren't uneven, they just have a slight angle along the center, but basically all fuel tanks colliders in the game are like that. I think with symmetry enabled they attach perfectly centered along that edge. If you get veering to a side at high speeds I found that it's usually caused by the gear position and resulting weight distribution during takeoff. Sometimes if the gear are attached to something slightly wobbly, like wings, it sometimes wobbles unsemmetrically and can also cause bad take-offs. If what you say proves to be true, i may have to rework ALL the colliders which I wouldnt be looking forward to do ._.

Porkjet, regarding the texturing work on your Mk2 expansion pack. Do you have any plans to make parts attach more seamlessly? As it currently stands you can clearly notice where they attach to each other due to the textures emphasizing on the edges of the parts themselves.

I purposely emphasized that in the textures. It shall be possible to identify the attached parts on any craft and tell them apart, so people can try to rebuild crafts they saw in screenshots and whatnot. I think this is an important aspect of KSP.

I'm not sure if this is the right thread to ask questions about the parts, but which way is "down" in the largest inflatable hab? It's arranged in a weird way compared to the other inflatable hab.

This is the right thread! I'm not sure I understand the question, but basically there really isnt any up or down on the part itself. IF you mean the interior, yes that is laid out sideways, inspired by this http://rocketry.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/bigelow.jpg I know it's not everyones cup of tea, that's why I arranged the interior of the smaller hab (which is still WIP) differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Talisar

Talisar

Posted
Posted
They aren't uneven, they just have a slight angle along the center, but basically all fuel tanks colliders in the game are like that. I think with symmetry enabled they attach perfectly centered along that edge. If you get veering to a side at high speeds I found that it's usually caused by the gear position and resulting weight distribution during takeoff. Sometimes if the gear are attached to something slightly wobbly, like wings, it sometimes wobbles unsemmetrically and can also cause bad take-offs. If what you say proves to be true, i may have to rework ALL the colliders which I wouldnt be looking forward to do ._.

I ran into a lot of these issues when working with my spherical tanks (I got that slight off-angle in many directions). What I do now is ensure that my collider's faces are always at 90 degrees at the 4 cardinal directions. Additionally, I *try* to have faces at exactly 45 degrees at the 4 points between them as well, whenever possible.

I've found that a fairly easy workaround for this is to chamfer that edge (or edges) on the collider that is giving you the issue. It doesn't have to be much, just enough to give you a normal pointing straight out. If that area is symmetrical, the chamfer should average them perfectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ScallopPotato

ScallopPotato

Posted
Posted

This is the right thread! I'm not sure I understand the question, but basically there really isnt any up or down on the part itself. IF you mean the interior, yes that is laid out sideways, inspired by this http://rocketry.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/bigelow.jpg I know it's not everyones cup of tea, that's why I arranged the interior of the smaller hab (which is still WIP) differently.

Indeed. But there is a way to get around that with the largest inflatable, by arranging the hab in a way that makes the floorplan work out with the "down" direction in the artificial gravity. I'm probably not explaining things clearly.

My issue is not knowing which side of the large inflatable has the "private lounge" when looking at it from the outside, if you get what I mean. I'm trying to work out this issue on my own, but it's taking a long time and I need to dedicate my time towards studying for finals.

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

I.O.M.

Posted
Posted (edited)

You're over-thinking things Mr. Potato. The side of the large inflatable which has the crew hatch is 'up'.

At least I think that makes sense.

Edited by I.O.M.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alephzorg

Alephzorg

Posted
Posted

I just tried your spaceplaneplus parts and they are awesome. The cargo bay in particular is a great addition.

But I have a tiny problem with the radial intake. The symmetry is a bit weird in the SPH. Is it just me ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Sierra

Captain Sierra

Posted
Posted
I just tried your spaceplaneplus parts and they are awesome. The cargo bay in particular is a great addition.

But I have a tiny problem with the radial intake. The symmetry is a bit weird in the SPH. Is it just me ?

Wait, there's a radial intake? I don't recall any pictures of one in the thread. Can someone show me this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fraz86

Fraz86

Posted
Posted
Wait, there's a radial intake? I don't recall any pictures of one in the thread. Can someone show me this?

Yes, there's a new radial intake, but I think it may be a WIP that PorkJet accidentally released early. As you point out, there haven't been any pictures or mention of it, and as alephzorg said, the orientation is wrong to work for symmetry in the SPH. That said, it looks nice, and the orientation can be fixed with a MM config containing the following:

@PART[IntakeRadialLong]:Final
{
	!mesh = DELETE
	MODEL
	{
		model = SpaceplanePlus/Parts/RadialIntakeLong/model
		rotation = 0, 90, 90
	}
}

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

I.O.M.

Posted
Posted
I just tried your spaceplaneplus parts and they are awesome. The cargo bay in particular is a great addition.

But I have a tiny problem with the radial intake. The symmetry is a bit weird in the SPH. Is it just me ?

I noticed that as well. The amount of intake I was getting with them seemed buggy as well, although that may have been due to poor positioning on my part.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
colmo

colmo

Posted
Posted

The rogue intake has been spotted at last, I see :-)

I'd like one particular part - a modified Mk1-Mk2 adapter with integrated intakes either side. The ultimate would be if they animated when opened/closed, as I'd imagine you'd want them closed and flush to the fuselage for reentry.

I was going to build a VTOL using the KAX VTOL engines and landing gear inside your cargo bays mounted upside down - they aren't symmetrical top to bottom though. Still doable, but would have the heat shield on the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Porkjet

Porkjet

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I've made a rough model of such an adapter with intakes, but I didnt like it at all and decided that a small set of decently made and sleek intakes like the WIP one you spotted would look better and also give MUCH greater versatility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mellojoe

mellojoe

Posted
Posted
I've made a rough model of such an adapter with intakes, but I didnt like it at all and decided that a small set of decently made and sleek intakes like the WIP one you spotted would look better and also give MUCH greater versatility.

This could potentially eliminate the last of my B9 space plane parts from my parts catalog, if you indeed make a sleek radial intake. This is no knock against B9, as those parts are great. But I just can't help but love the look of these SpacePlane Plus parts just so much more. They fit exactly the look of stock, while adding that little something extra.

Thank you for spending your time on something like this. If I had more than an upvote to give, I'd give it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...