Jump to content

PorkWorks dev thread [Habitat Pack] [SpaceplanePlus]

Porkjet

By Porkjet
in KSP1 Mod Development

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mach_XXII

Mach_XXII

Posted
Posted
Are you going to do a Mk3 fuselage expansion? Also, is there any way you could use Module Manager to totally replace the models in the stock game with your new ones?

Check out nazari's mk3 refit project

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
Could you give the short/long Mk2 adapter oxidizer as well? Would make them more useful for spaceplanes. Also I don't see the use for separate LFO and Liquid Fuel fuselages. Extra fuselages only clutter up the game. We have tweakables now and anyone who can install this mod would be able to figure out how to remove the oxidizer. Plus jet engines are so efficient that you can get anywhere on Kerbin with just the 270 liquid fuel in the Mk2 LFO tank. No need for that special jet fuel tank with its immense 600 fuel units.
I disagree. Choices are good. Not everyone wants to create spaceplanes. And tweakables doesn't affect the dry weight. In other words, for equivalent size a LFO section without Oxidizer is not equivalent to a Liquid Fuel tank.

Sounds like a job for Module Manager!

When I exit KSP I'll post the MM configs I'm using that turn those tanks into LFO tanks. And add fuel / oxidizer to the giant wings from the B9 set and turn the SABRE engines (that dont seem to be working...) into RAPIER engines!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AntiMatter001

AntiMatter001

Posted
Posted
Sounds like a job for Module Manager!

When I exit KSP I'll post the MM configs I'm using that turn those tanks into LFO tanks. And add fuel / oxidizer to the giant wings from the B9 set and turn the SABRE engines (that dont seem to be working...) into RAPIER engines!

they work fine for me and why add fuel to wings? it sounds a bit dodgy... (usually survives planecrashes by decoupling his wings and parachuting down)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
they work fine for me and why add fuel to wings? it sounds a bit dodgy... (usually survives planecrashes by decoupling his wings and parachuting down)

Sounds dodgy eh? I guess you better not tell that to Boeing, because guess where they put most of the fuel for the 747? In the wings!

But hey, it's your sandbox, anyone who doesn't like this or doesn't want to use it doesn't have to and they don't have to tell me about it either

Could you give the short/long Mk2 adapter oxidizer as well? Would make them more useful for spaceplanes. Also I don't see the use for separate LFO and Liquid Fuel fuselages. Extra fuselages only clutter up the game. We have tweakables now and anyone who can install this mod would be able to figure out how to remove the oxidizer. Plus jet engines are so efficient that you can get anywhere on Kerbin with just the 270 liquid fuel in the Mk2 LFO tank. No need for that special jet fuel tank with its immense 600 fuel units.

Mk2 stuff

The one that says SpaceplanePlus adds oxidizer to Porkjet's MK2 fuel tanks that lack it. It also does other things as well like add heat shielding. Edit it to remove the things you don't want. (if you don't even have DREC though, it's harmless to leave that stuff in there)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wasmic

wasmic

Posted
Posted
Fraid not. Works fine for me.

There are multiple problems with the MK3 system. One, no rocket fuel tank. Two, weird CoM. Three, some parts that would be really nice to have - a cargo bay, a crew tank, a MK3 to 2.5m adapter, a MK3 to 3*1.25m adapter, and so forth. Number three isn't really a "it's broke", but GregroxMun, who brought this up in the first place, didn't say that it was broken - he simply asked whether PorkJet would make an expansion pack for it, and there's a lot of room for expansion on the MK3 fuselage system. By your logic, MK2 isn't broken, and therefore PorkJet shouldn't have made his current MK2 expansion pack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdapol

mdapol

Posted
Posted

Just wondering; has _any_ attempt been made to balance these parts against the stock game? Or do I have to do it by tweaking the config files? What I mean is how much fuel they contain, the mass of the parts, performance of engines, aerodynamic qualities, etc. You know that there is a difference in dry mass between a LiquidFuel part and an LFO part in that the LFO part has additional internal structure which increases it's dry mass. You can't just remove the oxidizer and call it a day. If you're going for balance that is.

Anyway, are you planning on balancing them before release or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wasmic

wasmic

Posted
Posted
Just wondering; has _any_ attempt been made to balance these parts against the stock game? Or do I have to do it by tweaking the config files? What I mean is how much fuel they contain, the mass of the parts, performance of engines, aerodynamic qualities, etc. You know that there is a difference in dry mass between a LiquidFuel part and an LFO part in that the LFO part has additional internal structure which increases it's dry mass. You can't just remove the oxidizer and call it a day. If you're going for balance that is.

Anyway, are you planning on balancing them before release or not?

Actually, that's what the stock parts do. An LFO tank actually has LESS dry mass than an LF tank in stock KSP, at least for the standard length 1.25m tanks. So yes, he CAN remove the oxidizer and call it a day, and then the LF tank is actually overpowered relative to the LFO tank, relative to the stock game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted (edited)
Just wondering; has _any_ attempt been made to balance these parts against the stock game? Or do I have to do it by tweaking the config files? What I mean is how much fuel they contain, the mass of the parts, performance of engines, aerodynamic qualities, etc. You know that there is a difference in dry mass between a LiquidFuel part and an LFO part in that the LFO part has additional internal structure which increases it's dry mass. You can't just remove the oxidizer and call it a day. If you're going for balance that is.

Anyway, are you planning on balancing them before release or not?

Looking over his parts I don't see a problem. He's not 'just' removing oxidizer. He's replacing it with an equivalent amount of LiquidFuel (where it's replaced in parts of equal size). So balance is maintained. In general, it looks to me like the dry mass for his parts is appropriate, but if you see a problem with a specific part then you should cite that specific part.

Actually, that's what the stock parts do. An LFO tank actually has LESS dry mass than an LF tank in stock KSP, at least for the standard length 1.25m tanks. So yes, he CAN remove the oxidizer and call it a day, and then the LF tank is actually overpowered relative to the LFO tank, relative to the stock game.

Where you see an LF tank only, it's a fuselage part and the extra mass is structural. You'll note they tend to have higher crash tolerance than equivalent sized LFO tanks which are rocket tanks and will likely be staged and discarded.

Edited by Starwaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdapol

mdapol

Posted
Posted
Actually, that's what the stock parts do. An LFO tank actually has LESS dry mass than an LF tank in stock KSP, at least for the standard length 1.25m tanks. So yes, he CAN remove the oxidizer and call it a day, and then the LF tank is actually overpowered relative to the LFO tank, relative to the stock game.

True. I never said the stock game was "realistic". I just want to know if PorkWorks has tried to balance his expansion so no parts are overpowered. Sounds like you're saying he didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdapol

mdapol

Posted
Posted
Looking over his parts I don't see a problem. He's not 'just' removing oxidizer. He's replacing it with an equivalent amount of LiquidFuel (where it's replaced in parts of equal size). So balance is maintained. In general, it looks to me like the dry mass for his parts is appropriate, but if you see a problem with a specific part then you should cite that specific part.

I'm addressing a comment earlier that one doesn't need separate LFO and LiquidFuel parts because one can just remove oxidizer. I disagree with that comment. LFO and LF tanks are different beasts.

Where you see an LF tank only, it's a fuselage part and the extra mass is structural. You'll note they tend to have higher crash tolerance than equivalent sized LFO tanks which are rocket tanks and will likely be staged and discarded.

Good, that's encouraging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdapol

mdapol

Posted
Posted
Yes he has. They are balanced to conform with stock. (Which is, arguably, unbalanced.)

Good. I'm seeing a disturbing trend with mod developers recently where more and more the user is supposed to "tweak parts to taste". It used to be that mod developers would attempt to balance things either to stock or to "reality" and also try to make them compatible with other popular mods like Deadly Reentry or FAR. Nowadays the user community has to create a MM config file to add that functionality. And who here knows enough about how FAR works to put in "realistic" numbers for how a certain wing shape should perform? I certainly don't. This is just a bit of a minor rant that I don't like the state of affairs and it will probably start turning me off using certain mods. I just wish it were different. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
Good. I'm seeing a disturbing trend with mod developers recently where more and more the user is supposed to "tweak parts to taste". It used to be that mod developers would attempt to balance things either to stock or to "reality" and also try to make them compatible with other popular mods like Deadly Reentry or FAR. Nowadays the user community has to create a MM config file to add that functionality. And who here knows enough about how FAR works to put in "realistic" numbers for how a certain wing shape should perform? I certainly don't. This is just a bit of a minor rant that I don't like the state of affairs and it will probably start turning me off using certain mods. I just wish it were different. :(

That is true. There is a tendency to tell people that they can go and change it themselves as though the target audience is nothing but modders.

People like myself have no trouble opening up Notepad++ and start hacking on config files. (actually that's a small lie. I always have Notepad++ open to what looks like about 69,105 KSP files.

But some people are just players who never modded anything in their life and would like for it to 'just work'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdapol

mdapol

Posted
Posted

One suggestion. I see the part names (in the config file) are mostly generic but the cockpit is called "mk2Cockpit" which could potentially cause a name clash if someone else has a mod called that. It would be better if you made unique names for your parts so there is no chance of that. For example, in the B9 pack he has a part called "B9_m2Cockpit" so there is no chance of a future problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Porkjet

Porkjet

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Good. I'm seeing a disturbing trend with mod developers recently where more and more the user is supposed to "tweak parts to taste". It used to be that mod developers would attempt to balance things either to stock or to "reality" and also try to make them compatible with other popular mods like Deadly Reentry or FAR. Nowadays the user community has to create a MM config file to add that functionality. And who here knows enough about how FAR works to put in "realistic" numbers for how a certain wing shape should perform? I certainly don't. This is just a bit of a minor rant that I don't like the state of affairs and it will probably start turning me off using certain mods. I just wish it were different. :(

I'm trying my best to balance them after stock standards. However as mentioned, sometimes stock parts seem to have some minor balance problems which I hope to improve without doing too extreme changes. For instance the stock mk2 fuselage: It has roughly the length of the fl-t 800 LFO tank, yet it can only contain 160 units of fuel, wheras the LFO tank as the name says has 800 units (360LF+440LOX, same density) and then the mk2 fuselage is extended to the sides and top, so if we consider the volume alone the MK2 fuselage could hold like 10 times the amount of fuel that it has in the stock game.

However - The MK2 fuselage isnt a rocket tank, even tho it uses the same fuel. For planes you probably want different structural reinforcements, seen as a higher crash tolerance in game, also some space would be required for electronics and plumbing, maybe tubing to lead your Intake Air from intakes to engines etc. All these things would take away space for fuel containers so I've decided for the same dry weight and an amount of 600, slightly less compact storage than the rocket equivalent.

So in short, Aircraft Fuselage compared to rocket fuel tank:

-less compact fuel storage

-structually stronger (higher crash tolerance)

-same dry weight (aka slightly more dry weight per fuel unit)

-better aerodynamic properties (little bit of lift value)

As for FAR and DRE I'm just as clueless as you guys how to write the configs, this is something I want to screw around with at the very end of this project.

If anyone has already written some for their own pleasure you can send em to me and I'll include em in the download. Or wait until I've figured it out by myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted

DREC is easy. Check a page or two back. I posted some configs that make your plane parts heat shielded. They also do other stuff that may be unwanted and on the subject of balance I added oxidizer to a part without thinking about reduce fuel content, so... Oops. ;.;

But the DREC stuff is easy to pick out of there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Boamere

Boamere

Posted
Posted

Yeah FAR is screwy with the new wings :/

They don't provide any lift at all (or drag) so I was basically flying a cockpit with sas (because it seems like the elevons don't do anything/much) and a rocket XD

I could fly it backwards and I wasn't getting any aerodynamic problems

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoMrBond

NoMrBond

Posted
Posted
Yeah FAR is screwy with the new wings :/

They don't provide any lift at all (or drag) so I was basically flying a cockpit with sas (because it seems like the elevons don't do anything/much) and a rocket XD

I could fly it backwards and I wasn't getting any aerodynamic problems

I guess a quick hack would be to copy the FAR settings from their stock (or B9) equivalents, then tune from there

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted (edited)
I guess a quick hack would be to copy the FAR settings from their stock (or B9) equivalents, then tune from there

Well, your quick hack is actually what the proper solution is.

The wings need this, but with different settings. The meanings are in the FAR readme.... going to peruse them now.... this shouldn't be too hard.

AND... I just remembered something Ferram said. The wings part origin needs to be at the root of the wing. I think he also said bad things can happen otherwise. 


    MODULE
    {
        name = FARWingAerodynamicModel
        MAC = 5.418
        e = 0.9
        IsSmallCtrlSurf = 0
        MidChordSweep = 21.8
        ctrlaxis = none
        b_2 = 21.841
        TaperRatio = 0.132
    }

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