[1.1] SXT - Lack's Stock Extension [SXT-25-10APR16] - Basic 1.1 compatibilty

[Hellbrand]

is there any chance for a pre-release of the new 1.25 cockpit? even without the IVA?

[MightyDarkStar]

How about that there Spittie cockpit I don't want to pressure you, but my inner child is screaming for it.

[NathanKell]

With RO I can just make a Cessnoid that uses the Bonanza cockpit; while the real deal 180 is only ~800kg dry I can make it to 1100 or so dry with wing area proportional to the mass increase. With the IO-550 it's a hair underpowered (180 is ~230 horse for 800kg), but still flies about right. That takes having the wings on minimum (0.05) strength.

[minepagan]

Lack, would you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE make a tail-ramp for the An-225 (3.75m) plane parts?

[Lack]

@StevieC,

Haven't even started on that (there's always much more tempting fruits, even if that's probably fairly low-hanging).

For the radial-lab, I'm not convinced about the size for the part. A lot of the balance for the lab comes from it's size and weight in the first-place. Though you could lower the effectiveness of the lab to compensate, I suppose.

@Hellbrand,

I'll see about pushing an experimental branch on github later, I'll let you know when I do.

@MightyDarkStar,

May have completely forgotten about that.

@NathanKell,

Might it be worth dropping the weight of the Bonny slightly? I've considered dropping the weight of the IO550 for non-RO game-play (but then you're failing to take into account the props themselves), and for wings I've little idea on what a suitable starting mass would be (unless FAR ignores that value when it comes to the whole strength/mass and bases it on surface area). To discourage extra-planetary use of light-aircraft cockpits I'm looking at dropping the maximum temp tolerance.

A lot of my designs have a habit of immediately going nose-up on lift-off, followed by the inevitable stall and crash. That's even after I fixed the lift for the small-wings, though I think the current release version has the funky surface-area FAR config still.

Also, I saw your comments about engine thrust on the other thread. Prior to that, I'd seen the posts on the RP0 thread from Manley/Almodeon and tried some more invovled calculations (actually taking into account things like swept-area, though it was using the dimensions of the real-life engines rather than their smaller representations in KSP) and got similar values to them depending on the Figure of Merit (I used a range of 0.5-0.8).

I know converting engine power to thrust is an exercise in hand-waving unless you have a massive pile and perfect conditions (I'll post the formula and results later). But what would you consider a reasonable value for it?

@minepagan,

That'll probably wait till 1.1, then I'll see how using a 3.75m to Mk3 adaptor and Porkjet's tail-ramp looks and will have an extra-set of textures/models to play around with.

[NathanKell]

That approach makes sense IMO: if the max temp of the Bonny is down to, say, 400 K (still 127C, more than water-boiling) that should preclude reentry or flying super-fast. Then you could give it a realistic mass for its size, say .2t, and the engine another .25t. FAR completely overwrites wing masses, and indeed stock KSP wing masses are probably about right for light planes (way too light for jets, let alone spaceplanes), so I wouldn't worry there. Regarding nose-up tendencies, are you sure the craft have positive stability?

Regarding thrust, real-life-level prop thrust is going to feel insanely weak to people (who think m/s is actually mph, who build multi-ton "light" planes, etc) so you may not want to replicate real life. If you do, though, thrust is about 4kN static and dropping to 2kN by 100m/s, if I remember right. (RO implements the actual engine and a best-guess prop config.)

[Lack]

That approach makes sense IMO: if the max temp of the Bonny is down to, say, 400 K (still 127C, more than water-boiling) that should preclude reentry or flying super-fast. Then you could give it a realistic mass for its size, say .2t, and the engine another .25t. FAR completely overwrites wing masses, and indeed stock KSP wing masses are probably about right for light planes (way too light for jets, let alone spaceplanes), so I wouldn't worry there. Regarding nose-up tendencies, are you sure the craft have positive stability?

Regarding thrust, real-life-level prop thrust is going to feel insanely weak to people (who think m/s is actually mph, who build multi-ton "light" planes, etc) so you may not want to replicate real life. If you do, though, thrust is about 4kN static and dropping to 2kN by 100m/s, if I remember right. (RO implements the actual engine and a best-guess prop config.)

I tried dropping the max temp to 400, but then the part starts glowing on the runway. Had to settle at 800, which is a bit higher than I'd like. Tweaked the masses slightly (see experimental branch below) and have managed to get some flying Cessna-likes now (dropping the wing-strength to 0.05 and paying more attention to the stats FAR gives, plus the fixes to the small wing-parts in SXT - though that needs fleshing out a bit as well).

Yeah, I've had a few comments asking why I've sized things at 0.625m or if I could increase their size to 1.25m to match KAX. It's not really a light aircraft if you're starting with (KSP equiv. anyway) a P-47 and up and the thing weighs about 10T. I've upped the thrust on it to about 5kN static, but increased the drop-off so it should half once you reach 100m/s (curve will probably need tweaking a little, shame I couldn't get the Unity spline editor thing to work, I've just be mapping it out using the animator window instead). Should help a bit with anyone not using FAR and makes quite a nice progression for the current prop engines - 5kN (IO-550), 10kN (PT-6), 14kN (J-211D), 20kN (Merlin-66), 30kN (R2800).

Here's an 'Experimental' branch (which I'll update more often): https://github.com/Signatum/SXT/tree/Experimental

New prop-blur, new prop (PT-6 alike), new 1.25m cockpit (Clyde), plus some bug-swashing for FAR.

Edit:

So it seems Squad removed a lot of the nodes at the end of the tech-tree (which I missed), that'll explain why things like the 5m parts aren't showing up. I'll have to move them to earlier nodes then.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Lack

[NathanKell]

Sounds good!

[Nicholiathan]

I've built a rover with a mini-goo on it for collecting science around the space center. The rover has a science storage unit on board. So I will transmit the goo experiment twice. Then run it twice more & store the results in both the science storage and command module of my rover. Each time I run the experiment I have to have my Kerbal get out and reset the experiment. If I make the mistake of having my scientist Kerbal run the experiment from the exterior I lose the ability to click anything. Even getting back into the command module to run the experiment each time I lose the ability to click parts after repeated iterations. After looking at the config file for the mini-goo and comparing it to the Squad Mystery Goo experiment config I noticed one difference. The Squad version has a usageReqMaskInternal = 1 and usageReqMaskExternal = 8. Not sure if these records are critical but I'm going to have to remake my rovers with normal Mystery Goo in the the mean time.

[halowraith1]

After seeing that this pack has a bunch of WW2 stuff (always good to see in KSP), is there any chance we could get a Jumo 004 style podded turbojet?

[Lack]

I've built a rover with a mini-goo on it for collecting science around the space center. The rover has a science storage unit on board. So I will transmit the goo experiment twice. Then run it twice more & store the results in both the science storage and command module of my rover. Each time I run the experiment I have to have my Kerbal get out and reset the experiment. If I make the mistake of having my scientist Kerbal run the experiment from the exterior I lose the ability to click anything. Even getting back into the command module to run the experiment each time I lose the ability to click parts after repeated iterations. After looking at the config file for the mini-goo and comparing it to the Squad Mystery Goo experiment config I noticed one difference. The Squad version has a usageReqMaskInternal = 1 and usageReqMaskExternal = 8. Not sure if these records are critical but I'm going to have to remake my rovers with normal Mystery Goo in the the mean time.

I've tried adding these to part for future versions (see experimental WIP branch on github). Those 2 lines are another one of those things Squad managed to sneak under my nose in the updates.

@ halowraith1,

The 0.625m jet parts were originally based off these, but they got changed around a bit so they could represent a number of early or small jet engines.

Edit:

Also, for anyone that fancies playing around with it. I couldn't manage to get it to perform at its supposed specifications: Click the image to download (though you're a terrible person if you actually use this, it does spew bits of reactor out the back as it goes).

Edit2:

Edited September 5, 2015 by Lack

[mike9606]

Well, I downloaded project pluto and it isn't showing up in the parts list (in Sandbox). I tried changing stuff in the config like category to parts that i know work (KAX engines) but that didn't work.

[Lack]

Well, I downloaded project pluto and it isn't showing up in the parts list (in Sandbox). I tried changing stuff in the config like category to parts that i know work (KAX engines) but that didn't work.

Opps, spelling mistake in the folder structure. Try re-downloading now.

Should read

GameData/SXT/Parts/Engine/nuclearRamJet/

not

GameData/SXT/Parts/Engines/nuclearRamJet/ (which is what I had in the first download I posted).

[mike9606]

The new download does work. I'm currently testing a vertically launched design using 4 RT-10s (winglets did not allow 2 BACCs).

[Lack]

The new download does work. I'm currently testing a vertically launched design using 4 RT-10s (winglets did not allow 2 BACCs).

Good luck with it, I've managed to get it self-sustaining at sea-level, but couldn't get it anywhere near the Mach 3.5 the design boasts about (and if it does get to that speed it bleeds it really quickly), it was about Mach 0.9 if I recall correctly. Probably need to boost the thrust a lot. Haven't tried it on Eve, that might be interesting.

Put SXT-22 release on gitHub. If it doesn't break anything, I'll put in on KerbalStuff tomorrow.

[mike9606]

I found that after I turned around to head back to KSC that it couldn't get up to speed again to keep itself from falling back into the thicker atmosphere, albeit very slowly. I think the speed at which it was flying most of the to the KSC was around 250-280 m/s. According to the F3 Mission Log the highest speed achieved over land was 908 m/s, and the generic highest speed achieved 1,500 m/s. My design doesn't land, so I just use the Vangaurd EVA parachutes (which somehow have yet to break despite not being updated for several major updates) to have the pilots jump out and have the aircraft crash into the ocean.

[biohazard457]

I just downloaded SXT-22 and the new "Clyde" cockpit isn't appearing in the parts list, and the Turbo Otter planes won't load due to part "SXTClyde" missing.

[NathanKell]

Oh. My. Goodness. You made Pluto. I will have to try that (and check out the cfgs and see if I can help. ).

[mike9606]

I think that Pluto works relatively well. After doing testing, second flight of Mk1 design got up to 1,167 m/s (compared to 908 m/s on previous flight) and Mk2 (same as Mk1 but with some fixed wings so that it didn't need to go stupidly fast to hold altitude) got up to 1,090 m/s before heading back to KSC. I find that it tends to bleed a ton of speed in turns, but I think this is just due to the design having winglets on the rear and canards on the front, allowing it to turn ridiculously fast.

EDIT1: AFter doing some conversions 1,167 m/s is around Mach 3.4, and 1,090 m/s is around Mach 3.2. These speeds were obtained at high altitudes (12-16 Km) though. The Mk2 got up to 800 m/s (Mach 2.3) at lower altitude (around 6 km) after losing speed during the turn to get back to KSC, though I believe I could have gotten it back up to those higher speed if I climbed again.

Edited September 6, 2015 by mike9606

[Hellbrand]

yeah I'm missing the Clyde as well.

[Wolf123]

I just downloaded SXT-22 and the new "Clyde" cockpit isn't appearing in the parts list, and the Turbo Otter planes won't load due to part "SXTClyde" missing.

I have the same issue.

[Lack]

Gah, forgot to include the actual model file for the Clyde. That's the problem when maintaining both the github folder and the folder in GameData, sometimes miss the odd file out. Anyway, it'll be fixed this evening (GMT), got to go to work first.

@mike,

Those poor, poor pilots. Yeah, I suspect my designs were a little draggy as well. I haven't tried it with the pointed avionics nose-cone since I buffed its heat resistance, I got it pretty fast with that till it overheated.

[linuxgurugamer]

Gah, forgot to include the actual model file for the Clyde. That's the problem when maintaining both the github folder and the folder in GameData, sometimes miss the odd file out. Anyway, it'll be fixed this evening (GMT), got to go to work first.

@mike,

Those poor, poor pilots. Yeah, I suspect my designs were a little draggy as well. I haven't tried it with the pointed avionics nose-cone since I buffed its heat resistance, I got it pretty fast with that till it overheated.

Why not write a batch file which copies everything from the github folders to the GameData folder?

This is the way I do it, and it has saved me a few times because of missing icons.

My batch file uses a release folder to first creates a Gamedata folder and all folders necessary underneath it. Then it copies all necessary files (png, dll, cfg, etc) from the github directory, and finally zips it all up into a nice little package

You can see versions of it in both AutomatedScreenshots & Saves, and CraftImport (which is newer), both available on github

LGG

[mike9606]

I'm going to test turning off the front canards on my Pluto test design to see if that helps with the turning issue. I myself have never actually had any parts explode from overheating. I think the highest temp I ever got the non-engine parts was about halfway to max temperature. The cockpit I am using ATM is Beale's stockalike X-1.

[Lack]

Update:

Right, put up SXT-22.1 Should actually have the Clyde in now.

https://github.com/Signatum/SXT/releases/tag/v22.1

@linuxgurugamer,

Thanks, I'll have a look at that. Been a long time since I've even touched batch files.

@mike9606,

Yeah, I checked the max temp after for that part and it was 1200, I've increased it since. So that halfway to max of other parts was enough. I should probably have the part generate more heat since it is an unshielded nuclear reactor, after all.

The source of energy for SLAM propulsion was to be a nuclear fission reactor operating at a power level of 600 Megawatts. The reactor was not to have radiation shielding for the fission products of neutrons and gamma rays. As a result, the neutron flux was calculated to vary from 9 x 1017 N/CM2 in the aft section to 7 x 1014 N/CM2 in the nose. Gamma ray energy was expected to be 4 x 1011 MEV in the aft section and 1.2 x 108MEV in the electronics compartment. This required careful selection of materials which could survive not only the high temperatures but also the high radiation levels.

...

LRL’s working with Chance Vought for missile propulsion requirements resulted in the following nuclear reactor characteristics for the SLAM weapon system:

Diameter----------------------57.25 in.

Fissionable Core-------------47.24 in.

Length-------------------------64.24 in.

Core Length------------------50.70 in.

Critical Mass of Uranium--59.90 kg.

Avg. Power Density---------10 MW/cubic foot

Total Power-------------------600 MW

Avg. Element Temperature- 2,330 deg. F

Edited September 6, 2015 by Lack