[0.24] Spaceplane Plus 1.3

[Bartybum]

My RPMs don't show up with anything on them. They show up blank

[TheReaper]

GORGEOUS designs! And they're even stock-a-like!

thank you, care to share your own? it enriches this topic

All those night flight images. :C

i am a bit of a night guy , well ill try with that overrated sun on screenshots for new projects

My RPMs don't show up with anything on them. They show up blank

RPM 17, i dont think it has support for all the mods that uses it, stick with rpm 16 until some updates comes, also rpm 17 doesnt even have that A-B-C,1-2-3 design, its just blank buttons, really diddnt like the update as it screws with not just spaceplane plus but some other mods as well.

[RoboRay]

i am a bit of a night guy , well ill try with that overrated sun on screenshots for new projects

It's not really about aesthetics (some night shots can be really nice), it's simply the inability to see any detail of dark craft against a dark background at night. It's especially counterproductive when the purpose of the screenshot is to "show off" the craft.

Pictures consisting of black rectangles with vague dark-grayish shapes on them and a few bright engine exhaust flames get redundant really fast.

Edited July 1, 2014 by RoboRay

[HeadHunter67]

Blizzy has the Ambient Light Adjustment plugin for just such an issue. It will make night-time screenshots clear enough to be useful.

[JMBuilder]

Porkjet, you need to be a stock part developer. These parts are absolutely incredible!

[Vitasalato]

HI! First at all great mod! Really amazing!

From a long time i'm trying to create a VTOL spaceplane. Even if i found the way have the vertical Thrust, I'm not satisfied of the aerodynamics.

So that's my request: why don't create a vertical engine?

I was thinking to something like an upside-down docking port but (obviously) instead the docking port a jet engine!

[TheReaper]

HI! First at all great mod! Really amazing!

From a long time i'm trying to create a VTOL spaceplane. Even if i found the way have the vertical Thrust, I'm not satisfied of the aerodynamics.

So that's my request: why don't create a vertical engine?

I was thinking to something like an upside-down docking port but (obviously) instead the docking port a jet engine!

well b9 has a vtol engine, able to turn between vertical and horizontal

[Bomoo]

Hello guys! I don't know what mod is wrong - Spaceplane, or Deadly Reentry, but i lost my wings at 90 m/s speed.

Oh that's a cool fuselage arrangement. It would be a shame if someone were to... steal it.

[RidingTheFlow]

Hmm, this look like good arrangement for NTR.

[TheReaper]

Oh that's a cool fuselage arrangement. It would be a shame if someone were to... steal it.

compleatly irrelevant quotes are compleatly irrelevant

[eempc]

Loving the new SP+ pieces, but I feel it is missing one key piece: matching canards.

I'm not a big fan of canards in general and ordinarily I would replace them with a hidden winglet-cubic strut inside the pit but this trick only works on stock aerodynamics. I installed FAR today and FAR is not fooled by it.

I would love a set of canards that resemble the chines of the SR71, even if it doesn't make functional sense to have a control surface that way.

Edited July 2, 2014 by eempc

[Starwaster]

Loving the new SP+ pieces, but I feel it is missing one key piece: matching canards.

I'm not a big fan of canards in general and ordinarily I would replace them with a hidden winglet-cubic strut inside the pit but this trick only works on stock aerodynamics. I installed FAR today and FAR is not fooled by it.

I would love a set of canards that resemble the chines of the SR71, even if it doesn't make functional sense to have a control surface that way.

I like using the KSO tail rudder as canards. Looks sexy on the Mk2 pit.

(KSO not KSO 25)

Edited July 3, 2014 by Starwaster

[cdugas4]

Loving the new SP+ pieces, but I feel it is missing one key piece: matching canards.

I'm not a big fan of canards in general and ordinarily I would replace them with a hidden winglet-cubic strut inside the pit but this trick only works on stock aerodynamics. I installed FAR today and FAR is not fooled by it.

I would love a set of canards that resemble the chines of the SR71, even if it doesn't make functional sense to have a control surface that way.

This isn't a perfect replica, but using SP+ for the entire body and B9 landing gear, I think this model is pretty darn good. It is amazing that it's performance stats are pretty close to the real thing. I'm currently trying to edit the cfg of the SP+ intake to give me enough air to run at higher altitudes. Currently starves for air at around 24,000 meters. Any ideas on what parameters I need to tweak? I've tried editing the intake area and max amount or whatever but I still loose air at roughly the same height. I guess you can call it cheating, but I am going for aesthetics and don't want to really cheat by adding ridiculous numbers of intakes...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

NOTE: The pictures in flight are of an earlier version that had a shorter fuselage. The aerospike rocket is mostly for show, but I do have a LKO capable version. My plans to "cheat" with the intake air should also get me to a point that I can carry a cargo to LKO.

[cdugas4]

Is anyone else having an issue with SP+ using RPM causing stack overflow errors?

[hcalves]

Excellent mod, thank you very much!

I was excited about the new RPM pit since I enjoy flying IVA, but after playing it for a while I've found it's not very usable. Here's some ideas:

- There are 8 monitors, but most are tiny meaning you can't actually acquire readings, making it useless.

- Monitors off-center could face the camera, because the perspective makes it harder to read.

- Speed indicator and climb rate are the most useful but hard to keep inside the FoV due to their bottom placement.

After flying with it and trying to land multiple times, here's a dashboard layout I feel would be more useful:

Edited July 3, 2014 by hcalves

[TheReaper]

so i have been getting to design a new plane that is more or less inspired by Spirit, can you guys build the wing design, it just wants to turn to side and roll over on the run way,when i start it up high, it just doesnt want to push its nose up, but easely wants to push it down. also not so stable, i dont know what the error is, COL COM is in more or less right positions, i even installed FAR if that was something stock aerodynamics fail to recognize, FAR also has the same problem, the charts doesnt really give me a huge bad warnings too, so i dont know whats wrong but coudlnt get this thing to fly well, trying for hours now, it looks really cool and will unlock a variaty of other designs if tihs works, here are some pictures:

You can replace the rear most wings with flat wings type A s, it will give more smother edge looks, you can use radial engine bodies or just snap one engine at the back,only have 1 intake or whatsoever, they dont matter, the wing design just does not want to work, so why ? , no matter what i did just doesnt want to go in a straigh line in the run way, trips and blows up,doesnt want to push up nose in the air, had to get to air by a bit cheating see if flies, the problems with flying i mentinoned above. i still have no idea what is wrong, all other types of planes flies really well, any help?

[BudgetHedgehog]

Is anyone else having an issue with SP+ using RPM causing stack overflow errors?

Yes, plenty of people. Just do a quick search in this thread for exception or overflow, you're not alone. It can be fixed by turning the camera FOVs off, which is nice.

And I believe the official word on the matter is "not a SP+ problem", even though it definitely is. Am even willing to bet real money on that.

[Pondafarr]

Can't see your wheel arraignment...are they B9's? do you have the sideways stiffness fix installed? perhaps installing a second set of rear wheels to support the weight, check they are straight. Add a SAS to help maintain yaw, as you have no rudders.

For flying...how far back is your CoM? Lets have the craft file so we can put it in the SPH and see what is happening...looks like a cool aircraft. I fiddled with a B-2 for a while, then got irritated it at it and moved on

[TheReaper]

Can't see your wheel arraignment...are they B9's? do you have the sideways stiffness fix installed? perhaps installing a second set of rear wheels to support the weight, check they are straight. Add a SAS to help maintain yaw, as you have no rudders.

For flying...how far back is your CoM? Lets have the craft file so we can put it in the SPH and see what is happening...looks like a cool aircraft. I fiddled with a B-2 for a while, then got irritated it at it and moved on

i had a thousend wheel changes before coming here, if that was that other crafts would have problems too since every plane i have is b9 landing geared, i love motors and steering and their shape and sisez, newer design has an SAS just before the rear air intake (the intake that is facing backwards, its stupid but it works, so its not stupid). COM/COL balance is as good as any craft, looking at far statistics its not the best craft but there are worse builded planes i made that flies better, pitching causes some rotation as more pitch leads to more rotation , realy fierce to fight through(that is IF YOU CAN GET OUT OF THE RUN WAY) since plane just roates to left or right in the run way, rotating a lot in the opposite direction so before you rotate too hard you have enough speed to lift off.

http://www.megafileupload.com/en/file/547037/SPIRIT-craft.html

here is craft file, if you want to test you have to proove worthy of testing my craft by waiting 10 seconds (sorry, i usualy upload images not files)

[TheReaper]

so i have put this plane and similar designs with updates to the tests, and got interesting results, appereantly this wing design and similar ones with updates creates some problems with the game and over all aerodynamics, with this new design pitching is a bit better and plane keeps its nose when i stop pressing something, i dont know how all the controll surface loads on the back previously wasnt enough,it doesnt fix the take off problem it wants to roll over again, but once you do take off, some interesting things happen, such as using YAW controlls, like A or D, will resbond in the opposite direction when the engines are on, for example if you are looking at the plane from behind, presing A will turn the craft to right side, when the engines are off yaw controlls return to normal

Javascript is disabled. View full album

now i am no big designer or flight engineer, but looking at the engines directions and the buttons i am pushing, there shouldnt be any problems, yet planes responds to opposite direction, when engines are turned off, yaw returns normal.

i think this design is breaking the game

http://www.megafileupload.com/en/file/547106/SPIRIT-MK2-craft.html

link for the mark 2 design, id like you guys to test it, dont care if you have far or not, have fun, see if you get different results, or get any ideas to fix it, or abuse it at your own will

Edited July 3, 2014 by TheReaper

[Pondafarr]

(its stupid but it works, so its not stupid)

Perhaps the best KSP mantra ever....

[Balto-the-Wolf-Dog]

so i have put this plane and similar designs with updates to the tests, and got interesting results, appereantly this wing design and similar ones with updates creates some problems with the game and over all aerodynamics, with this new design pitching is a bit better and plane keeps its nose when i stop pressing something, i dont know how all the controll surface loads on the back previously wasnt enough,it doesnt fix the take off problem it wants to roll over again, but once you do take off, some interesting things happen, such as using YAW controlls, like A or D, will resbond in the opposite direction when the engines are on, for example if you are looking at the plane from behind, presing A will turn the craft to right side, when the engines are off yaw controlls return to normal

http://imgur.com/a/Ebl5b

now i am no big designer or flight engineer, but looking at the engines directions and the buttons i am pushing, there shouldnt be any problems, yet planes responds to opposite direction, when engines are turned off, yaw returns normal.

i think this design is breaking the game

http://www.megafileupload.com/en/file/547106/SPIRIT-MK2-craft.html

link for the mark 2 design, id like you guys to test it, dont care if you have far or not, have fun, see if you get different results, or get any ideas to fix it, or abuse it at your own will

That could have something to do with how KSP is trying to map your control surfaces. Your aft vertical stab is going to create quite a big of lateral drag back there and the engines have little arm on the center of mass by comparison. That may be causing a bit of cross control with the engines trying to force the tail around and the tail pushing back, but I wouldn't expect that to create the effect you're describing. It sounds much more like the engines have some how ventured ahead of the center of mass, which, looking at your design, it looks like they may have. That would explain the counter control and the takeoff spin you're encountering as the elevators try to fight a counteracting thrust vector right where they're applying their torque. Generally KSP corrects for this automatically (reorienting the thruster control mapping to reflect leading thrusters) but this might fail if the CT is very close to the CM in general. It should also be noted that if the CT is very close to the CM then the thrust vectoring is pretty much just generating up force or down force along the vertical vector rather than pitch torque.

I haven't tested it yet but I will. In my case this will be with FAR.

More editing: That vertical force thing applies laterally too and can cause the same effect without your engines mismapping. If your engines vector to the right for what would conventionally be a yaw to the right but are right on top of the CM or near it, the whole aircraft will be forced left by the resultant vector. Because there is little arm between the engines and the CM there is little to no rotational force and this is more akin to a skid. Your vertical stab will then catch a drag force out of that leftward slew/skid and instigate a resulting yaw to the left though you ordered one to the right. If you throw a paper airplane or model airplane or whatever to the left rather than forward or forward and left, (as your engines would apply a force when vectoring right you'll notice the air frame naturally enters a leftward yaw and ultimately bank. A good way to picture what your engines are doing (or what I think they're doing) is to push a pencil about by the eraser and notice how changing the angle at which you push turns the pencil dramatically. This is how vectored thrust is supposed to work, but this happens when you apply the force from a tip and not near the center. If you try the same thing several times, each moving your finger further towards the center of the pencil, you'll notice the turning becoming increasingly less responsive and the pencil doing increasingly more sliding.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Balto-the-Wolf-Dog

[TheReaper]

That could have something to do with how KSP is trying to map your control surfaces. Your aft vertical stab is going to create quite a big of lateral drag back there and the engines have little arm on the center of mass by comparison. That may be causing a bit of cross control with the engines trying to force the tail around and the tail pushing back, but I wouldn't expect that to create the effect you're describing. It sounds much more like the engines have some how ventured ahead of the center of mass, which, looking at your design, it looks like they may have. That would explain the counter control and the takeoff spin you're encountering as the elevators try to fight a counteracting thrust vector right where they're applying their torque. Generally KSP corrects for this automatically (reorienting the thruster control mapping to reflect leading thrusters) but this might fail if the CT is very close to the CM in general. It should also be noted that if the CT is very close to the CM then the thrust vectoring is pretty much just generating up force or down force along the vertical vector rather than pitch torque.

I haven't tested it yet but I will. In my case this will be with FAR.

More editing: That vertical force thing applies laterally too and can cause the same effect without your engines mismapping. If your engines vector to the right for what would conventionally be a yaw to the right but are right on top of the CM or near it, the whole aircraft will be forced left by the resultant vector. Because there is little arm between the engines and the CM there is little to no rotational force and this is more akin to a skid. Your vertical stab will then catch a drag force out of that leftward slew/skid and instigate a resulting yaw to the left though you ordered one to the right. If you throw a paper airplane or model airplane or whatever to the left rather than forward or forward and left, (as your engines would apply a force when vectoring right you'll notice the air frame naturally enters a leftward yaw and ultimately bank.

when you get the designs and test,( thank you for participating) you might be able to fix it, i also suspected the tail could be the problem since whenever i yaw tail also moves just slighty bit, it gets a pit pushed to a direction relative to yaw direction, as seen in images. also, center of thrust is a bit back of the center of mass, a bit means its more then enough, as i said, i have tested crafts with ct is ahead of cm or very close to cm or any other weird designs or even designs that can be made in 10 seconds that are horrible but at least lifts off and flies well enough relative to the construction time, aside from the tail, since it wasnt the cause of original problems, there is still some mysteries, i think i may have to test the mk1 design with no elevators and controll surfaces again, it doesnt fix the runway accidents but pure tourque rather then aerodynamic related tourque seems a bit better idea since aerodynamics is failing me now.

edit: the original design (that being mk1, newer upload is mk 2) also had some opposite turns as well, i think i pretty much fixed it but earlier models (that i had to start at 5-7 km above) had a problem pitching the nose down, now whatever i did i couldnt get to pitch up, but pressing S applied even stronger pitch down while W applied slight pitching up, but not enough to fix since craft always go directly vertical fall to its doom.

Edited July 3, 2014 by TheReaper

[Balto-the-Wolf-Dog]

when you get the designs and test,( thank you for participating) you might be able to fix it, i also suspected the tail could be the problem since whenever i yaw tail also moves just slighty bit, it gets a pit pushed to a direction relative to yaw direction, as seen in images. also, center of thrust is a bit back of the center of mass, a bit means its more then enough, as i said, i have tested crafts with ct is ahead of cm or very close to cm or any other weird designs or even designs that can be made in 10 seconds that are horrible but at least lifts off and flies well enough relative to the construction time, aside from the tail, since it wasnt the cause of original problems, there is still some mysteries, i think i may have to test the mk1 design with no elevators and controll surfaces again, it doesnt fix the runway accidents but pure tourque rather then aerodynamic related tourque seems a bit better idea since aerodynamics is failing me now.

edit: the original design (that being mk1, newer upload is mk 2) also had some opposite turns as well, i think i pretty much fixed it but earlier models (that i had to start at 5-7 km above) had a problem pitching the nose down, now whatever i did i couldnt get to pitch up, but pressing S applied even stronger pitch down while W applied slight pitching up, but not enough to fix since craft always go directly vertical fall to its doom.

After some inspection I honestly can't say it makes much sense to me. That said, my hypothesis appears to have been partially correct as, at least with Ferram, the fault was with both the v-tail and the boomed conventional tail. I reverted all the way back to the original B2 design (without canards etc) and everything preformed correctly at all airspeeds including high mach. I replaced the V-tail structure with stock ailerons inverted and built into the engine nacelles to provide the vertical drag of stabilizers. I don't consider it cheating because KSP fails to simulate the washout that allows wings to not skid as much as they logically should and also lacks the computation to employ drag-rudders to compensate for what skid there is. The present aircraft can be found here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61950362/SPIRIT%20MK2-2.craft

^the hidden "vertical stabilizers"

That works, at least with Farrem.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Balto-the-Wolf-Dog

[TheReaper]

After some inspection I honestly can't say it makes much sense to me. That said, my hypothesis appears to have been partially correct as, at least with Ferram, the fault was with both the v-tail and the boomed conventional tail. I reverted all the way back to the original B2 design (without canards etc) and everything preformed correctly at all airspeeds including high mach. I replaced the V-tail structure with stock ailerons inverted and built into the engine nacelles to provide the vertical drag of stabilizers. I don't consider it cheating because KSP fails to simulate the washout that allows wings to not skid as much as they logically should and also lacks the computation to employ drag-rudders to compensate for what skid there is. The present aircraft can be found here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61950362/SPIRIT%20MK2-2.craft

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61950362/screenshot67.png

^the hidden "vertical stabilizers"

That works, at least with Farrem.

-Who would have known 2 stock controll surfaces clipped inside the superstucture would fix it all , appears a bit dumb but it works so... plane is very nice and resbonsive in the air, appeareantly design had a very good pottential, my next goal was "nighthawk" f117 but i fear it might have the same or similar problems, there are allready built versions are there but they are stock, i want to explore b9 (utility only)+sp plus pottentials. allthough this doesnt fix (and i still have no idea what causes it) the lift off problems, generalyt he plane always wants to turn to left side on runway, fixable by turning right aggressivle early on so you wont flip out rotating down or running out of the width of runway until you gain enough velocity to achive air speeds. i also still have no idea why problems started in the first place anyway, that made me put more parts such as tail that caused other problems later on. everything i checked fit to reality and failures of the design couldnt do all the damage. still think ksp's own failures triggered first problems. Thank you for the solution, ill try to fix the runway problems, purhaps checking other landing gears or other kinds of launching. otherwise its ready-to-go-SSTO

sidenote: i wonder what the real b2 uses to smooth out yaw controll.