[0.24] Spaceplane Plus 1.3

[Porkjet]

Would love to download, but:

http://i.gyazo.com/48db4b2100a5b7a27cad679b15ff113c.png

WTF?! I thought dropbox was cool?! Ugh lemme get another up on mediafire. Before I update on curseforge I wanna get some more input on those 64bit crashes.

I'm using the latest version of Raster Prop Monitor, and when I installed SpacePlane 1.3, all I get are blank gray screens. When I reverted back to 1.2, I have only one RPM screen in IVA. It's broken, but at least it's something. Does anyone have any insight as to what I'm doing wrong? I've been struggling for hours, uninstalling this, reinstalling that, and waiting ages and ages for KSP to fire up again and again. Help me, KSP braintrust. You're my only hope!

Havn't tested RPM 0.18 nor MM 2.2.0 yet. I can only safely say that it works with RPM 0.17 and MM 2.1.5.

[Olterin]

As per my previous testing, it appears that SP+ 1.3 breaks KSP x64 when used with MM 2.2.0, but does work with MM 2.2.0 when using KSP x32. A combination of KSP x32, SP+ 1.3 and RPM 0.18 appears to work without issue.

[TheReaper]

As per my previous testing, it appears that SP+ 1.3 breaks KSP x64 when used with MM 2.2.0, but does work with MM 2.2.0 when using KSP x32. A combination of KSP x32, SP+ 1.3 and RPM 0.18 appears to work without issue.

as for me, the a combination of mm 2.2 sp+ 1.3 and ksp x64 works without issues

[BudgetHedgehog]

Havn't tested RPM 0.18 nor MM 2.2.0 yet. I can only safely say that it works with RPM 0.17 and MM 2.1.5.

According to Mihara, there should be no difference for the end user from 0.17 to 0.18. Things that were updated to use 0.17 will work fine with 0.18. No official word on MM, but I highly doubt it wouldn't be backwards-compatible.

I haven't tested SP+ fully in x64, but it's present and I haven't had any crashes at all, so make of that what you will *shrugs*

[MaverickSawyer]

SP+ is running fine in 32-bit (standard Steam launched) with both MM 2.2.0 and RPM 0.18.

Haven't tried the 64-bit yet. I'm waiting for all the kinks to be worked out first.

[Damaske]

I have a stable KSP 64-bit space planes 1.3, MM 2.2.0 and RPM 0.18 as with a few others mods.

It is running good and stable for me.

Damaske

[MrUberGr]

Does the mk2 crew cabin not work? I can't see the kerbals to be able to EVA them.

P.S. Still using 0.23.5 and the corresponding version of SP+

[Tangle]

Does the mk2 crew cabin not work? I can't see the kerbals to be able to EVA them.

P.S. Still using 0.23.5 and the corresponding version of SP+

Click on the hatch. Click EVA.

[MaverickSawyer]

Welp, field report time.

I've found that my approach to designing spaceplanes will need a SEVERE overhaul to work with the SP+ wings. Otherwise, a Basic Jet powered plane runs like greased lightning. Love the new internals as well, though I rarely fly from that view.

[jfull]

SSTO's with this mod are always fun, and this time I made an especially tiny one for some reason, and I figured that I'd show it off.

I find it really neat that the shadow it casts is almost a perfect triangle. The official name is The Arrowhead, but Jebediah has taken to calling it The Dorito.

[Cashen]

Welp, field report time.

I've found that my approach to designing spaceplanes will need a SEVERE overhaul to work with the SP+ wings. Otherwise, a Basic Jet powered plane runs like greased lightning. Love the new internals as well, though I rarely fly from that view.

I've noticed this issue as well. With regular jet engines (stock engines or B9 engines), the planes run insanely fast at very low altitudes, enough to cause mach effects and rip the plane apart if you make any sudden control inputs. Above a certain altitude this behavior seems to go away however, but returns when you dip back down near the ground. This does not happen with rocket engines or RAPIER engines. I haven't tested this in the new SP+ in 0.24 however.

One other thing I noticed is that craft made in the previous version of SP+ and KSP 0.23.5 will, when opening in the latest version and KSP 0.24, flip out as soon as physics loads on the runway and self-destruct. This can be fixed in the SPH by detaching and deleting the root cockpit, selecting a new one, and re-attaching the rest of the plane to it.

Edited July 21, 2014 by Cashen

[Thrombo]

Really neat mod, but I have a question, and two issues.

It looks like the mod has items that are, by volume strictly superior. The mk3 fuselage contains 600 liquidFuel whereas its stock analogue (same price, size) contains a maximum of 160. Is this intended? If so, I'd be curious to know why that decision was made. I know I can obviously go in and edit the part - more of a curiosity.

And then the two killers for me - sometimes when arranging a part (using symmetry, angle lock, and sometimes vertical lock from editor extensions) I can clearly see that despite the part not moving, the center of lift of the craft depends on where the mouse cursor is when I attach the part. Bizarrely, it doesn't move back-to-front, but rather at an angle, so that the final result is a center of lift that is offset from the centerline.

The other is the attaching of parts. It seems others are having a fine time, but I found it extremely tedious to actually get parts attached. The first was turbojet engines, which simply would not attach with symmetry on the bicoupler part. Removing symmetry allowed to attach just fine. I had a decently sized mk3 fuselage chain attached to a wing attached to a main body (think 3-part catamaran) at one point, and getting other wings attached between them was brutal. Any time I came close to the center of the wing it would pivot as though I was trying to attach it to a cylinder that existed there. I had the same problem pretty much all over the place when attaching the included control surfaces.

My 2c and experience thus far w/this one!

[TheReaper]

Really neat mod, but I have a question, and two issues.

It looks like the mod has items that are, by volume strictly superior. The mk3 fuselage contains 600 liquidFuel whereas its stock analogue (same price, size) contains a maximum of 160. Is this intended? If so, I'd be curious to know why that decision was made. I know I can obviously go in and edit the part - more of a curiosity.

And then the two killers for me - sometimes when arranging a part (using symmetry, angle lock, and sometimes vertical lock from editor extensions) I can clearly see that despite the part not moving, the center of lift of the craft depends on where the mouse cursor is when I attach the part. Bizarrely, it doesn't move back-to-front, but rather at an angle, so that the final result is a center of lift that is offset from the centerline.

The other is the attaching of parts. It seems others are having a fine time, but I found it extremely tedious to actually get parts attached. The first was turbojet engines, which simply would not attach with symmetry on the bicoupler part. Removing symmetry allowed to attach just fine. I had a decently sized mk3 fuselage chain attached to a wing attached to a main body (think 3-part catamaran) at one point, and getting other wings attached between them was brutal. Any time I came close to the center of the wing it would pivot as though I was trying to attach it to a cylinder that existed there. I had the same problem pretty much all over the place when attaching the included control surfaces.

My 2c and experience thus far w/this one!

i think first one is pretty decent considering the unmatch value , meaning ineffectiveness of stock mk 2 and huge superiority on higher sized rocket parts. with stock you barely have any fuel for sstos or risk bulding too long or wide. personelly i like it, second i have no idea , perheps pictures can help, never seen it.third, i exprience the same for engines on bi coupler, otherwise parts do attach nice and smooth, you can use non symetry or part clipping, (if you consider putting 2 engines in 2 seconds rather then 10 a cheating.. you really shouldnt)

[TheReaper]

I've noticed this issue as well. With regular jet engines (stock engines or B9 engines), the planes run insanely fast at very low altitudes, enough to cause mach effects and rip the plane apart if you make any sudden control inputs. Above a certain altitude this behavior seems to go away however, but returns when you dip back down near the ground. This does not happen with rocket engines or RAPIER engines. I haven't tested this in the new SP+ in 0.24 however.

One other thing I noticed is that craft made in the previous version of SP+ and KSP 0.23.5 will, when opening in the latest version and KSP 0.24, flip out as soon as physics loads on the runway and self-destruct. This can be fixed in the SPH by detaching and deleting the root cockpit, selecting a new one, and re-attaching the rest of the plane to it.

i have a similar issue i posted here as physic load issues, the thing with huge speeds: with near or FAR your launch drag is severely lower then stock as its based on weight which makes no sense, but with that huge amount of drag reduced, jet engines get a bit ovepowered its not an issue with SP+ only, stock or other plane parts also have the same issue, you can -NOT launch with full throtle or you can download ISP difficulty or KIDS patches from ferram4

[Porkjet]

Really neat mod, but I have a question, and two issues.

It looks like the mod has items that are, by volume strictly superior. The mk3 fuselage contains 600 liquidFuel whereas its stock analogue (same price, size) contains a maximum of 160. Is this intended? If so, I'd be curious to know why that decision was made. I know I can obviously go in and edit the part - more of a curiosity.

And then the two killers for me - sometimes when arranging a part (using symmetry, angle lock, and sometimes vertical lock from editor extensions) I can clearly see that despite the part not moving, the center of lift of the craft depends on where the mouse cursor is when I attach the part. Bizarrely, it doesn't move back-to-front, but rather at an angle, so that the final result is a center of lift that is offset from the centerline.

The other is the attaching of parts. It seems others are having a fine time, but I found it extremely tedious to actually get parts attached. The first was turbojet engines, which simply would not attach with symmetry on the bicoupler part. Removing symmetry allowed to attach just fine. I had a decently sized mk3 fuselage chain attached to a wing attached to a main body (think 3-part catamaran) at one point, and getting other wings attached between them was brutal. Any time I came close to the center of the wing it would pivot as though I was trying to attach it to a cylinder that existed there. I had the same problem pretty much all over the place when attaching the included control surfaces.

My 2c and experience thus far w/this one!

Compare the Mk2 Fuselage to an Fl-T800 rocket fuel tank, which has 800 units of fuel. The Mk2 Fuselage has a much bigger volume than that, from pure volume I'd say it could even contain 1200 units of fuel, but being a plane fuselage, it probably has additional things like structural reinforcements, electronics, channels for intake air, which take away space for fuel. So how much fuel would it realistically contain? I think 160 is a vast understatement.

As for part attaching, I've never heard of that COL curser problem, it might be a problem with EE's vertical lock function.

The rest of what you described are really just problems from the stock game. Angle snap causing random pivoting near other parts and symmetry not working on bicouplers, that happens with stock parts aswell. It's just how the editor handles things, and until the devs revise them, we have to live with it. The bi-coupler symmetry thing in particular is caused by the colliders of the parts beeing slightly over 1.25m in diameter, touching each other, and thus the symmetry prohibits you to place them. This is indeed very annoying, but can be solved by enabling part clipping.

[Higgi91]

Anyone else getting parts randomly 'crashed into launchpad' when in general operation? Was launching some satellites (from the plane), went back to my spaceplane afterwards to land it and the vertical stabalisers and part of the left wing had 'crashed into launchpad'. Then when landing, I went to the map view to see my approx landing position then back out of the map to find that now my right wing was gone too

This is on 64bit so thats probably why but thought I'd add this 'bug'.

[DaMichel]

Porkjet these part are absolutely beautiful. Especially the inline cockpit is great. Should have built something with them earlier.

I have a few suggestions though:

* I think it would be nice to have larger elevons. Something like the large stock control surface, just more beautiful and with a longer chord.

* The visibility from the cockpit is really bad. I wonder if you could elevate the view point a bit.

Final question, are the cargo bays set up to shield stuff with FAR?

Edited July 21, 2014 by DaMichel

[BadManiac]

Can't wait to move my save over to .24 so I can get to flying again! Might post some screenshots of my VTOL SSTO cargo carrier. This mod makes planes look SO .

Regarding the plane above by DaMichel, how the does the pilot see to land that thing!? Other than that I like the design, I'd even clip some control surfaces inside the nose cone so I could get rid of those front wings, that'd make it look even sleeker

[TonyC]

Well... B9's new rival, only in better !

[TheReaper]

Well... B9's new rival, only in better !

b9 never stood a chance!

@DaMichel Beautifull creation, although who the hell ordered that kerbal to carry 2 engines into orbit

anyone has any good use for new elevon 5, the 4th one is preety obvious where it matches but 5th really looks like a stand alone part.

Edited July 21, 2014 by TheReaper

[DaMichel]

I have to say i like B9's art style. As a part pack it is somewhat bloated. I could probably delete half of the parts and miss nothing but the other half is totally worth keeping around.

P.S. The engines, yeah i figured they would serve well as test weights

@BadManiac: With cameras the visiblity wouldn't be a big problem i think. I tried this even in-game with some other planes and the VDS Hull Cam mod. Raster Prop Mon also comes with a camera. The problem is, almost all cockpits in KSP have super poor visibility IMO.

[RoboRay]

almost all cockpits in KSP have super poor visibility IMO.

The only ones I know of that don't are based on real-world designs, like FASA Gemini. It has excellent forward visibility through the two tiny windows because it duplicates the real cockpit, which was engineered to offer the pilot excellent visibility.

As a pilot, I wish more more mod-makers would prioritize IVA-usability at the top of their design criteria, as it is in the real-world. Instead, it's usually an afterthought that doesn't get much attention until the shape of the cockpit model has already been settled, at which point it's too late. Visibility has to be designed in from the beginning, not worked out at the end.

Edited July 21, 2014 by RoboRay

[TheReaper]

Instead, it's usually an afterthought that doesn't get much attention until the shape of the cockpit model has already been settled, at which point it's too late. Visibility has to be designed in from the beginning, not worked out at the end.

i find this really weird, you prefer having a nice iva while the outside view is blank white and is just a square?

[royying]

After upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3, it cause the cockpit fall out at launch

I found out that we have to edit the .craft file to delete all camera module that should not exist in cockpit anymore.

you can find the module by "name = JSIExternalCameraSelector"

[Cashen]

After upgrade from 1.2 to 1.3, it cause the cockpit fall out at launch

I found out that we have to edit the .craft file to delete all camera module that should not exist in cockpit anymore.

you can find the module by "name = JSIExternalCameraSelector"

You can also, in the SPH, detach and delete the old cockpit and replace it with a new one. This will work when loading new aircraft. I think for existing aircraft you might have to edit the persistence file.