Wanderfound Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I've only just realised that the SP+ triangular structurals make better swept wings than the fugly stock parts:Can't believe it took me this long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sochin Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I know what is deffinately needed is a bigger set of stock landing gear. I use the gear from KAX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtedastro Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 New, bigger, different, etc Landing gear is really, really needed.I have had to resort to using the B9 gear and 'tweakscaling' them to get all sizes that I need / want...double bogey (axle), triple bogey, etc would be awesome....... H'mmm, is that too much of a hint???????LoL.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megatiger78 Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 sp+ stock integration confirmed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMILIE Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 sp+ stock integration confirmed?Yes: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/content/302-The-0-25-Plan (in the Spaceplane Part Overhaul section) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Does a high temperature heat tile really necessarily have to be black?What if kerbals invented slightly different heat tiles that are white and still very effective? Or a whole different approach at reentry protection such as active cooling.For certain values of 'high temperature', yeah they do. It's actually about radiating heat away from the tile. The shuttle's black tiles were black because of the coating on them that made them good radiators. The same properties that make it a good radiator also make it black. Saying that they can somehow come up with something that's white but still do as good a job as a black radiator is more akin to magic than science.That said, Kerbin reentries don't involve temperatures that are as extreme as a Terran reentry so it's arguable that the Kerbals don't need the increased protection. A Kerbin reentry is within the capabilities of the white tiles, so they went with what did the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porkjet Posted September 3, 2014 Author Share Posted September 3, 2014 Ok thx for the clarification Starwaster. Actually I've read about the tiles a couple of times but I'm just trying to convince myself that it's still not extremely unrealistic. same look on top and bottom is just so convenient in every way, also, I was getting so tired of painting those heat shields which took actually longer than painting a white top.What you said temperatures on Kerbin reentry is also what I've been thinking about, and apart from that, the Mk2 parts ultimately are designed for small to medium crafts, much lighter than a space shuttle would be, so I see them more as resembling a skylon style spaceplane than a shuttle, and skylon, because its so light is expected to only heat up to 1100K on reentry, almost half of what the Shuttle experienced.When Reentry is finally introduced to the vanilla game one day, I could envision that the parts would have a certain heat resistance on their own, like a light 360° coating, which would be enough for very gentle reentry. Also however, I'd love an option to upgrade the heat protection by 'painting' stronger heat tiles like decals on the plane by hand, or assigning them automatically by projecting them against a specific direction the player has to choose. So these tiles could be added anywhere, to the bottom of parts, or sides of say fuselages that are rotated to the side, or even cover the whole plane if the player wants it. They would add some weight to the parts tho, depending on the percentage of their surface that's covered, so the player would be encouraged to think carefully in which locations they are really necessary.I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure it would be in the realm of possibilities to implement a feature like this.New, bigger, different, etc Landing gear is really, really needed.I have had to resort to using the B9 gear and 'tweakscaling' them to get all sizes that I need / want...double bogey (axle), triple bogey, etc would be awesome....... H'mmm, is that too much of a hint???????LoL..Let's say, what if someone was going to not only make smaller and bigger landing gear versions, but also planned to make a new model for the current landing gear, what changes would you like to see about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Let's say, what if someone was going to not only make smaller and bigger landing gear versions, but also planned to make a new model for the current landing gear, what changes would you like to see about it?My wishlist:- Retraction flush with the fuselage or wing to which it is mounted. No exposed wheel after retraction.- A bilaterally symmetrical model that works well when placed with SPH symmetry. - A working suspension, if possible.- Textures on the bay covers that match the stock parts.- More wheels on the heavier versions; a side-by-side wheel arrangement for two wheels, a square arrangement for four wheels.All this for someone who might hypothetically be possibly making revisions to the stock landing gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voculus Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Let's say, what if someone was going to not only make smaller and bigger landing gear versions, but also planned to make a new model for the current landing gear, what changes would you like to see about it?Personally, I'd love to see gear that stowed sideways, akin to WW2 fighter planes. Gear that tucks almost straight up, like a B-17 would rock, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drtedastro Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Post #1250 Now, those look fun.................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wanderfound Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) Let's say, what if someone was going to not only make smaller and bigger landing gear versions, but also planned to make a new model for the current landing gear, what changes would you like to see about it?Hmmn...* With the size, it's as much about height as bulk. It's not just "big gear for big planes, small gear for small planes"; we need short gear and tall gear in the same styles, so that you can angle the nose up a bit or make clearance for an oversized engine without resorting to pylons or mounting the rear gear halfway up the side of the fuselage.* Landing gear lights that actually draw electrical power.* Landing gear that is able to be coloured by Kerbpaint.* Landing gear that withdraws entirely into the fuselage (or at least looks as if it does).* A no-wheel landing strut for WWII style taildraggers.* An arrestor hook? Doing a carrier-style landing on a short runway could be fun.* An Me-262 Komet style disposable launch sled could be entertaining as well.* Powered gear for taxiing.* Something that eased the "wing flex ruins the steering geometry of wing-mounted gear" would be nice. It shouldn't go away entirely (wings do flex in real life, after all), but KSP's current super-flexi wings make it excessive.This is just spur of the moment brainstorming. Definitely want the different-height stuff, though. Edited September 3, 2014 by Wanderfound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheReaper Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Let's say, what if someone was going to not only make smaller and bigger landing gear versions, but also planned to make a new model for the current landing gear, what changes would you like to see about it?just make one that completely goes into the fuselage and wont show up when its retracted like stuff attached to the hull. kerpaint support would be nice.. all othre stuff about ww2 or hooks would be just overbuilding and waste of efford. we dont slow down with hooks in ksp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasmic Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Let's say, what if someone was going to not only make smaller and bigger landing gear versions, but also planned to make a new model for the current landing gear, what changes would you like to see about it?It should be stressed that this is a purely hypothetical question, and is in no way an indication that anyone, especially not Porkjet, is planning to re-do the stock gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMS Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 * It's not just "big gear for big planes, small gear for small planes"; we need short gear and tall gear in the same styles...* Landing gear that withdraws entirely into the fuselage (or at least looks as if it does).* Powered gear for taxiing.This. Especially the taxiing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sochin Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) Let's say, what if someone was going to not only make smaller and bigger landing gear versions, but also planned to make a new model for the current landing gear, what changes would you like to see about it?Probably something akin to a resized Concorde landing gear. I use the main gear from KAX, however, for me it is more akin to a regional airliner setup (but still very usefull). In my opinion I believe we need a reworking of the stock gear which for me is suited for small aircraft. Your mod and its stock derivative lends itself to medium to intermediate larger aircraft and using stock is just not feasible or elegant.Reading Red Iron Crown's answer I mirror his thoughts but I would add it needs to be elegant and not just there for function. Edited September 3, 2014 by Sochin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexDavis Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 so, i have this "interesting" problem. http://imgur.com/PlQHnmCAs you can see, there's no change in lift with the swept wing being on the fuselage. the swept wings still work with a stock capsule and taqnk but if any sp+ fuselages or capsules are used, it doesn't workhttp://imgur.com/iBaE0Iwhttp://imgur.com/wa7nY9ethe sp+ wings are the only ones that work...can anyone help or know what is conflicting. i have NEAR, B9 and many others installed. i had taverios pizza and aerospace installed at one point, but removed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Mirrsen Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 so, i have this "interesting" problem. http://imgur.com/PlQHnmChttp://imgur.com/PlQHnmCAs you can see, there's no change in lift with the swept wing being on the fuselage. the swept wings still work with a stock capsule and taqnk but if any sp+ fuselages or capsules are used, it doesn't workhttp://imgur.com/iBaE0Iwhttp://imgur.com/iBaE0Iwhttp://imgur.com/wa7nY9ehttp://imgur.com/wa7nY9ethe sp+ wings are the only ones that work...can anyone help or know what is conflicting. i have NEAR, B9 and many others installed. i had taverios pizza and aerospace installed at one point, but removed it.NEAR and FAR strip parts they recognize of aerodynamic data, and replace them with their own. If there is no NEAR config for SP+, then only the stock parts will have been stripped of that data. Since every fuselage in SP+ is lifting-body, it ends up having more lift than any stock wing with NEAR, so adding stock wings to SP+ fuselages is futile. The stock wings will still obey FAR rules and work ingame, but the CoL indicator and the function of the lifting bodies will be shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexDavis Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Thanks for the help man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I'd just like to see the smallest landing gear fit as flush as possible and be physics-less so I don't have to worry about throwing off my center of mass if I stick the craft they are attached to on top of a rocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudgetHedgehog Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Ooh, I thought of a part I want! A Mk2 shape air intake! Similar to the Mk2 adapters, but with a big hole instead of an attach node Or even better, have it like this intake, with the two channels. And a Mk2 shape on the back. Sorry if this is in the works already, I just saw someones craft file and it's aching for one of these. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 Ooh, I thought of a part I want! A Mk2 shape air intake! Similar to the Mk2 adapters, but with a big hole instead of an attach node Or even better, have it like this intake, with the two channels. And a Mk2 shape on the back. Sorry if this is in the works already, I just saw someones craft file and it's aching for one of these.so in other words you want a big crazy scary open maw of an intake with shark faces painted on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudgetHedgehog Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 so in other words you want a big crazy scary open maw of an intake with shark faces painted on it? I fully expect someone make a Kerbpaint layer for that if PJ makes the part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 I fully expect someone make a Kerbpaint layer for that if PJ makes the part who needs kerbpaint? I'm saying that should be the default Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Iron Crown Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The sharkmouth is critical to the advancement of spaceplane technology, we need this asap.Seriously, a big Mk2 intake would be fantastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
passinglurker Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 The sharkmouth is critical to the advancement of spaceplane technology, we need this asap.Seriously, a big Mk2 intake would be fantastic.Its like painting flames and racing stripes on rover bodies science says the paint makes the parts just plain better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts