[1.3.0] OPT Space Plane v2.0.1 - updated 29/07/2017

[HaydenTheKing]

1 minute ago, JadeOfMaar said:

:: OPT Legacy :: OPT Reconfig ::

I've considered moving the J-61. I left it because I felt a lazy urge to not move it, but as somewhat compensation it's the most gas-guzzling of all.

I don't quite get it.

I'm looking at the stats, for example the J60D Vac ISP 1200 the LV-N is 900. I might just need to play with them and see for myself but the numbers still seem pretty crazy.  I love these parts though, I used these before they weren't in the main any more. I absolutely love the detail.

 

I'm so thrilled that someone is keeping these mods going!

[AmpCat]

I think the 'overpowered' argument comes somewhat from the problem of KSP's balance mechanisms itself. KSP engines, at least those that are supposed to be even remotely 'modern' (often 40 years old, in reality) can be conservative at best. Most of the world basically halted advancement of rocketry in the 70s, and even the few short years where private companies have started investing in actual engine designs have seen some significant growth. To think of these as 'overpowered' is simply a lack of understanding in how little humanity has put into rocket engine R&D.

Modern turbofans: 6,000isp, up to 12,000 at sea level. Modern electrostatic ion thrusters: Up to 20,000-50,000 depending on who you believe, (ones currently in use are 10,000). VASMIR is purported to get up to 12,000. Stock KSP engine performance is dated at the very best, and it lacks a good mechanism for letting performance improve as you progress in the game. Tech-levels and engine cost just don't seem to mean enough to the developers, given how the stock game is structured.

Then there's the whole issue of engine performance, weights, etc, and the scale of Kerbin and the game itself, and general just having fun. I consider most mods here realistic, and OPT only a little enthusiastic. Certainly not space-magic.

[HaydenTheKing]

2 minutes ago, AmpCat said:

I think the 'overpowered' argument comes somewhat from the problem of KSP's balance mechanisms itself. KSP engines, at least those that are supposed to be even remotely 'modern' (often 40 years old, in reality) can be conservative at best. Most of the world basically halted advancement of rocketry in the 70s, and even the few short years where private companies have started investing in actual engine designs have seen some significant growth. To think of these as 'overpowered' is simply a lack of understanding in how little humanity has put into rocket engine R&D.

Modern turbofans: 6,000isp, up to 12,000 at sea level. Modern electrostatic ion thrusters: Up to 20,000-50,000 depending on who you believe, (ones currently in use are 10,000). VASMIR is purported to get up to 12,000. Stock KSP engine performance is dated at the very best, and it lacks a good mechanism for letting performance improve as you progress in the game. Tech-levels and engine cost just don't seem to mean enough to the developers, given how the stock game is structured.

Then there's the whole issue of engine performance, weights, etc, and the scale of Kerbin and the game itself, and general just having fun. I consider most mods here realistic, and OPT only a little enthusiastic. Certainly not space-magic.

I totally agree, my main thought process would be, if they are as efficient and perform as well as they do. Then they should be far later in the tech tree with a much higher cost.  I just used the j61 and got to orbit with only jet engines.  I love the look of these engines and the other parts that come with OPT.  I want to use them in my career save just trying to find a way to rationalize them into the progression tree.  To me it seems a little silly to have supper advanced jet engines at the same time you get the LV-N and them perform significantly better than it.

It's probably just a preference thing for me, I will have to find a way to get them to fit so they are cool just not crazy.  

 

Jade, idk if its possible but am I able to edit there stats some how so I can balance them for my gameplay?

[JadeOfMaar]

@HaydenTheKing Every engine in OPT Legacy was even more OP (before I took over) than they are now. They are reasonably OP. I've even gone to the trouble of writing new part descriptions, as well as changing (mostly lowering) stats to line up with existing (unchanged) part descriptions, to lay some justification for their yet high stats. Remember that their fancy looks are tied to the inspirations behind them........ anime and sci-fi. Expecting stock performance from fancy and polished things like these is weird in my perspective, and @AmpCat lists very well the problems with "stock balance."

Feel free to make suggestions for where you want me to move parts, and what new costs they can have, for the next releases of Legacy and Reconfig (whenever those happen.  ).  Save this anywhere in GameData, preferably in the OPT_Reconfig folder... I really should put the J-61 and maybe the J-60D in Experimental Aircraft Engines. Hmm.

@PART[J61]
{
    @TechRequired = hypersonicFlight // put it where the Whiplash is
}

// use @TechRequired = aerospaceTech to put it with the Rapier
// use @TechRequired = expAircraftEngines to put it after that if you have Community Tech Tree

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by JadeOfMaar

[HaydenTheKing]

2 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@HaydenTheKing Every engine in OPT Legacy was even more OP (before I took over) than they are now. They are reasonably OP. I've even gone to the trouble of writing new part descriptions, as well as changing (mostly lowering) stats to line up with existing (unchanged) part descriptions, to lay some justification for their yet high stats. Remember that their fancy looks are tied to the inspirations behind them........ anime and sci-fi. Expecting stock performance from fancy and polished things like these is weird in my perspective, and @AmpCat lists very well the problems with "stock balance."

Feel free to make suggestions for where you want me to move parts, and what new costs they can have, for the next releases of Legacy and Reconfig (whenever those happen.  ).  Save this anywhere in GameData, preferably in the OPT_Reconfig folder... I really should put the J-61 and maybe the J-60D in Experimental Aircraft Engines. Hmm.

@PART[J61]
{
    @TechRequired = hypersonicFlight // put it where the Whiplash is
}

// use @TechRequired = aerospaceTech to put it with the Rapier
// use @TechRequired = expAircraftEngines to put it after that if you have Community Tech Tree

 

Thank you so much for all your help, I know I have been a bit annoying lately! 

[JadeOfMaar]

Nah, it's fine. I'm not bothered. This is a good chat.

[AmpCat]

Even mods producing fairly advanced parts, like @Nertea's still don't even match some modern and projected performances, just to try and keep it more reasonable compared to KSP. It's all a fine line between realistic, fun, and balanced.

Oh look, 1.4.5 is out! What surprises do we have in store now? Oh. Bugfixbugfixbugfixbugfix. Probably new bugs.

I'm going to stop myself before I get way off topic.

 

Slightly off topic.. but what landing gear do people use? I've never been fond of stock landing gear, and now that procedural gear are back, I've been trying to use those, but they overheat pretty easily on space planes. Thoughts?

Edited July 27, 2018 by AmpCat

[StarStreak2109]

Kerbal Foundries.

And I edit the temperature values to match the stock landing gear.

[AmpCat]

Yeah, that's the one I use now. It seems very similar to the old procedural landing gear, though I coulda swore those had a 'shielded' variant to give you extra heat shielding. I just hate modding mods, because then I have to remember to go re-do it each time it gets updated. Sometimes I've even made my own mod to just mod someone else's mod so I don't have to remod the mod!

[JadeOfMaar]

17 hours ago, AmpCat said:

Yeah, that's the one I use now. It seems very similar to the old procedural landing gear, though I coulda swore those had a 'shielded' variant to give you extra heat shielding. I just hate modding mods, because then I have to remember to go re-do it each time it gets updated. Sometimes I've even made my own mod to just mod someone else's mod so I don't have to remod the mod!

Adjustable Landing Gear is an infamous and old pack of highly configurable landing gear. That same pack is bundled in Kerbal Foundries now and may be th same mod you're thinking of.

Do like myself and @Apaseall and keep all your re-modding in a patch folder with your name or brand.

[NHunter]

A question for the people using/maintaining this wonderful mod:

Am I the only one who feels that it's weird that the OPT J Inline Boarding Ramp and the OPT J rear Hatch Engine Mount do not allow one to keep science while boarding a plane through them?

 

Edited July 29, 2018 by NHunter

[JadeOfMaar]

@NHunter Thanks for noticing. The next release will fix that.

[aaronsta1]

the part OPT 2.5m I-LS AA Cockpit has name=ModuleLiftingSurface listed twice.. so this part has twice the lift it should have.

 

 

[JadeOfMaar]

OPT Legacy 1.1.2 for KSP 1.4.5

• Added/fixed science container and Crew Report experiment to Humpback cabin and Stail cockpit
• Moved J-60 and J-61 to Aerospace Tech/ Exp Aircraft Engines in tech trees

:: DOWNLOAD ::

Paired OPT Reconfig release:

 

Edited August 10, 2018 by JadeOfMaar

[Juba]

On 8/10/2018 at 8:15 AM, JadeOfMaar said:

• Moved J-60 and J-61 to Aerospace Tech/ Exp Aircraft Engines in tech trees

@JadeOfMaar

How to Move J-61 lower in the tech tree

[JadeOfMaar]

1 hour ago, Juba said:

@JadeOfMaar

How to Move J-61 lower in the tech tree

Take the following and change @PART[J61] to @PART[J61]:AFTER[OPT_Reconfig]

Change "hypersonicFlight" to whatever else you find appropriate but you'll have to open the config file for another part to get the value you want. The display name of a tech tree node is not what you want to put.

And maybe preferably don't save it in the OPT_Reconfig folder...

On 7/27/2018 at 12:24 AM, JadeOfMaar said:

Save this anywhere in GameData, preferably in the OPT_Reconfig folder... I really should put the J-61 and maybe the J-60D in Experimental Aircraft Engines. Hmm.

@PART[J61]
{
    @TechRequired = hypersonicFlight // put it where the Whiplash is
}

// use @TechRequired = aerospaceTech to put it with the Rapier
// use @TechRequired = expAircraftEngines to put it after that if you have Community Tech Tree

 

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by JadeOfMaar

[jestermaximus]

Hello, @JadeOfMaar thank you so much for keeping this awesome mod going. Really appreciate your hard work on this. I've got OPT Legacy and OPT Reconfig installed. It's been a long time since I used original OPT, however I seem to remember the original OPT having several "half sized" parts (e.g. a fuel tank section half the length of the main one). Are those part of Legacy/Reconfig did I do something wrong in my manual installation? Same question for the old "k" variant RCS parts (now the Stail line of parts). I see several versions of the old "k" RCS parts, but none for the Stail line. Lastly, two of the cockpits in the Stail line (the narrow variant and the wide "duckbill-like" variant) seem to have the max kerbals stat reversed. To me it'd make sense that the wider, thicker cockpit would be able to hold a bunch of kerbals, whereas the narrow, more aerodynamic version would hold less. Does that seem reasonable? Thank you again for your work on these mods.

[JadeOfMaar]

@jestermaximus Several of the current (H, J, K, KH) body pieces have half-sizes to them so I suppose something very wrong has happened with your install. Several parts known in Legacy will have disappeared between now and back when you last saw them. It's only recently I learned of it when someone asked about a specific cockpit that included a docking port, and I learned why that had to be deleted.

That issue of the Stail cockpits is very reasonable. Some other cockpits are like that, which is very weird. I'll deal with it at some point.

[jestermaximus]

2 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@jestermaximus...so I suppose something very wrong has happened with your install.

So just to verify, I need to install OPT Legacy, OPT Reconfig, B9 (as a dependency), and the original OPT dependencies (ASET Props and Avionics). Do I need to have the original OPT mod installed as well? Maybe I should try CKAN rather than manual installation.

[Apaseall]

Quote

 I will test cargo drag stuff later this week maybe. Your wheel situation sounds like a kraken or a very weak joint between where your wheels are and the heaviest part. Right now I can agree with you that there's nothing that can be done by me about cargo bays and OPT's source. Sorry, man. I think I finally have enough, apart from that, for a small OPT Legacy release. Right now I'm working on getting the Dark Science production in OPT labs to persist under WBI.

Sorry for the slow reply. Just after I contacted you about the cargo drag shielding I went away from PC. Yes it seems I can live many days without a PC! Now I am trying to play catch up again.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Apaseall

[Juba]

On 8/12/2018 at 6:45 AM, JadeOfMaar said:

Take the following and change @PART[J61] to @PART[J61]:AFTER[OPT_Reconfig]

Change "hypersonicFlight" to whatever else you find appropriate but you'll have to open the config file for another part to get the value you want. The display name of a tech tree node is not what you want to put.

And maybe preferably don't save it in the OPT_Reconfig folder...

 

Worked Nicely , Thank You.

[JoE Smash]

On 8/12/2018 at 5:35 PM, jestermaximus said:

So just to verify, I need to install OPT Legacy, OPT Reconfig, B9 (as a dependency), and the original OPT dependencies (ASET Props and Avionics). Do I need to have the original OPT mod installed as well? Maybe I should try CKAN rather than manual installation.

Yeah a bunch of parts are still part of the old OPT space plane parts. The one that was last updated for KSP 1.3.0. It seems to still function since it is just a part mod and not a complex mod that changes things like B9 mesh switcher.

So if you don't have the old OPT space plane mod, the missing parts are probably in there.

[Apaseall]

Ok so back to drag. I have a question. Goes like this. Cargo bay. I think it has at least 3 nodes. One end, the other end and maybe one in between. So....it is possible to have something long attached to something else. Then slap a cargo bay onto maybe something else. Visually the long something is inside of the cargo bay. For example say one part is a solid plane part, a fuel tank. Stuck on the end another none plane part fuel tank. Cap the end of that with another plane fuel tank. Looks like a plane - rocket - plane sandwich. Slap a cargo bay on. Bingo looks like plane - plane - plane part. With me so far?

Question, is the rocket fuel tank inside of the cargo bay?

Now I suspect that surface mounting a part to the inside surface of a cargo bay should be shielded. Does that go for something stuck to the outside but slid inside?

Does anyone know what the rules are? Is the rule: if you attach inside it is shielded, anything else, not. Or: if it looks like it is inside it should be shielded?

Both an academic and practical question, a two fer you might say.

[jestermaximus]

Thanks @JoE Smash. I've now got original OPT and reconfig installed, and everything seems to be working.

[JoE Smash]

9 hours ago, jestermaximus said:

Thanks @JoE Smash. I've now got original OPT and reconfig installed, and everything seems to be working.

Np, I asked all the same stuff like a month ago when I started playing. There's the OPT legacy parts one too. Basically for OPT there's three separate downloads. Two have parts and the reconfig one patches and tweaks stuff to make things work better.

JadeOfMaar probably has to answer the same questions every time someone new starts playing and they want cool space planes.

Especially since the original  OPT space plane mod says it's for KSP 1.3.0....common sense would indicate such an old mod wouldn't work and you shouldn't download it. 

That's what I figured....

Also, I don't know the answer to the drag questions. The parts inside the cargo bay "should" be shielded. I don't know if or how any of that works.

Sometimes when I put parts in procedural farings it looks like the parts are experiencing drag animations while inside the faring....

So I don't know what works in the game properly....

Edited August 15, 2018 by JoE Smash