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

[Drew Kerman]

On 7/30/2017 at 8:00 PM, White Owl said:

Might any kind soul have a MM patch for FAR compatibility?

On 7/30/2017 at 8:03 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

Soon™ ... @K.Yeon is working on that himself.

Wait this wasn't included in the latest releases?

On 7/22/2017 at 9:31 AM, K.Yeon said:

I have also finished testing a working patch for FAR.

He posted this before v2.0 - so if it's done why wasn't it released?

[vossiewulf]

5 minutes ago, stali79 said:

To eliminate the Mechjeb part issues completely, use this in addition to mechjeb.

You think it's a part issue and not just interaction with the MJ functional code? When jets require air and intakes slam closed, the exact opposite of that desired, like I said that sounds like events are being fired and received but someone is crossing the streams.

[Starwaster]

1 hour ago, vossiewulf said:

2) You were right, it's the intake management. Disable intake management and we have a flyable plane again. Wonder why it's slamming the intakes? Interestingly in this state the "prevent jet flameout" utility is active, so it's aware at some level that the jets on this vessel don't have enough air, and yet it has the air intakes closed. Actually that sounds more like someone is firing the wrong event or the listener logic is wrong.

Thanks, I can now use MJ on my giant spaceplane. However I'm pretty sure this affects all the OPT planes, not just the K, think I had it happen to me on a J but I thought I was having an intake air problem. And if that's the case, how did no one notice? They all fly their 300 ton spaceplanes in pure manual station rendezvous and dockings?

It's not event driven, it just goes through the list of intakes and if it finds that there are open intakes that are surplus  then it closes them. Either it thinks it HAS enough intake air or it thinks the intake air isn't necessary at all. (might be because of the ignoreForIsp field, not sure, but basically jet engines are configured to ignore air for mass requirements because of reasons)

Frankly, it's an obsolete system to begin with. There is no current need for intake management because there is no benefit to closing them. Back during the Mesozoic  era when dinosaurs roamed the earth, intakes had more drag when open than when closed so it was beneficial to close them. There isn't much logic to that IRL so the feature was removed. (actually I can envision a streamlined hull  with intakes only exposed by doors... I can see that having less drag, but whatever)

Also, intake management is disabled by default. That's why most people don't notice it.

[JadeOfMaar]

@Drew Kerman I'm sure K. Yeon had an oversight. It happens. Or he has a fair reason for withholding the FAR configs.

[vossiewulf]

Actually I'm not sure how you could design an intake door that wouldn't significantly reduce drag unless your engineer's name was Perverse Q Obtuseguy, put a cap over the intake of a HBP turbofan and whee big drop in drag. Small drop in thrust also that could be problematic, but hey, less drag. Typical ramp-type fighter intakes with doors swinging down, same thing, much less drag.

But that's off subject, apparently doesn't work that way now so you're right, if no FOD damage either, doors are pointless.

Second Mechjeb issue: he turns off the rockets when he thinks he needs to be at idle to keep the jets from failing. So you ALSO need to disable Prevent Jet Flameout on the MJ utilities page, or shortly after starting them, your rockets will suddenly shut down with no explanation and you'll be on the back side of the curve before you figure out what the problem is.

That's an extremely odd default setting (at least I don't see why I would have enabled that) as it would do this to any spaceplane.

Should also request Jeb prints a running status like he does when one of the autopilots is enabled. If he said yo boss, I shut down all the engines because I have to keep the jets running it would have helped fix the problem a bit more quickly.

[K.Yeon]

On 8/1/2017 at 12:39 PM, Drew Kerman said:

Wait this wasn't included in the latest releases?

He posted this before v2.0 - so if it's done why wasn't it released?

 

On 7/31/2017 at 10:00 AM, White Owl said:

Might any kind soul have a MM patch for FAR compatibility?

Sorry i only did a little bit of testing on another computer which has the 1.2.2 install. My current computer is running ksp 1.3, and believe it or not right now i do not have the internet luxury to re download ksp 1.2.2 (at least not for another week), and do more testing...

FAR SUPPORT:

If anyone is willing to try this patch you can download it from : https://www.dropbox.com/s/tugtcgziz7pv35z/OPT_FAR.cfg?dl=0, Place it in GameData/OPT/mm_config/ folder.

But since FAR config file isn't affected by the ksp updates, i believe it should be perfectly fine.

Let me know if there is a problem with it,

Thanks!

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by K.Yeon

[vossiewulf]

Intake management is off by default? Geez why the hell did I do that without even knowing what it does or have any real way to tell what it's doing? Genius.

I guess I was on a roll and decided to tell him to prevent flameouts for no reason also?

[Starwaster]

3 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

Actually I'm not sure how you could design an intake door that wouldn't significantly reduce drag unless your engineer's name was Perverse Q Obtuseguy, put a cap over the intake of a HBP turbofan and whee big drop in drag. Small drop in thrust also that could be problematic, but hey, less drag. Typical ramp-type fighter intakes with doors swinging down, same thing, much less drag.

But that's off subject, apparently doesn't work that way now so you're right, if no FOD damage either, doors are pointless.

Second Mechjeb issue: he turns off the rockets when he thinks he needs to be at idle to keep the jets from failing. So you ALSO need to disable Prevent Jet Flameout on the MJ utilities page, or shortly after starting them, your rockets will suddenly shut down with no explanation and you'll be on the back side of the curve before you figure out what the problem is.

That's an extremely odd default setting (at least I don't see why I would have enabled that) as it would do this to any spaceplane.

Should also request Jeb prints a running status like he does when one of the autopilots is enabled. If he said yo boss, I shut down all the engines because I have to keep the jets running it would have helped fix the problem a bit more quickly.

That's what 'Keep Limited Throttle Over____%' is for. In MJ2 Utilities, enable that and set it to what you need the minimum to be for your engine configuration.

[stali79]

Hey guys just wondering who uses the mk2 parts from Airline Kuisine on their planes? Am trying to convince the author of that mod that he needs to make some OPT textures for the mk2 parts.

[TheRagingIrishman]

6 hours ago, stali79 said:

Hey guys just wondering who uses the mk2 parts from Airline Kuisine on their planes? Am trying to convince the author of that mod that he needs to make some OPT textures for the mk2 parts.

Ya tell jade to make opt style textures

[Skywalket]

I am on a Mac and I am having trouble. I have installed the Core Files as your video says. When I load the game, I can see the file names on the bar at the bottom, but the parts don't appear on the side tab. Any suggestions?

[JadeOfMaar]

@Skywalket Sorry, I doubt I can help this. I don't use a Mac for KSP. OPT's parts don't show at all? In any category? Doe OPT's own category show like in my screenshot below?

@TheRagingIrishman I have one word for you.

Spoiler

I restored lifting surface to the legacy wings. Without it they have been as effective as inflated heatshields. (They're still incredibly draggy but now they add lift as well and that helps a lot)... And the ARI-73 will no longer be redundant next to the ARI-75.  

[vossiewulf]

On 8/3/2017 at 4:09 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

I restored lifting surface to the legacy wings. Without it they have been as effective as inflated heatshields. (They're still incredibly draggy but now they add lift as well and that helps a lot)... And the ARI-73 will no longer be redundant next to the ARI-75.

First, OPT better than any other mod I have provides such a complete range of parts that there is a nearly limitless range of cool-looking spaceplanes in there. And that one you just made is one of them

However I have noticed the drag problem, it seems like almost everything OPT seems to have higher than expected drag. Trying some of the winglets as wings on atmosphere-only aircraft shows them to be consistently slower with the OPT winglets of similar wing area to a wing made of standard parts. It seems to me like you could do a 10%-15% C_d reduction across the board and they'd be more in line with other parts. But I'm hardly knowledgeable in the KSP atmospheric flight model and it's probably more complicated than that.

[vossiewulf]

Oh, while I'm at it, the J-92 Nebula is the single coolest and most creative engine I've tried, and at this point there can't be not too many that exist for 1.3 that I haven't tried.

All it says is something happens when you hit the right speed/alt range, and when it woke up at 12.5k and then went full psycho-monkey at 14k I was alternately laughing and yelling YEEEHAAAA!!!. Very entertaining engine to use, creative design, and you've constrained its excessive power in a way that it's only good for what you intended it to do and it's not otherwise unbalanced.

[JadeOfMaar]

@vossiewulf The legacy winglets have an infuriating large drag cube it seems, whereas the non-legacy wings don't. When I'm up to it I'll see if applying a custom, tiny drag cube fixes that. But I don't have much power to fix the drag problem. I don't have any Unity skill yet....and I don't know where to go to apply your snippet of Math there.

Two things make OPT parts in general very draggy (which imo can be offset very well by adding another one or two OPT engines...versus adding 4+ more stock engines):

• K. Yeon has intently reduced lift ratings and added dry mass to most of the parts to counter the power of his engines (you know, balancing for stockalike performance)
• KSP's aero system is still very bad. You'd best throw parties when/if you manage a spaceplane design that experiences no drag even while holding prograde,or roll back to 1.2.2 and get familiar with FAR.

[stali79]

3 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@vossiewulf The legacy winglets have an infuriating large drag cube it seems, whereas the non-legacy wings don't. When I'm up to it I'll see if applying a custom, tiny drag cube fixes that. But I don't have much power to fix the drag problem. I don't have any Unity skill yet....and I don't know where to go to apply your snippet of Math there.

Two things make OPT parts in general very draggy (which imo can be offset very well by adding another one or two OPT engines...versus adding 4+ more stock engines):

• K. Yeon has intently reduced lift ratings and added dry mass to most of the parts to counter the power of his engines (you know, balancing for stockalike performance)
• KSP's aero system is still very bad. You'd best throw parties when/if you manage a spaceplane design that experiences no drag even while holding prograde,or roll back to 1.2.2 and get familiar with FAR.

Yeah nobody likes the stock KSP soupmosphere. The parts all perform beautifully with FAR, it just takes forever to get updated lately.

[vossiewulf]

Does the standard model take airfoil thickness into account? If so, then some of the wing/winglet drag is justified since they have comparatively thick airfoils everywhere. In fact while mentioning all the good about the parts' design, that might be the one weakness - the airfoils are much thicker than you'd want to use for anything intended to go mach 5+ in the atmosphere, and the leading edges in particular should be much thinner and sharper. Every time I noodle around with them I wish that the KSP had a non-uniform scale option so I could fix it  

The "math" up above was the short version of "drag coefficient". From what you're saying it sounds like drag coefficient = size of cube, which is an interesting way to visualize it.

[JadeOfMaar]

7 minutes ago, vossiewulf said:

Very entertaining engine to use, creative design, and you've constrained its excessive power

I entirely agree. The J-92 is the best in looks, performance and sound. I couldn't help but take a lot of inspiration and its sound setup for the creation of the WarpJet SURGE engine.

Don't praise me too much. I only do maintenance work and contribute to the growth of OPT Legacy. I did not create anything for/ any amount of OPT Main.

[vossiewulf]

3 minutes ago, stali79 said:

Yeah nobody likes the stock KSP soupmosphere. The parts all perform beautifully with FAR, it just takes forever to get updated lately.

Yeah I started just after 1.3 so I still haven't had a chance to try FAR, it's the only major game-changing one I'd like to try that isn't 1.3 sadly.

1 minute ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Don't praise me too much. I only do maintenance work and contribute to the growth of OPT Legacy. I did not create anything for/ any amount of OPT Main.

Since I don't have enough brain space to keep track of OPT part attribution, if I offer praise for people who are gone just psychically redirect it their direction and have a good day anyway

[stali79]

14 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

Does the standard model take airfoil thickness into account? If so, then some of the wing/winglet drag is justified since they have comparatively thick airfoils everywhere. In fact while mentioning all the good about the parts' design, that might be the one weakness - the airfoils are much thicker than you'd want to use for anything intended to go mach 5+ in the atmosphere, and the leading edges in particular should be much thinner and sharper. Every time I noodle around with them I wish that the KSP had a non-uniform scale option so I could fix it  

The "math" up above was the short version of "drag coefficient". From what you're saying it sounds like drag coefficient = size of cube, which is an interesting way to visualize it.

Stock is pea soup with drag cubes, FAR is voxel based so its the one that takes shape into account

[Starwaster]

28 minutes ago, stali79 said:

Stock is pea soup with drag cubes, FAR is voxel based so its the one that takes shape into account

Now that's exaggerating quite a bit. The 'souposphere' epithet needs to die. Stock aerodynamics has advanced enough that launching and flying even in an RSS environment is quite acceptable even without FAR.

[DrScarlett]

Dear KSP modding enthusiasts,

I have a very strange issue that I am looking for help on. On certain cockpits my Kerbal crew portraits disappear. I am having a hard time getting a bead on this, because it happens on some cockpits and not on others. The reason I am posting it here is because of the OPT "Stall" class QS01 cockpit. This one only shows two kerbals - the ones in the front two seats, even though all five are present. I cannot scroll through the portrait list, it only shows two. I feel this could provide a crucial clue for someone who understands part modeling, IVA interiors and so on. I have a feeling it must have something to do with the way the cockpit is designed.

I use a heavily modded game, some 60 odd mods. I tried turning a bunch off one by one, but I wasn't able to to find any culprits. I am hoping to get a tip from you guys to find a less brute-force method for fixing this.

Here is a list of cockpits that I checked. I found less problem occurrences than I expected -  I seem to remember it having occurred in the recent past with more cockpits than I found now.

It does not happen:

• OPT Space-plane parts - MK3 Airline cockpit: shows all 4
• OPT Space-plane parts - OPT "Stall" class Space-plane cockpit: shows 2 of 2
• OPT Space-plane parts - OPT "Humpback" class cockpit: shows all 10
• OPT Space-plane parts - OPT 2.5m I Mk22 Cockpit: shows all 3
• MK-3 Stock-alike expansion pack - MK3-2 Cockpit: shows all 4 
• MK-2 Stock-alike expansion pack - CB-C Cockpit: shows 1 of 1
• Stock - MK2 Cockpit - shows all 3
• Stock - MK2 Inline Cockpit - shows 2 of 2
• Stock - MK3 Cockpit - shows all 4
• Quiz Tech Aero pack: Mk2 Thunderbolt cockpit: shows 2 of 2

It happens:

• OPT Space-plane parts - OPT 2.5m ISP Shuttle Cockpit MK-I: no crew portraits at all
• OPT Space-plane parts - OPT 'Avatar' class Chimera cockpit: no crew portraits at all
• MK-3 Stock-alike expansion pack - MK3 inline command bridge - no crew portraits at all. This is the one I direly need to have work correctly. I need to be able to EVA them  

Mixed result:

• OPT Space-plane parts - OPT "Stall" class QS01 cockpit: shows 2 out of 5
• USI Kolonization Systems - 'Orca' Command module: shows all 6, but with black portraits and the IVA views are completely black

Thanks in advance for any help you can give me!

Mods used:

[X] Science!
AT Utils
B9 Aerospace Procedural Wings - Fork
BahamutoD Animation Modules
Cmmunity Category Kit
Community Resource Pack
Community Tech Tree
Configurable Containers
Configurable Containers Core
Distant Object Enhancement
Distant Object Enhancement default config
Environmental Visual Enancements
Extraplanetary Launchpads
Extraplanetary Launchpads - No More Production
Firespitter
Ground Construction
Ground Construction Core
Infernal Robotics
Interstellar Fuel Switch
Interstellar Fuel Switch Core
Kerbal Alarm Clock
Kerbal Attachment System
Kerbal Foundries
Kerbal Inventory System
Konstruction
KRASH - Kerbal Ramification Artificial Simulation Hub
KSP Interstellar Extended
KSP Wheel
Lithobrake Exploration Technologies
Malemute Rover
MechJeb 2
Mk2 Stockalike Extension
Mk3 Stockalike Extension
Module Manager
OPT Spacwplane parts
Procedural Fairings
Quiz Tech Aero Pack
Scatterer
Scatterer - default config
Scatterer - Sunflare
SpaceY Expanded
SpaceY Heavy Lifters
Stock Visual Enhancements
Stock Visual Enhancements-High Res Textures
Surface Mounted Stock-Alike lights
Throttle Rontrolled Avionics
TreeLoader
TriggerAU Flags
Tweakscale
Universal Storage
USI Core
USI Exploration Pack
USI Freight Transport Technologies
USI Kolonization Systems
USI Life Support
USI Tools
 

[Skywalket]

On 8/3/2017 at 7:09 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

 

@Skywalket Sorry, I doubt I can help this. I don't use a Mac for KSP. OPT's parts don't show at all? In any category? Doe OPT's own category show like in my screenshot below?

@

 

No, it doesn't. Nothing except the flag shows.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Skywalket

[Starwaster]

@DrScarlett It happens for parts that are either lacking an IVA (you will not see any portraits) or if the IVA doesn't have enough seats for all the crew. In that case, excess crew will not have a portrait and not show up in the IVA.

You can still move them out of the part by clicking the hatch or using the Transfer Crew in the part context menu.

[DrScarlett]

Such a simple answer. Thank you, @Starwaster!

I tried clicking the hatch (transfer doesn't help you EVA), and that didn't work so I though something wasn't right with my setup.
So now....

... I tried the other door.
Problem solved!

ThanQ again!!!