[1.12.x] Mark IV Spaceplane System (August 18, 2024)

[jake9039]

could you perhaps add some example craft? and update it to 0.90?

[Captain Sierra]

could you perhaps add some example craft? and update it to 0.90?

Its a parts pack, therefore its not broken. Please test these things before requesting an update. KSP versions don't automatically break every mod.

[problemecium]

I just discovered this today, and I say it looks legit. Next I look forward to seeing NovaPunch reply with 7.5m parts xD

[fatcargo]

As far as cargo bays go, i doubt there could be a better solution than MK4 cargo bay. At least for SSTOs. The more i think of it's shape, the more clear it becomes that any other shape would make it worse.

Ahh yes one more thing : does aynone have example of how to secure a payload so it looks plausible ? Right now i've resorted to fitting a payload in cargo bay like this : Sr Docking Port on forward end of cargo bay --> axially mounted payload --> pair of Quantum Struts on rear end of cargo bay. Clean, but a bit unrealistic. And i would like to avoid use of physical struts as they leave attachment points after decoupling (though they do have best rigidity vs elasticity, payloads can sway if exposed to forces without breaking but also they keep it in one place firmly enough not to strike/damage any other part of craft).

[ultrasquid]

Ahh yes one more thing : does aynone have example of how to secure a payload so it looks plausible ?

Someone up the thread made it work using a combination of KAS winches and Active Struts.

[Nertea]

This probably won't be updated to 0.90 for a while. I'm very busy IRL and have to spend available time working on NFT stuff.

Just popping by to say that I love these parts. Even better than the new Mk. 3 parts.

Kinda odd that the functional crew hatch on the cockpit is the same as the decorative one near the attachment node, but it looks cool if you've got a hollow section there.

Ah, I had hoped that the last fix would nail that down for good... trying to make the underside hatch prioritized but haven't managed that.

Nertea - I have a request:

On the Mk IV cockpit - is it possible to have a version of the cockpit that does not have the airscoops on the sides?

I love the TB-2 nature of the cockpit and all. No question. But it'd be nice to have the option for some designs to have the more "clean" smooth-sided look of the original Mk 4 Cockpit. If you want to save on part count, you could maybe code it the way that B9 does and have it be toggle-able in the SPH.

Just a thought.

Nah, I don't like it. B9 version requires Firespitter. There will be a different intakeless cockpit with more streamlining eventually.

2. Part Mk4 Extended Cargo Bay has somewhat problematic collider geometry

- Side bulges have some strange vertical "offset" when attaching wings. I use KJR and i have added B9's largest wings which in flight stay stable (seems they have good "rooting" in hull). However, when trying to use Procedural Wing B9 SH it has a sharp flat root that does not "stick" well to hull and it gets ripped off in flight (note that i'm using SSTO to lift heavy payloads to LKO)

- Side bulges could have flatter undersides to more easily attach parts

- The bottom side has no collider surfaces "flat" enough to place landing gears, i don't know if this is problem with Unity and thus solvable

This is all for just that extended cargo bay? You're not seeing this with the extended LFO/etc fuselages?

3. When tweakscaling Mk4 Docking Nosecone to match size of a Sr Docking Port, it has two problems

- First, it does not connect with Sr Docking Port, only normal Clamp-O-Tron ("size=1" in part cfg ?). Also, does FAR consider this nosecone as having reduced drag as it has a aerodynamic shield ?

- Secondly, enlarged version causes vessel to explode or severely distort on phyiscs load. Even normal size port when opening/closing causes "jumping" or "tremors". For testing i attached it to on top of stack of stock 4k battery and RC-L01 remote control pod

Meh, tweakscale is just for some people to have fun. I can't be responsible for all the physics bugs that making it smaller or larger might create.

[fatcargo]

@ultrasquid : Thanks for the info. Active Struts look so nice, i won't mind mind having them on some re-deployable payloads all the time. And their ability to attach directly, leaving a clean surface, is a godsend.

@Nertea : here is screenshot of it (NOTE: using KSP 0.25 X86, M4 Extended Cargo Bay scaled to 5m, using angle snap whenever possible)

You can see :

-Left side B9 HW21 Heavy Wing

Nicely set in fuselage, but a little off center of side bulge

-Right side PWing B9 SH

Too "sharp" attachment "root", i admit i set this wing to a very large size so it is quite possible i overkilled it. Note that wing roots stand far too high.

-Bottom left side procedural fuel tanks (they are also good example, same happened with stock tanks)

They don't fit inside corner curve, either too high with possible overlap if geometry of wing root radial attachment is corrected, or low enough to make tanks lower than bottom of fuselage (could be left as it is, not too terrible).

-Bottom and bottom right side landing gears

If i leave snapping on (yes i do use Editor Extensions, but angle snap is left at defaut 15 degrees), gears get slanted. Not problem if using tricycle landing gear arrangement, but i use 4x wheels and making sure front and rear pair is axially aligned is a bit tricky

-Inside right side and inside bottom side radial attachment and x3 girders

Well, the picture pretty much says it all. I'm not sure if there is anything to do here since most of the time flooring would most likely be used to bear loads, i can assume some payload stabilizing schemes may suffer from current radial attchment. Note that i had to rotate girders 180 degrees to face them inward.

I did not extensively test all parts with same cross-section (crew, fuel and service) but few parts i did test showed same minor issues.

As for Docking Nosecone - do you plan on making a size 2 compatible port ? I solved physics issue of tweakscaled part by adding an intermediate girder as spacer. Tweakscaling issues disclaimer noted.

And please don't consider tweakscale a "plaything", it saved my bacon on more than one occasion

[Sean Mirrsen]

Tweakscale is definitely a plaything. The sole point of this pack is to provide an integrated, stockalike solution to making spaceplanes larger than Mk2 size that can carry 2.5m parts.

Why even use MkIV parts when you can Tweakscale Mk2? Besides the tail ramp I suppose.

And likewise, a lot of those issues don't apply in 0.90. Translation and rotation gizmos allow to offset and precisely position every part exactly as required.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Sean Mirrsen

[Joachim]

Tweakscale is definitely a plaything. The sole point of this pack is to provide an integrated, stockalike solution to making spaceplanes larger than Mk2 size that can carry 2.5m parts.

Why even use MkIV parts when you can Tweakscale Mk2? Besides the tail ramp I suppose.

And likewise, a lot of those issues don't apply in 0.90. Translation and rotation gizmos allow to offset and precisely position every part exactly as required.

Personally I stip tweakscale off of as amny parts as possible, just leave it on the Infernal Robotics parts really, I find it just too annoying in the end...................

[fatcargo]

Tweakscale is definitely a plaything. The sole point of this pack is to provide an integrated, stockalike solution to making spaceplanes larger than Mk2 size that can carry 2.5m parts.

To risk sounding like a broken record - without 5m sized cargo bay, this pack would be useless to me. I'm not interested in hauling probes and wardrobe-closet-sized payloads to LKO and beyond.

Why even use MkIV parts when you can Tweakscale Mk2? Besides the tail ramp I suppose.

If you refer to Mk2 Cargo Bay CRG-08, i do not have TS menu option on it.

I could add it myself, but i would rather avoid making such additions since i try to make craft files that others can use without adding my personal customizations and potentially breaking stuff. As Kolago was kind enough to provide me with MFT cfg for MK4 parts, i did reluctantly added them since that is a personal customization and not "officially" added.

And likewise, a lot of those issues don't apply in 0.90. Translation and rotation gizmos allow to offset and precisely position every part exactly as required.

I'm staying with 0.25 until all plugins i need migrate to 0.90.

[DMSP]

I love using these parts. Great job!

[luxyuz]

I love these parts. Hope you get time to update the mod soon. Thanks for your hard work.

[Sean Mirrsen]

To risk sounding like a broken record - without 5m sized cargo bay, this pack would be useless to me. I'm not interested in hauling probes and wardrobe-closet-sized payloads to LKO and beyond.

You might want to consider looking into external cargo mounts.

If you refer to Mk2 Cargo Bay CRG-08, i do not have TS menu option on it.

I could add it myself, but i would rather avoid making such additions since i try to make craft files that others can use without adding my personal customizations and potentially breaking stuff. As Kolago was kind enough to provide me with MFT cfg for MK4 parts, i did reluctantly added them since that is a personal customization and not "officially" added.

Wait, then how do you know that it's not a problem endemic to TweakScale itself, rather than MkIV parts specifically? If TweakScale does not cause issues with stock parts that's another thing, but without checking that that's the case, why would you expect Nertea to have to fix issues that another mod is having/causing?

I'm staying with 0.25 until all plugins i need migrate to 0.90.

*imitating Jamie Hyneman* "Well, there's your problem!"

I nuked my mods folder and saves to see what 0.90 offers. It's not like I won't be redownloading all mods eventually anyway, and the career conditions have changed - this lets me start playing in the new career right away.

[Nertea]

@ultrasquid : Thanks for the info. Active Struts look so nice, i won't mind mind having them on some re-deployable payloads all the time. And their ability to attach directly, leaving a clean surface, is a godsend.

@Nertea : here is screenshot of it (NOTE: using KSP 0.25 X86, M4 Extended Cargo Bay scaled to 5m, using angle snap whenever possible)

Well there's your main problem. angle snap will not mount the wings, gear or anything in the cargo bays quite right - turning it off will allows you to mount things correctly on the colliders instead of KSP's strange angle calculation. Updating to 0.90 is even better, because the new editor stuff makes things much easier.

And please don't consider tweakscale a "plaything", it saved my bacon on more than one occasion

I take the same stance as I do with the other interop configs - I'll ship them and test them only slightly, and rely on the community to tell me what to fix. It's better than someone with a half-baked understanding of say, FAR, trying to set it up themselves.

That being said, I don't know how to solve any of those problems with TS, if you figure it out, let me know and I will implement the fix.

[fatcargo]

You might want to consider looking into external cargo mounts.

I'm using FAR, so i need shielded payloads. Prior to using FAR, i was happy with hollow-box shaped SSTO made of girders and fuel tanks capable of carrying ridicolously shaped payloads.

Wait, then how do you know that it's not a problem endemic to TweakScale itself, rather than MkIV parts specifically? If TweakScale does not cause issues with stock parts that's another thing, but without checking that that's the case, why would you expect Nertea to have to fix issues that another mod is having/causing?

There will always be something new for me to learn I and today i learned that mod authors, albeit excellent, are not gods Really i could not expect Nertea to solve everything. I guess TS's simplicity can be deceving.

*imitating Jamie Hyneman* "Well, there's your problem!"

Hahaha, with white shirt and a black cap combo

[fatcargo]

Well there's your main problem. angle snap will not mount the wings, gear or anything in the cargo bays quite right - turning it off will allows you to mount things correctly on the colliders instead of KSP's strange angle calculation. Updating to 0.90 is even better, because the new editor stuff makes things much easier.

Thank you for the info. Although i like using snap to nicely line up parts lengthwise.

That being said, I don't know how to solve any of those problems with TS, if you figure it out, let me know and I will implement the fix.

Noted.

[Kolago]

I have a problem with FAR and the MK4 cockpit with "ModuleResourceIntake" in the config, if I "Revert to Launch" my rocket disappears, only the cockpit is visible surrounded by airspeed graphics.

Also see here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-0-90-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-14-5-1-12-19-14?p=1623018&viewfull=1#post1623018

[hawkwing]

Hah, those yellowjacket engines are absurdly overpowered. The TWR is through the roof! Rockets are supposed to have better TWR but lower efficiency. Yet the yellowjacket has 2-3 times the TWR of the best rocket engines, and THOSE are 2-3 times the TWR of stock jet engines. If you want a .1 mass jet engine, it's thrust should only be 10-15. If you want a 90 thrust jet engine, it's weight should be .5-.8

Also, the attachment node is off center.

Finally, the cost should be about 1/8th of what it is, 1700 ISP is still really damn good, so that's not a downside, and the engine doesn't actually seem to overheat like the description says it should.

This is a really cool idea for an engine, but the default stats are really weird.

[Sannemen]

Hey Nertea, awesome job! From the moment I saw these pieces, I had some different ideas on things to do with them!

Question, are you planning on releasing the .blend and .unity files for this? I've been trying to make a bottom-loading cargo bay and a set of elevating pegs to go with it, but with only limited success so far.

Cheers!

[Zaddy23]

Just a quick Q, does anyone know if this is compatible with .90?

[Nertea]

Hey Nertea, awesome job! From the moment I saw these pieces, I had some different ideas on things to do with them!

Question, are you planning on releasing the .blend and .unity files for this? I've been trying to make a bottom-loading cargo bay and a set of elevating pegs to go with it, but with only limited success so far.

Cheers!

No intention. Particularly since I don't use blender .

Just a quick Q, does anyone know if this is compatible with .90?

Seems to work ok.

[JaffaFediration]

Could the massive three point and two point intakes contain some Liquid fuel? Because they make great fuselages for jets.

[relicen]

I seem to be having a problem with the cockpit intakes. At 40 000 meters I was getting about 1.00/1.60 intake air. That doesn't seem to be quite right.

I have a few mods installed, so it might be one of them causing it. Just wanted to post and see if anyone else had the same issue.

Edit: Btw, only the mark IV cockpit is affected. The stock intakes work without issue.

Edited December 31, 2014 by relicen

[JaffaFediration]

I seem to be having a problem with the cockpit intakes. At 40 000 meters I was getting about 1.00/1.60 intake air. That doesn't seem to be quite right.

I have a few mods installed, so it might be one of them causing it. Just wanted to post and see if anyone else had the same issue.

Edit: Btw, only the mark IV cockpit is affected. The stock intakes work without issue.

I have the same, but with the huge intakes, i get about 0.56 intake air in space!?

[Nertea]

I'll look into it. I know that if you have one of the older versions with the huge intakes you WILL get that.