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

[Nertea]

With some engine models, the cargo occlusion algorithm causes problems and counts them as inside the cargo bay on the side mounts, resulting in them not starting when the bay is closed. I am still working on improving that. To see whether this is your problem, try running the engines with the bay open or put them elsewhere on the ship.

[gkorgood]

@Nertea why isn't this mod in your signature? It's one of your masterpieces (along with all the others of course )

[bonesbro]

There is something weird about the attachment nodes in the docking bays that's messing with the Offset attachment feature.

I've been trying to mount a 3.75m reactor in the cargo bays using the internal attachment nodes. They snap fine, but the nodes are placed a little low so that the bottom of the reactor clips through the bottom of the cargo bay. So I tried to use the Offset feature in the editor, and whenever I move the part it jumps all around. I've spent about 30 minutes now swearing at the damn thing and I just can't get it to work. I've tried flipping it, rotating it, detaching the part on the other side of the cargo bay, nothing helps.

[Captain Sierra]

There is something weird about the attachment nodes in the docking bays that's messing with the Offset attachment feature.

I've been trying to mount a 3.75m reactor in the cargo bays using the internal attachment nodes. They snap fine, but the nodes are placed a little low so that the bottom of the reactor clips through the bottom of the cargo bay. So I tried to use the Offset feature in the editor, and whenever I move the part it jumps all around. I've spent about 30 minutes now swearing at the damn thing and I just can't get it to work. I've tried flipping it, rotating it, detaching the part on the other side of the cargo bay, nothing helps.

This is a problem with the stock offset limits. I recommend using the NoOffsetLimits mod, which as an additional benefit, removes this problem.

[Bakase]

There is something weird about the attachment nodes in the docking bays that's messing with the Offset attachment feature.

I've been trying to mount a 3.75m reactor in the cargo bays using the internal attachment nodes. They snap fine, but the nodes are placed a little low so that the bottom of the reactor clips through the bottom of the cargo bay. So I tried to use the Offset feature in the editor, and whenever I move the part it jumps all around. I've spent about 30 minutes now swearing at the damn thing and I just can't get it to work. I've tried flipping it, rotating it, detaching the part on the other side of the cargo bay, nothing helps.

Have you turned angle snap off?

[Bomoo]

Super job as always, Nert.

[Isabelle.V.Fuchs]

Hi Nertea,

your suggestion works! Thank you very much.

Either that, or I might have been using a elder version of your mod.

Yesterday I updated to 2.0.0 and had no problems any longer.

So what can I say? It is a terrific mod. A very, very cool Spaceplane!!!

- Isabelle

With some engine models, the cargo occlusion algorithm causes problems and counts them as inside the cargo bay on the side mounts, resulting in them not starting when the bay is closed. I am still working on improving that. To see whether this is your problem, try running the engines with the bay open or put them elsewhere on the ship.

[funk]

With some engine models, the cargo occlusion algorithm causes problems and counts them as inside the cargo bay on the side mounts, resulting in them not starting when the bay is closed. I am still working on improving that. To see whether this is your problem, try running the engines with the bay open or put them elsewhere on the ship.

Nertea, can you pls provide some information about the engines which are affected? I'm diggin in this problem, too. Regarding this post, it says:

"* Next, we compute a centroid point for the part, based on its renderer bounds. That centroid is then a product of the part's visual mesh, not dependent on attachment position, center of mass or even colliders. It's the visual center of the part. This is now our reference to test the part in a visually accurate way."

So the question is, how can a model effect the reference point and why/how is the reference point moving while the vessel is in another orientation?

Perhaps you can show us the affected model in sketchfab or in a picture? I suppose it's somekind of origin to mesh related...

ATM my investigtion has gone as far as I described here.

Edited August 7, 2015 by funk

[NomenNescio]

Quick question: What is the "Ramp Extension" tweakable? It doesn't seem to do anything.

[Wolf Baginski]

I sometimes get similar symptoms, and it's not always when it's in the angle snap mode.

One thought: maybe if you remove the cargo bay section? It'll mean there's a bit of guesswork on the exact displacement used, but attach the gargo to the front bulkhead before you add the cargo bay. It does seem to help with some of the attachment awkwardness there can be.

- - - Updated - - -

Small suggestion: inline science lab?

This is one of the things that could be done with either the default attachment node, or using the extra nodes I, and others, have described. You might be able to knock out something using the crew-cabin model for the Mk2, with added calls to give science lab functions. I'd be inclined to add one or two of the early experiments. such as the thermometer and barometer, into the part.cfg By the time you're getting the Mk4 tech there're almost superfluous, with low science returns.

I'm weird. It's a fairly simple editing job, but I know that not everyone feels comfortable.

[11of10]

Quick question: What is the "Ramp Extension" tweakable? It doesn't seem to do anything.

In case you haven't figured it out yet (and I'm sure you have) it sets how much the ramp lowers when opened, so you can tweak it and not have to bother yourself with landing gear. Very useful!

[problemecium]

I just noticed that the crew compartment has a neat little space under the, uh, actual crew compartment, which I presume isn't blocked by colliders so I could use it to stow little rovers or extra crew modules. Neat!

I really want to download this, but I'm gonna wait until Kidonia gets going so I'm not tempted to add anything to the ongoing mission.

[MaverickSawyer]

I just noticed that the crew compartment has a neat little space under the, uh, actual crew compartment, which I presume isn't blocked by colliders so I could use it to stow little rovers or extra crew modules. Neat!

It is NOT blocked by colliders. Have fun with the open space!

[Nertea]

Nertea, can you pls provide some information about the engines which are affected? I'm diggin in this problem, too. Regarding this post, it says:

"* Next, we compute a centroid point for the part, based on its renderer bounds. That centroid is then a product of the part's visual mesh, not dependent on attachment position, center of mass or even colliders. It's the visual center of the part. This is now our reference to test the part in a visually accurate way."

So the question is, how can a model effect the reference point and why/how is the reference point moving while the vessel is in another orientation?

Perhaps you can show us the affected model in sketchfab or in a picture? I suppose it's somekind of origin to mesh related...

ATM my investigtion has gone as far as I described here.

I don't have a clear answer for you because it's quite inconsistent. If you do find anything out, I'd love to hear it.

[PTNLemay]

Do people find it difficult getting into orbit with this thing? I imagine the broader cross-section must create a lot of drag. Also, how much more powerful are the scimitars compared to the rapiers? Do their super-thrust compensate for the extra drag and make it reasonably easy to achieve orbit? Getting a Thunderbird 2 into orbit in a single stage would be really cool, but I'm wondering how do-able it is. I'm also guessing that the ventral VTOL jets must have been cranked up to near OP levels, if you want little engines like that to be able to lift something so heavy, they're going to have to be tremendously powerful for their size.

EDIT: I finally gave it a shot, makes for some very nice planes. I found that 8 of the belly thrusters can lift a decent sized aircraft. 8 x 74 kNewtons / 10 m/s^2 = around 59 tons. So long as my ship is lighter than that, the jets can make it hover. I wasn't able to get into orbit though, those scimitars guzzle fuel at an alarming rate! lol, I kept running out of fuel before I could reach the switch over to liquid oxidizer.

Edited August 13, 2015 by PTNLemay

[MaverickSawyer]

Do people find it difficult getting into orbit with this thing? I imagine the broader cross-section must create a lot of drag. Also, how much more powerful are the scimitars compared to the rapiers? Do their super-thrust compensate for the extra drag and make it reasonably easy to achieve orbit? Getting a Thunderbird 2 into orbit in a single stage would be really cool, but I'm wondering how do-able it is. I'm also guessing that the ventral VTOL jets must have been cranked up to near OP levels, if you want little engines like that to be able to lift something so heavy, they're going to have to be tremendously powerful for their size.

EDIT: I finally gave it a shot, makes for some very nice planes. I found that 8 of the belly thrusters can lift a decent sized aircraft. 8 x 74 kNewtons / 10 m/s^2 = around 59 tons. So long as my ship is lighter than that, the jets can make it hover. I wasn't able to get into orbit though, those scimitars guzzle fuel at an alarming rate! lol, I kept running out of fuel before I could reach the switch over to liquid oxidizer.

I have not had any issue making it to orbit, especially since I use the B9 Procedural Wings set up as LFO tanks.

[blowfish]

EDIT: I finally gave it a shot, makes for some very nice planes. I found that 8 of the belly thrusters can lift a decent sized aircraft. 8 x 74 kNewtons / 10 m/s^2 = around 59 tons. So long as my ship is lighter than that, the jets can make it hover. I wasn't able to get into orbit though, those scimitars guzzle fuel at an alarming rate! lol, I kept running out of fuel before I could reach the switch over to liquid oxidizer.

The SCIMITAR has the same air-breathing Isp as the stock RAPIER, and the BROADSWORD has slightly better.

[Logan.Darklighter]

I loaded up my Thunderbird 2 craft file (pics from earlier in the thread) and was going to make some tweaks before posting it in the Craft Sharing thread and Kerbal X.

Loaded it on the runway, and... BOOOM!!! It broke apart! And F3 wouldn't even tell me what part had been destroyed!

"BWAH???"

After some messing around, several loads later and watching carefully when the thing disassembled, I finally saw which part was exploding. It was the Probe core. Huh... So I tried changing the order in which the parts were attached. Initially I had it thus - Cockpit, Probe Core, Service Bay, cargo bay etc. So I switched the probe core and the service bay. It took longer for the probe core to explode, but after about half a minute, explode it did. Bugger.

So, I opened up the heat indicators in Kerbal Engineer to watch for heat build-up, since that's the usual reason for spontaneous exploding parts, and sure enough, some phantom heating is shooting through the ship, but centered on the Probe Core! Which as I watched, shot up from the normal temp range to Critical temp range in about 30-45 seconds, then went boom.

Again - I want to stress - this is ON THE GROUND. On the RUNWAY. No engines running, no air friction. NOTHING. And it's heating up and exploding for no reason I can figure.

So - anyone know what's up? Can I modify the .CFG of the probe core (and/or other parts) for a temp fix for this issue until Nertea figures out and fixes the mod?

Because frankly, this kind of makes the Mark IV VERY hard to work with now, to say the least!

[Whovian]

I ran into the same issue with an SSTO's reaction wheels blowing a little while ago, but as far as I can remember the Mark IV system wasn't involved at all; I only used B9/PWings and KSPI. So I don't think it's Mark IV's fault.

[Captain Sierra]

I loaded up my Thunderbird 2 craft file (pics from earlier in the thread) and was going to make some tweaks before posting it in the Craft Sharing thread and Kerbal X.

Loaded it on the runway, and... BOOOM!!! It broke apart! And F3 wouldn't even tell me what part had been destroyed!

"BWAH???"

After some messing around, several loads later and watching carefully when the thing disassembled, I finally saw which part was exploding. It was the Probe core. Huh... So I tried changing the order in which the parts were attached. Initially I had it thus - Cockpit, Probe Core, Service Bay, cargo bay etc. So I switched the probe core and the service bay. It took longer for the probe core to explode, but after about half a minute, explode it did. Bugger.

So, I opened up the heat indicators in Kerbal Engineer to watch for heat build-up, since that's the usual reason for spontaneous exploding parts, and sure enough, some phantom heating is shooting through the ship, but centered on the Probe Core! Which as I watched, shot up from the normal temp range to Critical temp range in about 30-45 seconds, then went boom.

Again - I want to stress - this is ON THE GROUND. On the RUNWAY. No engines running, no air friction. NOTHING. And it's heating up and exploding for no reason I can figure.

So - anyone know what's up? Can I modify the .CFG of the probe core (and/or other parts) for a temp fix for this issue until Nertea figures out and fixes the mod?

Because frankly, this kind of makes the Mark IV VERY hard to work with now, to say the least!

Random runaway heading is an issue with the stock game that seems to be related to part occlusion. Stock bug manifesting itself on mod parts, there's nothing Nertea can do.

[Logan.Darklighter]

Random runaway heading is an issue with the stock game that seems to be related to part occlusion. Stock bug manifesting itself on mod parts, there's nothing Nertea can do.

Wow. Well that sucks.

As it turns out, I did a bit of a rebuild on that section - just pulled the old parts and replaced them with the same parts, just fresh from the part selection. And the bug cleared itself.

Very very strange.

[AntiMatter001]

has anyone tested the cargobay? i just built a craft, had my 2nd brigade tank group loaded in for airdrop and after i took off it flipped nose up and wouldn't point down... (thus dismantling my tank brigade) and when i opened the cargobay it went back to normal... (also RPM doesn't seem to work with this mod.)

i will reinstall and test again so i know it's not my install

[Captain Sierra]

has anyone tested the cargobay? i just built a craft, had my 2nd brigade tank group loaded in for airdrop and after i took off it flipped nose up and wouldn't point down... (thus dismantling my tank brigade) and when i opened the cargobay it went back to normal... (also RPM doesn't seem to work with this mod.)

i will reinstall and test again so i know it's not my install

THere's definitely something off with your install. Can confirm working RPM and nominal cargo bays myself.

[AntiMatter001]

THere's definitely something off with your install. Can confirm working RPM and nominal cargo bays myself.

yes and no. i found the problem. the cargoramp when deployed moves CoL backwards (making my plane flip)

is this normal or is my install borked again? because for the B9 cargo ramp it doesn't move the CoL backwards...

and RPM does work now i had a previous version.

[Captain Sierra]

yes and no. i found the problem. the cargoramp when deployed moves CoL backwards (making my plane flip)

is this normal or is my install borked again? because for the B9 cargo ramp it doesn't move the CoL backwards...

and RPM does work now i had a previous version.

The cargo ramp does have occlusion. Do you have any wing parts or anything else lift providing inside the cargo ramp that could suddenly start applying lift when you deploy it?