Jump to content

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

Nertea

By Nertea
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

dlrk

dlrk

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 3/29/2020 at 8:00 PM, Nertea said:

I"ve been over this a number of times and I'm having issues locating anything that could cause this (can't reproduce it of course). Could you dump your MM cache and log? There has to be something in another mod adding those subtypes when trying to be compatible...


This turned out to be a 100% PEBKAC issue. I had accidentally installed MarkIVSpaceSystem in two locations

Edited by dlrk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dlrk

dlrk

Posted
Posted (edited)

Unrelated question though, is there Deadly Reentry support? I searched the thread, and I found a reference to it being added, but I don't see a patch for it. If not, I'll try adding it myself

Edited by dlrk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dlrk

dlrk

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here's a DRE patch. Same values as DRE uses for advanced stock spaceplane components to provide "shuttle-like performance". Seems reasonable for near-future components, since a near-future innovation would be the reusability (versus the fragility of shuttle tiles).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/88tuo97vrpwoa2x/MKIVDRE.cfg?dl=0

PR'ing as well @Nertea Let me know if I did that wrong, I'm a bit clumsy with github.

Also, here is a USI-LS CFG adding capacity for 300 supplies and an additional kerbal-month of habitation to the Thunderhawk. This seemed appropriate given it's increased size and over the 4-kerbal capacity Mk3 cockpit.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2aiijyg81nd7b89/MkIV-1CockpitUSILS.cfg?dl=0

Edited by dlrk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmymcgoochie

jimmymcgoochie

Posted
Posted
On 4/26/2020 at 6:55 AM, Bom-bombardier said:

Will you be making new engines for this mod? I know you lost them but it would really improve this mod.

As the FAQs on page 1 clearly state, the engines etc. are in Near Future Aeronautics. They aren't lost, they just got moved to a standalone mod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Northstar1989

Northstar1989

Posted
Posted
On 5/3/2020 at 8:54 AM, jimmymcgoochie said:

As the FAQs on page 1 clearly state, the engines etc. are in Near Future Aeronautics. They aren't lost, they just got moved to a standalone mod.

Except... Didn't Nertea lose the original source code for NearFuture Aeronautics or something?  Said something about it on the NearFuture mods pack page recently...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Iodyne

Iodyne

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just wanted to post this in case anyone finds it useful. MkIV was not working with RealFuels because of the tankSwitching and an outdated? config for RealFuels. So I changed the RealFuels config (in the RealFuels gamedata folder) to something like this (repeated for each part): 

@PART[mk4fuselage-1]:FOR[RealFuels]:AFTER[MarkIVSystem]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		volume = 80000
		type = Fuselage
	}
	!RESOURCE[*] {}
  	!MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch] {}
}

and then for each of the part files in MkIV I just changed the 

tankType =

to 

tankType:NEEDS[!RealFuels] =

I also removed the addedMass and addedCosts as RealFuels should be able to handle that. You could probably use a NEEDS[!RealFuels] for that as well but I didn't bother.

Additionally I also made the changes described here just while I was at it:

On 11/30/2018 at 12:07 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

@Nertea

Found the following typo in the mk4cargotail-1.cfg: 


MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleAnimateGeneric
		animationName = RampOpen
		sstartEventGUIName = #autoLOC_502051 //#autoLOC_502051 = Close
		endEventGUIName = #autoLOC_502069 //#autoLOC_502069 = Open
		actionGUIName = #autoLOC_502078 //#autoLOC_502078 = Toggle Ramp
		allowDeployLimit = true
		revClampDirection = false
		revClampSpeed = true
		revClampPercent = true
	}

The startEventGUIName has two s's

 

Also, I found something very odd when trying to fix All Y'All for the cargo bays in the mark IV system.

 

The Mk4 Service Bay when created in the editor is closed, and the setting closedPosition = 0

The Mk4 Tail Cargo Bay when created in the editor is open, and the setting closedPosition = 0

 

All the other Mk4 cargo bays when created in the editor are open, and the settings closedPosition =1

The following data was obtained using debug statements after adding all the modules to a vessel, launching it: 


part: CRG-120 Mk4 Cargo Bay, animTime: 0, closedPosition: 1
part: CRG-240 Mk4 Cargo Bay, animTime: 0, closedPosition: 1
part: CRG-240 Mk4 Cargo Bay, animTime: 0, closedPosition: 1
part: CRG-60 Mk4 Cargo Bay, animTime: 0, closedPosition: 1
part: DRP-120 Mk4 Ventral Cargo Bay, animTime: 0, closedPosition: 1
part: DRP-240 Mk4 Ventral Cargo Bay, animTime: 0, closedPosition: 1
part: DRP-240 Mk4 Ventral Cargo Bay, animTime: 0, closedPosition: 1
part: DRP-60 Mk4 Ventral Cargo Bay, animTime: 0, closedPosition: 1
part: Mk4 Service Bay, animTime: 0, closedPosition: 0
part: Mk4 Tail Cargo Bay, animTime: 0, closedPosition: 0

It seems very odd about the Mk4 Tail Cargo Bay, wondering if that's a bug

 

When I changed the closedPosition in the Mk4 Tail Cargo Bay to 1, things started working as I expected.

 

Edited by Iodyne
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hippotes

Hippotes

Posted
Posted

Hi :) I'm just here to say that i'm a big fan of your work on all your mods (especially the NFT suite). I discovered this one recently, got back to making spaceplane, and I think I have one worth sharing.

Let me introduce you a big bird, the "not yet named" Mk4 Carrier:

qtsO6V7.png

188 tons empty (107 dry), powered by 2 'Project Eeloo' engines, assisted by 2 BROADSWORDs to break the sound barrier and leave the atmosphere faster (a LOT faster).
Docking or orbital manoeuvers are performed with the RJ-88-A bi-propellant RCS, using the oxidizer from the 2.5m adapters

It can carry more than 100 tons of payloads to LKO and still have several hundreds of dV left to ensure a clean deorbit back to the KSC.
Speaking of volume, it can fit a 3.75*10m payload, or very very tightly 2 * 2.5*10m payloads, very useful to launch a whole space station in a single trip !

Anyway, thanks for your superbs mods, looking forwards to the the revival of FFT :D

burnflies away

i5sXgxh.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Updated for 1.10 plus a few fixes.

  • KSP 1.10.x
  • Updated ModuleManager to 4.1.4
  • Updated NF Props to 0.6.3
  • Updated B9PartSwitch to 2.17.0
  • Chinese localization (tinygrox)
  • DRE compatibility (dlrk4)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
dlrk

dlrk

Posted
Posted (edited)

@Nertea

The Cryotanks CFG for this mod seems to be outdated or something. It has a section for "mk4fueltank*", but there seem to be no parts by that name. The mk4fuselage cryotanks have no config for filling them only with LH2/Ox (while the "fuel tanks" do), but do have a config for LH2/MP (I have no idea when this would be useful. I think the mk4fueltank section should be removed, and the LH2/MP tank replaced with LH2/Oxy and additonally have the LH2 tank alone..

Edited by dlrk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, dlrk said:

@Nertea

The Cryotanks CFG for this mod seems to be outdated or something. It has a section for "mk4fueltank*", but there seem to be no parts by that name. The mk4fuselage cryotanks have no config for filling them only with LH2/Ox (while the "fuel tanks" do), but do have a config for LH2/MP (I have no idea when this would be useful. I think the mk4fueltank section should be removed, and the LH2/MP tank replaced with LH2/Oxy and additonally have the LH2 tank alone..

Are you referring to this line? This was probably for the 2.5m inline aviation fuel tanks that are now in NFA. It could be removed. 

This line seems to indicate that the fuselages should have LH2/MP and LH2/O/MP configs just fine, though I suppose this hasn't been tested in god knows how long. The concept has always been that the small lobe tanks can only hold MP in this case. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dlrk

dlrk

Posted
Posted

I was referring to that first line. But the issue with the latter configs for the fuselages is that you can't get a config with just LH2/O. So, that should be added. This was a design choice so that the lobes are only for monoprop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted
16 hours ago, dlrk said:

I was referring to that first line. But the issue with the latter configs for the fuselages is that you can't get a config with just LH2/O. So, that should be added. This was a design choice so that the lobes are only for monoprop?

So with CryoTanks installed, you should have the following options:

  • LF
  • LF/MP
  • LF/O
  • LF/O/MP
  • LH2/MP
  • LH2/O/MP

Is something not working in that list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dlrk

dlrk

Posted
Posted

I have all those, but I had assumed, I guess incorrectly, that LH2/O was intended. I do think it should be an option though, since I'm not sure when a spaceplane needs to have monoprop proportionate with LH2/O

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nertea

Nertea

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Like I mentioned, the assumption made some years ago was that only the main tank could hold cryo fuels, not the side lobes, so they would stay monopropellant. This simplified the number of tank types to maintain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sturmhauke

sturmhauke

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, smotheredrun said:

Your shuttle doesn't have enough engines ;)

Yes, well other models had more engines, lol. Bustard-Firetail (above) has 10 launch engines, 1 4-nozzle orbital engine, and 4 jets, for a total of 15.

Bustard's previous launch vehicle, Phoenix (an Energia-type), had 24 engines by itself.

ZzxmQMP.png

Munmoth had 8 launch engines, 16 nuclear engines, and 2 jets, for a total of 26.

q0mjWFY.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jognt

Jognt

Posted
Posted
On 7/17/2020 at 10:57 AM, Iodyne said:

Just wanted to post this in case anyone finds it useful. MkIV was not working with RealFuels because of the tankSwitching and an outdated? config for RealFuels. So I changed the RealFuels config (in the RealFuels gamedata folder) to something like this (repeated for each part): 


@PART[mk4fuselage-1]:FOR[RealFuels]:AFTER[MarkIVSystem]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleFuelTanks
		volume = 80000
		type = Fuselage
	}
	!RESOURCE[*] {}
  	!MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch] {}
}

and then for each of the part files in MkIV I just changed the 


tankType =

to 


tankType:NEEDS[!RealFuels] =

I also removed the addedMass and addedCosts as RealFuels should be able to handle that. You could probably use a NEEDS[!RealFuels] for that as well but I didn't bother.

Additionally I also made the changes described here just while I was at it:

 

You’re better off creating a patch for that config or creating a pullrequest to make changes to the file in the actual mod distribution. 

Just in case: If you do make a separate patch, use NEEDS instead of FOR. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smotheredrun

smotheredrun

Posted
Posted
On 8/30/2020 at 8:45 PM, sturmhauke said:

Yes, well other models had more engines, lol. Bustard-Firetail (above) has 10 launch engines, 1 4-nozzle orbital engine, and 4 jets, for a total of 15.

Bustard's previous launch vehicle, Phoenix (an Energia-type), had 24 engines by itself.

ZzxmQMP.png

Munmoth had 8 launch engines, 16 nuclear engines, and 2 jets, for a total of 26.

q0mjWFY.png

Nice!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RandomKerbal

RandomKerbal

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 7/18/2020 at 3:59 AM, Hippotes said:

Hi :) I'm just here to say that i'm a big fan of your work on all your mods (especially the NFT suite). I discovered this one recently, got back to making spaceplane, and I think I have one worth sharing.

Let me introduce you a big bird, the "not yet named" Mk4 Carrier:

qtsO6V7.png

188 tons empty (107 dry), powered by 2 'Project Eeloo' engines, assisted by 2 BROADSWORDs to break the sound barrier and leave the atmosphere faster (a LOT faster).
Docking or orbital manoeuvers are performed with the RJ-88-A bi-propellant RCS, using the oxidizer from the 2.5m adapters

It can carry more than 100 tons of payloads to LKO and still have several hundreds of dV left to ensure a clean deorbit back to the KSC.
Speaking of volume, it can fit a 3.75*10m payload, or very very tightly 2 * 2.5*10m payloads, very useful to launch a whole space station in a single trip !

Anyway, thanks for your superbs mods, looking forwards to the the revival of FFT :D

burnflies away

i5sXgxh.jpg

Let's just call it Sphoenix (Space + Phoenix)

By the way, can you provide a download link? Looks nice! :D

Edited by RandomKerbal
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
sturmhauke

sturmhauke

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, Lunar Sea said:

Do y'all have any tips for reentry stability? I've got the CoL fairly close (and behind) the CoM, but it keeps pushing up the nose and the whole craft goes into a vertical tumble. 

 A screenshot would help. Remember that CoM can shift over time with fuel usage and payload deployments, so it's possible that your CoL is in front during reentry. If the CoL is in the right place, and you haven't done something weird like given your wings negative angle of attack or something to create a net downforce, you shouldn't be pitching up like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lunar Sea

Lunar Sea

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, sturmhauke said:

 A screenshot would help. Remember that CoM can shift over time with fuel usage and payload deployments, so it's possible that your CoL is in front during reentry. If the CoL is in the right place, and you haven't done something weird like given your wings negative angle of attack or something to create a net downforce, you shouldn't be pitching up like that.

I checked it with the reduced fuel load, and keep it at 10° during descent. Looks like pretty standard aeros so I'm not sure what's up...

uNwKoZd.pngcKeRwyI.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sturmhauke

sturmhauke

Posted
Posted

Yeah that's weird, I dunno. Maybe your canards are angled upwards and/or have the deflection set wrong. For reference, here is a shuttle I made a while back that is slightly longer and heavier than yours. Rather than canards, I used larger elevons at the rear (using Tweakscale in this case). The CoM and Col are in approximately the same place as yours, relative to the center of the cargo bay. I don't have a screenshot of that though.

l6SyduJ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...