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

[Whalesharks Kerman]

On 5/3/2016 at 7:32 PM, KasperVld said:

Be mindful when posting update requests for mods: mod developers work in their free time for no pay, and being asked constantly if and when their mods will be updated can be very demotivating. So, when this question has been asked multiple times in the past week already, please don't ask it again

 

@Whalesharks Kerman you can find the answer to your question and even a way to get this mod working in 1.1 just a few posts above yours.

 

Sorry I don't know that.

Its one of my favorite mod.

[Red Iron Crown]

Thread tidied up.

@ChickenBot448 I see you're somewhat new here, so you may not be familiar with the culture here. It's considered rude to post a request for an update without reading at least the last few pages of the thread, on the previous page there are some directions for making this mod work in 1.1.2. Meanwhile, we'll just have to wait for an official update to the mod, and please recall that most modders have lives outside of KSP and work on their mods in their spare time.

@Everyone else: Please don't be rude with each other.

[ss8913]

suggestion for the update; have the mod "recommend" modular fuel tanks (in CKAN anyway) and avoid using a hardcoded IFS configuration which limits the parts to only stock fuel types.  If you let modular fuel tanks have its way, then people using Interstellar (for example) or Real Fuels, can put non-stock fuels in the parts without modifying the part configs like I had to do in 1.0.5   would make things tons more flexible for heavily-modded-install users like myself.  I think it ends up actually being less work and less maintenance for you as well.

[nosefirsteverytime]

just an update, while the "incompatible" message pops up at startup, the parts are working just fine, with no issues that I can see. 

 

Something interesting I'm building with MarkIV parts, while waiting for the Maritime pack to arrive, is this: The KSPS Stephen Kerburin. A cargo & research vessel. Beaching ramp, crane, large cargo hold, science equipment and heli-deck.

 

Edited May 29, 2016 by nosefirsteverytime

[123nick]

5 hours ago, nosefirsteverytime said:

just an update, while the "incompatible" message pops up at startup, the parts are working just fine, with no issues that I can see. 

 

Something interesting I'm building with MarkIV parts, while waiting for the Maritime pack to arrive, is this: The KSPS Stephen Kerburin. A cargo & research vessel. Beaching ramp, crane, large cargo hold, science equipment and heli-deck.

 

thats awesome! it looks great, also cool how you made a boat with big plane parts  

[Artfact]

They're fine? That's great new!:D Also, those indeed make for wonderful boats!

[King Something]

On 5/29/2016 at 8:37 AM, nosefirsteverytime said:

just an update, while the "incompatible" message pops up at startup, the parts are working just fine, with no issues that I can see. 

 

Something interesting I'm building with MarkIV parts, while waiting for the Maritime pack to arrive, is this: The KSPS Stephen Kerburin. A cargo & research vessel. Beaching ramp, crane, large cargo hold, science equipment and heli-deck.

 

Nice boat.

[theonegalen]

18 hours ago, nosefirsteverytime said:

just an update, while the "incompatible" message pops up at startup, the parts are working just fine, with no issues that I can see. 

 

Something interesting I'm building with MarkIV parts, while waiting for the Maritime pack to arrive, is this: The KSPS Stephen Kerburin. A cargo & research vessel. Beaching ramp, crane, large cargo hold, science equipment and heli-deck.

 

Stephen Kerberin? Do I detect a fellow Aubrey/Maturin fan? Great boat either way.

[Nertea]

So I've almost completed 1.1.2 work for this project. Mostly waiting on working out some fixes to the reverse thrust on the propellers and doing some modifications to DeployableEngines so I can drop BDAnimationModules. Conversion to B9PartSwitch is done for everything and it's all pretty nice. 

I'm just working on finishing up some parts that were to be included in the next update. Basically large ducted lift fans, in 3 sizes (only 2 pictured), 2.5m, 3.75m and 7.5m.

The model and texture work has come along smoothly, however I'm not sure how exactly to stat these. They goal is that they be dual-mode engines that can run off of LF/IntakeAir or Ec/IntakeAir. The LF mode would give you more TWR and better lifting capacity as you don't need to cart around a power source (solar, nuke or chemical), but of course need gas and an oxygen atmo. 

I was targeting ~8t weight for the large one, but that's the only number I have at the moment. I'm open to suggestions for numbers.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Nertea

[Gilbershaft]

Thank you so much for all your hard work @Nertea!!!

[PickledTripod]

These fans are awesome! And uh, while you're modeling, I have a small-ish request: a shorter 2.5m liquid fuel tank. Same size as the Rockomax X200-8, but with your amazing textures. Pretty please?

Edited June 4, 2016 by PickledTripod
typo

[Artfact]

7.5m lifting fan..ohmy:O

Absolutely awesome you're this close and am adding that much!
I'll have a look at what lifting force most Vtol fan parts have and what the largest one ( I believe the Firspitter Large Vtol Engine) puts out....although your largest are of course the new crown.wow.

I also noticed there was no cost applied to many parts in the last version. Have you added those?:)

[Rho-Mu 34]

9 hours ago, Nertea said:

So I've almost completed 1.1.2 work for this project. Mostly waiting on working out some fixes to the reverse thrust on the propellers and doing some modifications to DeployableEngines so I can drop BDAnimationModules. Conversion to B9PartSwitch is done for everything and it's all pretty nice.

I'm just working on finishing up some parts that were to be included in the next update. Basically large ducted lift fans, in 3 sizes (only 2 pictured), 2.5m, 3.75m and 7.5m.

The model and texture work has come along smoothly, however I'm not sure how exactly to stat these. They goal is that they be dual-mode engines that can run off of LF/IntakeAir or Ec/IntakeAir. The LF mode would give you more TWR and better lifting capacity as you don't need to cart around a power source (solar, nuke or chemical), but of course need gas and an oxygen atmo.

I was targeting ~8t weight for the large one, but that's the only number I have at the moment. I'm open to suggestions for numbers.

IMO those fans could benefit from B9PS-switchable mount w/ stack node, kinda like RoverDude's ducted electrofans from FTT and EXP packs. That would allow to put some space between craft and engine + simplify construction of dedicated VTOL crafts.

Couple o' questions

- Any luck with Vulture's inbuilt docking tube?

- Do you work on inline cargo lift or is it scrapped for good?

[Starbuckminsterfullerton]

On 6/3/2016 at 5:00 PM, Nertea said:

The model and texture work has come along smoothly, however I'm not sure how exactly to stat these. They goal is that they be dual-mode engines that can run off of LF/IntakeAir or Ec/IntakeAir. The LF mode would give you more TWR and better lifting capacity as you don't need to cart around a power source (solar, nuke or chemical), but of course need gas and an oxygen atmo. 

I was targeting ~8t weight for the large one, but that's the only number I have at the moment. I'm open to suggestions for numbers.

Really interested to see how you end up configuring these! I've been messing around with a config for an air assisted turborocket, so I've looked at every existing atmospheric but non-oxygen engine I could find. 

Would you set the electric mode to use CRP IntakeAtm instead of IntakeAir? This way they will function as designed in oxygenless atmospheres. They will of course need the corresponding intake module.

Also, I believe it is now possible to vary the thrust curve of an engine based on atmospheric pressure rather than the isp like KSP used to do, so you might be able to give the engines decreasing thrust as the air around them thins. I used the nuclear turbine in @Porkjet's Atomic Age mod as a reference for how a closed-cycle atmospheric thruster would behave.

The thing I haven't been able to figure out is how to require intake parts and IntakeAtm as a resource without having the engines flameout at high altitude, since they should still produce a little thrust even in vacuum.  Since your intakes are (presumably) built into the parts, you won't have this problem though. 

As for thrust values, I'd say give them a very large number and then just build a reasonable looking vessel. Turn down the thrust limiter until you have a just enough to fly and there's your value!

Edited June 5, 2016 by Starbuckminsterfullerton

[blowfish]

4 hours ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

Also, I believe it is now possible to vary the thrust curve of an engine based on atmospheric pressure rather than the isp like KSP used to do, so you might be able to give the engines decreasing thrust as the air around them thins. I used the nuclear turbine in @Porkjet's Atomic Age mod as a reference for how a closed-cycle atmospheric thruster would behave.

All the stock jets have decreasing thrust with atmospheric pressure.  It's not quite linear (there's a curve that buffs thrust in the upper atmosphere) but it's there.

4 hours ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

The thing I haven't been able to figure out is how to require intake parts and IntakeAtm as a resource without having the engines flameout at high altitude, since they should still produce a little thrust even in vacuum.  Since your intakes are (presumably) built into the parts, you won't have this problem though. 

They flame out because the flow is reduced below flameoutBar, not because they're air deprived.  Which is at least reasonably how real engines behave - you need a certain amount of pressure to support combustion.

[Hellbrand]

any chance we could get a fuselage that is just that? not a cargo bay just a cargo fuselage so we can have topmount wings and bottom mount landing gear?

\

[Deimos Rast]

On 6/3/2016 at 7:00 PM, Nertea said:

 

Those big 'uns look loverly.

[Nertea]

On 6/3/2016 at 11:09 PM, Artfact said:

7.5m lifting fan..ohmy:O

Absolutely awesome you're this close and am adding that much!
I'll have a look at what lifting force most Vtol fan parts have and what the largest one ( I believe the Firspitter Large Vtol Engine) puts out....although your largest are of course the new crown.wow.

I also noticed there was no cost applied to many parts in the last version. Have you added those?:)

I don't believe that there were ever any issues reported to me with no cost parts in the last version. Keep in mind that the last version was for 1.05, if you're using that version with, say, more recent versions of the bundled plugins in 1.1.2, no support at all until this release. There could be unresolved issues. There are no zero-cost parts in my current build. 

19 hours ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

Really interested to see how you end up configuring these! I've been messing around with a config for an air assisted turborocket, so I've looked at every existing atmospheric but non-oxygen engine I could find. 

Would you set the electric mode to use CRP IntakeAtm instead of IntakeAir? This way they will function as designed in oxygenless atmospheres. They will of course need the corresponding intake module.

Also, I believe it is now possible to vary the thrust curve of an engine based on atmospheric pressure rather than the isp like KSP used to do, so you might be able to give the engines decreasing thrust as the air around them thins. I used the nuclear turbine in @Porkjet's Atomic Age mod as a reference for how a closed-cycle atmospheric thruster would behave.

The thing I haven't been able to figure out is how to require intake parts and IntakeAtm as a resource without having the engines flameout at high altitude, since they should still produce a little thrust even in vacuum.  Since your intakes are (presumably) built into the parts, you won't have this problem though. 

As for thrust values, I'd say give them a very large number and then just build a reasonable looking vessel. Turn down the thrust limiter until you have a just enough to fly and there's your value!

Yeah we'll get intakeAtm for the electrical fans for sure. Want to make Eve flying bases and stuff :P. 

On 6/4/2016 at 2:46 AM, Rho-Mu 34 said:

IMO those fans could benefit from B9PS-switchable mount w/ stack node, kinda like RoverDude's ducted electrofans from FTT and EXP packs. That would allow to put some space between craft and engine + simplify construction of dedicated VTOL crafts.

Couple o' questions

- Any luck with Vulture's inbuilt docking tube?

- Do you work on inline cargo lift or is it scrapped for good?

1 . You mean some kind of weird inline thing? Probably not. 

2. No, there's no real workaround possible. 

3. It might happen, nobody was ever supposed to know about it, but I forgot to nuke it from the tech tree. Depends on time and motivation.

On 6/3/2016 at 7:24 PM, PickledTripod said:

These fans are awesome! And uh, while you're modeling, I have a small-ish request: a shorter 2.5m liquid fuel tank. Same size as the Rockomax X200-8, but with your amazing textures. Pretty please?

That texture sheet doesn't have any more space on it as far as I know. Limits the quality of anything I can easily produce. 

8 hours ago, Hellbrand said:

any chance we could get a fuselage that is just that? not a cargo bay just a cargo fuselage so we can have topmount wings and bottom mount landing gear?

\

It might happen, it might not. Depends on time and motivation.

[kerbiloid]

And such crafts do like those fans, too:

[Rik]

I guess I'm going to go learn one of the auto-pilot mods so I can try to build a heli-carrier to launch and recover space planes; the cable arrest system may be a little problematic.  Purely my own idea of course, no relation to any comic/movie heli-carriers.

[Rho-Mu 34]

On 6 червня 2016 р. at 9:01 PM, Nertea said:

1 . You mean some kind of weird inline thing? Probably not.

No, something like this. Some sort of outrigger between vessel and engine with attachment node on end (radial+snap)

On 6 червня 2016 р. at 9:01 PM, Nertea said:

3. It might happen, nobody was ever supposed to know about it, but I forgot to nuke it from the tech tree. Depends on time and motivation.

It shows up in part search as well, as does heavy RCS thingy.  Anyway, glad to hear you haven't abandoned it yet - would keep up those blood sacrifices in hopes of seeing lift, if not front ramp, ingame someday 

[ss8913]

any chance there could be an official update that removes the restrictive IFS configs and lets modular fuel tanks do its thing?  Anyone using non-stock fuels could benefit from this greatly, and it does not break functionality for those that are still using "liquidfuel" and "oxidizer".  Would require a dependency on MFT I think but .. that's not onerous, is it?

[Steel Dragon]

First relay love your work.

Question, when do you plan on releasing the update with those lovely fans? Just curious thanks for the hard work.

[Nertea]

1 hour ago, Rho-Mu 34 said:

No, something like this. Some sort of outrigger between vessel and engine with attachment node on end (radial+snap)

It shows up in part search as well, as does heavy RCS thingy.  Anyway, glad to hear you haven't abandoned it yet - would keep up those blood sacrifices in hopes of seeing lift, if not front ramp, ingame someday 

Eh, do not like that. Why not just put a wing or other strut there?

40 minutes ago, ss8913 said:

any chance there could be an official update that removes the restrictive IFS configs and lets modular fuel tanks do its thing?  Anyone using non-stock fuels could benefit from this greatly, and it does not break functionality for those that are still using "liquidfuel" and "oxidizer".  Would require a dependency on MFT I think but .. that's not onerous, is it?

I don't intend on doing this. There's nothing stopping you from writing a patch for it though.

40 minutes ago, Steel Dragon said:

First relay love your work.

Question, when do you plan on releasing the update with those lovely fans? Just curious thanks for the hard work.

When it's done.

[Rho-Mu 34]

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

Eh, do not like that. Why not just put a wing or other strut there?

Simple - generally, it is a good idea to space out engines for greater stability of VTOL craft, helps to avoid capsizing or loosing control @ low altitude. That goes double in case of heavy cargo lifters or narrow-bodied vessels.
The problem is that extra part between engine and main hull introduces at least 2 extra joints (engine-outrigger-hull), which only gets worse with every extra pair of rotors, longer outriggers or in case of low mass of this part. In case with heavy cargo or particularly powerful engines this whole contraption may start to flex (even with KJR), which impairs maneuverability AND may attract Kraken, esp. with new physics system.
Another thing is visuals. Two nice models glued together with some stock truss or strut is... kinda wrong. It sticks out like a sore thumb, at least in my opinion. That is also why i mentioned B9 Part Switcher, since you can potentially make outrigger optional, thus giving option to stick with original appearance.
And lastly, i'd argue that Near Future Construction-style truss outrigger would fit quite nicely, esp. if you would be really-really generous and add a bit of plumbing inside, like fuel line and(or) power cabling.