[1.2.2] B9 Aerospace | Release 6.2.1 (Old Thread)

[Ohm Machre]

I gotta say, blowfish, you're doing such amazing work so often, I have your bitbucket branch page bookmarked and I open it at LEAST once daily. XD

[Flashblade]

I must say blowfish I really dig what you have done to the SABRE S engines. Once you reach 1.45 Mach in FAR they become beastly powerful. It was quite a delight when my 19 m x 11.5 m jet fighter broke apart under the stresses of going Mach 5 at an altitude of 13000 m. Getting up to orbiting speed with these has now a bit of a learning curve but I like it. It is better than before when you basically had to limp on the last leg to get into an orbit.

As a sidenote my heart literary skipped a beat when Harvester mentioned the possibilty in his latest article to go Unity 5 in the next update. We are so close to getting this done and at that point our work would most likely be completely undone, very scary!

Edited June 18, 2015 by Flashblade

[AccidentalDisassembly]

@AccidentalDisassembly checked both your reports. The MK2 adapter is fine there are no problems on this front. I think you are getting confused there. Most of B9 fuselage parts also allow for surface attachment. When you are a little unprecise while trying to node attack, the part will often flip to surface attach instead. Press the ALT key to force node attachment and that will not happen. I do confirm problems with the T2 (tail) engine mount though. It only attaches right when you use Non-strict attachment rules in the debug menu, else the fuselage node gets ignored and it will attach at the engine node. I guess it is a part that is rarely being used because it only really fits the M2 cargo bays and s2 parts and nothing else. Thanks for reporting, not fixed yet cause not sure what causes that.

Fixed, will be in the next version.

I'm definitely not confused, unless I'm REALLY, REALLY confused. Here's a picture. Note that the stack nodes are on the same end, and one is off-center. I mean... maybe there's some random config somewhere in my GameData that is patching the nodes for some reason, but I don't think so...

Edited June 18, 2015 by AccidentalDisassembly

[V8jester]

I'm definitely not confused, unless I'm REALLY, REALLY confused. Here's a picture. Note that the stack nodes are on the same end, and one is off-center. I mean... maybe there's some random config somewhere in my GameData that is patching the nodes for some reason, but I don't think so...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59567837/Mk2BB9AdapterNodes.png

I appologize I am away from my gaming box so I can't see for myself. But is this a fresh install of the latest dev version? Looks like a line in the cfg for the node definition for that part is all wonky. I assume someone will beat me to it, but I will check the cfg for that part when I get home.

[Flashblade]

I'm definitely not confused, unless I'm REALLY, REALLY confused. Here's a picture. Note that the stack nodes are on the same end, and one is off-center. I mean... maybe there's some random config somewhere in my GameData that is patching the nodes for some reason, but I don't think so...

That does look wrong no doubt, sorry I thought you were talking about a different part. I would fix this but to be honest I can't for the life of me identify this part in the parts folder.

Wait a minute, that is not a B9 part, all B9 MK2 fuselage parts have a black belly so to say, this clearly doesn't. Or did you actually take this from the zip file bac9 posted, the new mk2 fuselage parts? Oh yes those are from the new part pack bac9 posted for testing purposes. Sorry we are not fixing those quite yet. Please make this bug report again for bac9 and MARK it so that one can immediately see that this is about the new parts in testing. Else we are chasing ghosts again for no good reason.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Flashblade

[Ohm Machre]

As a sidenote my heart literary skipped a beat when Harvester mentioned the possibilty in his latest article to go Unity 5 in the next update. We are so close to getting this done and at that point our work would most likely be completely undone, very scary!

Oh man, that would suck SO much, haha!! But on the other hand, we might see an ENORMOUS performance boost with the new version... hopefully! (And maybe we can finally get a stable 64-bit version on Windows. ^^)

[theend3r]

Oh man, that would suck SO much, haha!! But on the other hand, we might see an ENORMOUS performance boost with the new version... hopefully! (And maybe we can finally get a stable 64-bit version on Windows. ^^)

Actually yes, it'll be x64

Also that work wouldn't be for nothing. I still haven't tried 1.0.x because I wait for B9

[blowfish]

I'm not terribly worried about Unity 5. I expect that it will be mostly under-the-hood changes that mostly won't affect anything at a parts/gameplay level. Of course some changes will likely be necessary but nothing like what happened with 1.0

[kcs123]

I'm not terribly worried about Unity 5. I expect that it will be mostly under-the-hood changes that mostly won't affect anything at a parts/gameplay level. Of course some changes will likely be necessary but nothing like what happened with 1.0

I hope that you are right about that. Not only for you who contribute to this mod, but for all other mods around as well. Less thing to change on update means sooner we will be able to play with it.

[salsathegeek]

From what HarvesteR said, the wheel modules (landing gear, landing legs, and rover wheels) are being totally redone. I think most of the parts would be fine, but anything touching the wheels module is going to break.

[Flashblade]

Another where we are at post.

B9 1.0.2 Compatibility Checklist

May not be complete

Already Done

1 Stack node adjustments by V8jester and M4ck

2 All textures converted to DDS

3 CrossFeedEnabler, Firespitter, JSI, KM_Gimbal, SmokeScreen updates

4 Recompile KineTechAnimation and Virgin Kalactic which have not been updated by their authors

5 Re-entry thermals should be good now

6 Cargo bays given new stock module and outer drag cubes applied

7 Wings should work in stock aero now

8 Intakes need rebalancing against new stock intakes

9 bulkheadProfiles done, HX icon requires FilterExtensions

10 Compressed air thrusters work without RESGEN

11 Reconfigure tech nodes for new tech tree

12 Jet engine configs largely done

13 ModuleSurfaceFX added to all engines

To do

1 Jet engine configs may still need tweaking

* Hard or impossible to break sound barrier in stock aero - wait for changes in 1.0.3 to see

* Engine heating might still need tweaking

2 Cargo bays still need inner drag cubes for stock aero

3 Cargo bays need inner stack nodes

4 Replace ModuleAnimateHeat with ModuleAnimateEmissive

5 Rocket engines need Isp rebalanced to stock

As you can see blowfish has done a good bit of work again, so grab the update if you feel like it.

[includao]

Will 1.0.3 release next week break any fundamentals of the port to 1.0.2?

[Kupier]

Hey I really enjoyed your B9 mod in the past and would be so happy to have it updated best yesterday.

I know it takes time and better you take a few days more and do the job well.

So is there a way to donate you a few dollars as a "Thank you" for your hard work?

[SuperWeegee4000]

His username is LinuxGuruGamer (LGG), so I'd say that's a sort of signature.

Oh. Ugh.

Well, cleared up at any rate.

[bac9]

Uh-oh, looks like some engines will need to be rebalanced in 1.0.3 again due to changes there.

@blowfish, I have given Mario write access to KSP_Plugins repo with the switcher plugin, thanks!

[ikarus]

I finally got to test the sabre S engines unfortunately even with 4 engines aboard they are terribly inefficient and it seems that at around 10000 m they start losing speed. I tried changing the .cfg to 450 maxthrust it still doesnt go over 300-400 m/s.

I think the previous sabre versions from 0.90 and earlier were perfectly balanced. A nice compact stylish engine design that can pack a punch while still having them on a small craft that can also carry cargo. Right now i can't find any use for it on small shuttles.

I'm not expecting for you to change the parameters in the next update but id like to know which lines i have to change to get back my good ol' eficient and cool engines.

Thanks !

[daniel l.]

Do you think maybe you could have a second version of the pack that comes without hx parts so peoples computers dont die.

[bac9]

Do you think maybe you could have a second version of the pack that comes without hx parts so peoples computers dont die.

Size has absolutely nothing to do with performance impact and all HX parts use just one texture, so their impact is equal to one janky shuttle part. If HX will be removed from the package, it won't happen for that particular reason.

[JaredTheDragon]

Size has absolutely nothing to do with performance impact and all HX parts use just one texture, so their impact is equal to one janky shuttle part. If HX will be removed from the package, it won't happen for that particular reason.

On top of that, using the "...KSP.exe" -force-d3d11" tag in the shortcut target literally chops RAM usage in half. Some folks may not have DirectX 11-capable graphics cards, but at this point everyone should. DX12 is not far off.

I personally love the HX parts and have used them as much as any other from any pack, if not the most outright. I'd like to see them expanded upon, if anything. I started a Zentraedi-style parts pack along similar lines and sizes, but failed to make it modular enough and it just ended up seeming like a rip-off of your work on the HX parts. That, and anime-styled parts didn't really fit with anything else in KSP, so I just got bored and stopped. They would have ended up being just like your parts, only with different meshes really. Unnecessary.

Please don't ditch HX! If anything, pass it off to those who enjoy them.

[blowfish]

I finally got to test the sabre S engines unfortunately even with 4 engines aboard they are terribly inefficient and it seems that at around 10000 m they start losing speed. I tried changing the .cfg to 450 maxthrust it still doesnt go over 300-400 m/s.

I think the previous sabre versions from 0.90 and earlier were perfectly balanced. A nice compact stylish engine design that can pack a punch while still having them on a small craft that can also carry cargo. Right now i can't find any use for it on small shuttles.

I'm not expecting for you to change the parameters in the next update but id like to know which lines i have to change to get back my good ol' eficient and cool engines.

Thanks !

1) The way jet engines work was completely redone in 1.0, so there's no going back to the way things are

2) The speed limit you're encountering is the sound barrier. If you can get through that, there's plenty of thrust to go faster

3) I'm guessing you're using stock aero. I did mention a while ago that the thrust curves were probably not balanced for stock aero but that we were going to wait for 1.0.3 changes before changing anything. Now that 1.0.3 is out and it's apparent that transonic drag is still quite high, they will be adjusted accordingly.

[Flashblade]

1) The way jet engines work was completely redone in 1.0, so there's no going back to the way things are

2) The speed limit you're encountering is the sound barrier. If you can get through that, there's plenty of thrust to go faster

3) I'm guessing you're using stock aero. I did mention a while ago that the thrust curves were probably not balanced for stock aero but that we were going to wait for 1.0.3 changes before changing anything. Now that 1.0.3 is out and it's apparent that transonic drag is still quite high, they will be adjusted accordingly.

@ikarus Try the Sabre engines in FAR you will see that they are beastly powerful. So powerful that 2 engines can already be hard to control. That is the problem with the new velCurve - atmCurve system. If you can't reach the threshold, which for a Sabre S is around Mach 1.45, it will never pick up speed and atmCurve will kill the output with increasing altitude even further.

@blowfish I'd suggest that we keep the existing curve for FAR and create a new one for stock.

[Wolf Baginski]

1)

3) I'm guessing you're using stock aero. I did mention a while ago that the thrust curves were probably not balanced for stock aero but that we were going to wait for 1.0.3 changes before changing anything. Now that 1.0.3 is out and it's apparent that transonic drag is still quite high, they will be adjusted accordingly.

I wouldn't call it a critical bugfix for most purposes, though it does affect loading old saves, but I would be inclined to skip 1.0.3 entirely and release a version for 1.0.4, even if all that involves is a version-check difference.

At the moment I am not using the aircraft side. There's a bunch of orbital stuff I am entirely too fond off, such as the M27 command pod. I manually deleted the rest of the Parts folders, and I suppose there's other stuff I don't need to load, but the RAM footprint elsewhere in the B9Aerospace folder doesn't look that significant.

A longer-term suggestion: something in a similar style to the M27, either 2.5m or 2.5m-to-3.75m, that could give extra living space and/or service module functions. Not a pure cylinder or cone, maybe a larger flat window panel, maybe two nodes for docking ports, rather than a full 4-port hub.

The M27 has a movie influence, and movie spaceships I see, even ones trying to feel real, tend to have more design coherence than an M27 with basic cylindrical parts added. It goes off in the same directions as the Apollo Lunar Module.

I have a few ideas I maybe ought to try. I can do 3D modelling, but the specifics of KSP are still obscure to me...

[blowfish]

@blowfish I'd suggest that we keep the existing curve for FAR and create a new one for stock.

That was the plan. I'll probably just add a buff right around mach 1 for stock aero.

[ikarus]

suddenly everything is so much more complicated but in a beautiful way

*googles how to break sound barrier*

EDIT:

I'm not sure if this is mod incompatibility or is it the new updates from Squad but i cant seem to get over 10000 meters with any of my previous planes with neither the B9 engine nor the stock engines. What's going on here :/ ?

It seems i can only go over 10k meters with proper speed only with the OPT Screamjet.

Edited June 25, 2015 by ikarus

[blowfish]

suddenly everything is so much more complicated but in a beautiful way

*googles how to break sound barrier*

EDIT:

I'm not sure if this is mod incompatibility or is it the new updates from Squad but i cant seem to get over 10000 meters with any of my previous planes with neither the B9 engine nor the stock engines. What's going on here :/ ?

It seems i can only go over 10k meters with proper speed only with the OPT Screamjet.

I don't think there's much you can do about transonic drag in stock aero - the drag curves are fixed. I will be increasing the the transonic thrust under stock aero closer to the level of the stock jets though.

As for height, you should be able to go much higher than that once you get up above mach 2-3. That being said, the B9 configs currently do reduce the amount of high-altitude thrust you get such that thrust falls off linearly with density (in stock thrust falls off a lot slower than density), so high altitude thrust will be less.