[1.3] Procedural Wings

[kcs123]

FAR is not required, but IIRC, without FAR, there is symmetry issue with flaps/spoilers going in oposite direction on mirrored part. Not sure if it is still issue with KSP 1.4.2, though.

[Apaseall]

Hello all,

I have a question. The base of the procedural wing can have the thickness changed. Does this change the sheer stress experienced by the wing trying to provide lift to a heavy plane i.e. does the surface area in contact with the plane help?

Additionally is that 'sticky' part of the wing limited to the part the wing is initially attached to, or do other parts that the wing is in contact with play a part too?

I see in the notes something a .cfg file being generated. Is it possible to examine this file? If so where is it located? Or is this merely a reference to the planename.cfg file which is found in the saves directory?

I am experiencing wings being ripped from the body of the craft when attempting lift off .i.e. craft is on the runway, speed roughly 0.8? mach, comes to end of runway, nose pulled up slightly to perform a gently climb.

I am using the B9 SH wing. Is there another wing that I might use that has better 'stick to the plane' properties?

This is my first time trying to use procedural wings, I thought it might be a good idea considering I am trying out the B9 HX parts for the first time.

Thanks.

[kcs123]

10 hours ago, Apaseall said:

I am experiencing wings being ripped from the body of the craft when attempting lift off .i.e. craft is on the runway, speed roughly 0.8? mach, comes to end of runway, nose pulled up slightly to perform a gently climb.

No wonder. 0.8 Mach at sea level and even slight push can cause high G load on wings. Try to redesign your craft, to be able to take off with 0.25 to 0.45 mach. Roughly between 60 and 120 m/s. You can use different aproach in this, having large wing surface area that provide decent lift at low speeds and minimum amount of engines used (low TWR,  0.2 up to 0.35 at sea level) or if you prefer smaller wings you can use more engines that would provide higher TWR. Higher TWR, not necessary larger than 1 with combination of high AoA early after take off can help you to achieve this.

For high AoA early on take off it is essential that you have good tail clearance and your rear landing gears need to be close as possible to the CoM.

You can always use more struts on wings, to make them stronger. Or use KJR or stock game autostruts on wings to make them stronger. But even with it, your main issue is too high speed at sea level and expectation that parts need to be able to sustain it.

[Apaseall]

1 hour ago, kcs123 said:

No wonder. 0.8 Mach at sea level and even slight push can cause high G load on wings. Try to redesign your craft, to be able to take off with 0.25 to 0.45 mach. Roughly between 60 and 120 m/s. You can use different aproach in this, having large wing surface area that provide decent lift at low speeds and minimum amount of engines used (low TWR,  0.2 up to 0.35 at sea level) or if you prefer smaller wings you can use more engines that would provide higher TWR. Higher TWR, not necessary larger than 1 with combination of high AoA early after take off can help you to achieve this.

For high AoA early on take off it is essential that you have good tail clearance and your rear landing gears need to be close as possible to the CoM.

You can always use more struts on wings, to make them stronger. Or use KJR or stock game autostruts on wings to make them stronger. But even with it, your main issue is too high speed at sea level and expectation that parts need to be able to sustain it.

Sorry got to say that my mileage varies from what you are describing.

I have built quite a few space planes. I am new to using this mod though. Mine take off about 200 m/s. I tend to use little wing area, so need the speed for the lift. I also go very fast horizontally. But this is beside the point.

Building a space plane [SSTO] like how I have without this mod, causes the wings to rip off. This is because of the massive weight of B9 HX parts.

I use KJR, tried rigid attachment, autostruts, extra struts, reinforced struts etc. Not all at the same time, one after the other etc. Then all etc. Normally I don't need to mess with that sort of stuff. Now fiddling with CoL CoT CoM, boy have I done lots of that. lol.

I just wanted an answer to my question, not help with designing the plane. Thanks for the offered suggestions. I know you meant to help. I only wanted to know, well the stuff I asked about. For the moment I have ditched wings altogether. Not a plane anymore but vtol.

This is not meant to be rude to you, despite how it may be worded. But what you mention does not answer the question I asked.

[kcs123]

Well, I build spaceplanes since KSP 0.25 using B9 parts, using legacy version of procedural wings and new B9 procedural wings. What you ask for to get superstrong wings might not be possible, at least not without cheating by removing aerodinamic failures and similar. And it is good not always have superb parts to create what you imagined how it should behave. It suppose to make you thinking out of the box to get different solution.

Unlike you, I have created SSTOs with both design aproach, with small wings and high TWR crafts and oposite, with large wings and small TWR. What I was suggested is to try different aproach to solve your problem, would you follow advice or not it is up to you. As far as I know thikness of wing does not influence strength of joints between wing and other parts. It does help with fuel storage inside wings, though.

So, you can't make wing joints much stronger than currently is without altering config files or changing game engine physics.

[fatcargo]

@jrodriguez 

Being the one to update B9 for 1.4.2 (big thanks !),  i'm asking if this plugin supports anything with more complex geometry than planar surfaces like boxes, tubes or hollow spaces enclosed with multiple colliders ? The UI B9 Pwings offers is something i've never seen in any other plugin, so at least i'm willing to learn more about it before spending time making models.

[Midnight Jade]

I can confirm that the control surfaces settings panel is too sensitive. Specifically the offset root and offset tip. Each notch alters the angle by like 30º, which makes it impossible to fine tune the control surface for any of my wing designs. My wings have a bunch of open seams now.

[betaking]

On 4/8/2018 at 2:46 PM, jrodriguez said:

As far as I know. FAR is not required

 

On 4/8/2018 at 4:56 PM, kcs123 said:

FAR is not required, but IIRC, without FAR, there is symmetry issue with flaps/spoilers going in oposite direction on mirrored part. Not sure if it is still issue with KSP 1.4.2, though.

I noticed this going on too.

I found a partial fix; in the cfg file, by altering the "node_attach"-parameter in the file "wing_proceedural_typeB.cfg"

from

node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1

to

node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1

however, this leaves the control-surfaces inverted, at least cosmetically (meaning they're basically more or less upside down, so you'll need to make both sides the same texture or something)

-------

 

Edit: Other Things I've noticed are that thicknesses aren't mirrored (so for instance if you want a flap that's thicker on one end than the other you might have issues.

Edited May 11, 2018 by betaking
additional information

[Arcanejack]

One thing I've noticed about the fork for B9 Procedural Wings that JRodriguez released in this thread (linked below) is that the amount you are forced to increment things by in the menu is rather huge. Does anybody have any ideas on fixing this?

jrodriguez's post: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/117236-13-procedural-wings/&do=findComment&comment=3348265

 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Arcanejack

[Jebman82]

New release Version 0.60 for 1.4.3

Hi, I was reluctant to create a new thread for this as I am not sure how much time I will have to maintain the fork I made. Below is a link to a new version. This is forked from jrodrigv he and a friend did a lot of work to get the shaders recompiled for the new version of Unity in 1.4.3. Without that, there would be no B9 Pwings for 1.4.x, so big nod to those guys. Ok so the update:

Download Github

https://github.com/Rafterman82/B9-PWings-Fork/releases/tag/0.60

Release Notes:

• Compiled against 1.4.3 DLL files
• Increase root width of main wing / all moving control surface from 16 to 20 units
• Increase tip width of main wing / all moving control surface from 16 to 20 units
• Increase length of main wing / all moving control surface from 16 to 20 units
• Increase length of main wing / all moving control surface from 8 to 10 units
• Increase length of control surface from 8 to 10 units
• Added tiny increment as float for control surface offset root and tip increment
• Reduced limits of control surface root and tip offset from -6 units/6 units to -0.5 units/0.5 units
• Changed control surface offset root/width calls to use tiny float (0.0.5f)

Known Issues:

• When using stock aero control surfaces set as spoilers/flaps will move in opposite directions. Interim Fix: Disable symmetry in the editor, place the control surface, press ALT + Mouse 1 on the part, duplicate, then roll/flip as needed with the QWEASD keys and place as close as you can to the opposite side of your craft. Or even better use FAR and enjoy full flap support.

Basically for me I wanted slightly larger wings as I like to use these on large OPT craft. Arcanejack also mentioned the offset bug:

On 5/13/2018 at 7:10 AM, Arcanejack said:

One thing I've noticed about the fork for B9 Procedural Wings that JRodriguez released in this thread (linked below) is that the amount you are forced to increment things by in the menu is rather huge. Does anybody have any ideas on fixing this?

jrodriguez's post: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/117236-13-procedural-wings/&do=findComment&comment=3348265

 

I've reduced the control surface offset value significantly. It should be much easier to adjust this value now. Also note I found functionality to fine tune values, hold Mouse 1 and Mouse 2 together on the slider in the editor and you can finely tune any value.

Finally I bumped up the length and width of the control surfaces by 20%. I've tested this with and without FAR (My FAR version is self compiled for 1.4.3 from his 1.3.1 source code ). I recommend using FAR as the mass values of the wings can be high when using stock, FAR allows you to adjust the wing mass to prevent this being an issue by right clicking the wing in the editor.

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Jebman82
Added known issues

[XOC2008]

I'd like to request a tip-offset added to the all moving control surface. BTW does this fix the mirroring issue on the regular control surfaces preventing their use as flaps?

[Jebman82]

22 minutes ago, XOC2008 said:

I'd like to request a tip-offset added to the all moving control surface. BTW does this fix the mirroring issue on the regular control surfaces preventing their use as flaps?

It appears this issue only happens on stock (without FAR). B9 Pwings were always made with FAR in mind (ferram actually helped B9 with some of the math). I will be honest, it's unlikely that I will ever resolve this for stock. However, in FAR flaps are fully supported and tested when tied to action groups. Any problems getting FAR to work on 1.4.3 just DM me.

Not sure I fully understand what you mean by tip offset on the all moving control surface, do you mean the ability to kinda cut the square edge off the corners of the tip with a diagonal?

Edited May 22, 2018 by Jebman82
missing bracket

[XOC2008]

30 minutes ago, Jebman82 said:

It appears this issue only happens on stock (without FAR). B9 Pwings were always made with FAR in mind (ferram actually helped B9 with some of the math). I will be honest, it's unlikely that I will ever resolve this for stock. However, in FAR flaps are fully supported and tested when tied to action groups. Any problems getting FAR to work on 1.4.3 just DM me.

Not sure I fully understand what you mean by tip offset on the all moving control surface, do you mean the ability to kinda cut the square edge off the corners of the tip with a diagonal?

I have no intention of installing FAR, so hopefully someone can solve this issue.

 

As for the offset, basically yes. I’d like to have less square-tipped control surfaces.

[Jebman82]

14 minutes ago, XOC2008 said:

I have no intention of installing FAR, so hopefully someone can solve this issue.

 

As for the offset, basically yes. I’d like to have less square-tipped control surfaces.

Implementing such a change to remove the square tips would be a rather large undertaking and sits outside of the maintenance scope I will be providing, sorry about that.

I know FAR is not everyone's cup of tea. In the interim you can disable symmetry on the flap and place each one individually this will get around the mirror issue but will require some fine tuning placement. It won't be likely my self or any of the contributors will fix this issue anytime soon as this plugin is very complex and this issue has persisted for more than a year.

[kcs123]

13 hours ago, Jebman82 said:

Hi, I was reluctant to create a new thread for this as I am not sure how much time I will have to maintain the fork I made. Below is a link to a new version.

You should. Regardless how much time you will have in future to maintain this fork. It will be less confusion and less false bug reports if you have separate thread for this. It is easier fo old users who were tracking development of B9PW from start, but it will be confusing for new users of KSP and B9PW.

[Midnight Jade]

@Jebman82  Thanks for the update. Everything is working here on my end. I don't use FAR but in-flight the symmetry works for me.

Also you mentioned something about holding M1 and M2 for finer increments, but that doesn't work for me since I use WASD Camera mod. However, holding M2 only works It's a bit finnick but does the job.

I'll be using this fork for a while.

[Jebman82]

4 hours ago, kcs123 said:

You should. Regardless how much time you will have in future to maintain this fork. It will be less confusion and less false bug reports if you have separate thread for this. It is easier fo old users who were tracking development of B9PW from start, but it will be confusing for new users of KSP and B9PW.

Thanks for the nudge kcs123, I guess I’m too used to being a forum lurker. The new thread for KSP 1.4.3 is here:

 

Edited May 22, 2018 by Jebman82

[kcs123]

2 hours ago, Jebman82 said:

Thanks for the nudge kcs123, I guess I’m too used to being a forum lurker. The new thread for KSP 1.4.3 is here:

You are welcome. And thanks to you too, for taking such burden to maintain this mod for time being. Whatever time you are able to spare on this will be much respected for most of KSP community.

[1straycat]

Is there a way to see the lifting area of a p-wing in the VAB? I see a "show wing data" button when I rightclick, but toggling it does nothing. I'm using B9 with KSP 1.3.1.

Edited May 23, 2018 by 1straycat

[reducing]

Is there a place to get the updated Procedural   Dynamics wings?

[hypervelocity]

On 5/23/2018 at 5:10 PM, 1straycat said:

Is there a way to see the lifting area of a p-wing in the VAB? I see a "show wing data" button when I rightclick, but toggling it does nothing. I'm using B9 with KSP 1.3.1.

you can see the details if you use FAR - I don't think you can in stock.

[mindseyemodels]

would it be possible to give this mod to another creator who will do something with it or to update procedural parts to 1.3? because for the people who use CKAN they can use a number of compatible versions so you theoretically have to only update your procedural parts mod to be compatible with 1.3 because my range for compatible mods spans 1.3 to current... I loved the procedural parts mod as it allowed for WAY more interesting ships

[hypervelocity]

4 minutes ago, mindseyemodels said:

would it be possible to give this mod to another creator who will do something with it or to update procedural parts to 1.3? because for the people who use CKAN they can use a number of compatible versions so you theoretically have to only update your procedural parts mod to be compatible with 1.3 because my range for compatible mods spans 1.3 to current... I loved the procedural parts mod as it allowed for WAY more interesting ships

the eternal struggle! I am still at KSP 1.2.2 as my favourite mods have not been updated - you should only update KSP once you are sure you can take all your favourite mods with you!

[mindseyemodels]

ikr they should just update the game in a way that DOESNT break the mods

[eberkain]

1 hour ago, mindseyemodels said:

ikr they should just update the game in a way that DOESNT break the mods

They could just stop updating the game at this point and I'd be good.