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

[_Astra_]

For me it stops at Adapter_B9_SM1.

 

[LOG 11:28:23.478] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'B9_Aerospace/Parts/Adapter_M1/Adapter_SM1/B9_Adapter_SM1'
[LOG 11:28:23.489] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Boolean
[LOG 11:28:23.489] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Char
[LOG 11:28:23.490] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Byte
[LOG 11:28:23.490] CFGUtil: Registered parse type SByte
[LOG 11:28:23.490] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Int16
[LOG 11:28:23.491] CFGUtil: Registered parse type UInt16
[LOG 11:28:23.491] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Int32
[LOG 11:28:23.492] CFGUtil: Registered parse type UInt32
[LOG 11:28:23.492] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Int64
[LOG 11:28:23.493] CFGUtil: Registered parse type UInt64
[LOG 11:28:23.493] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Single
[LOG 11:28:23.493] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Decimal
[LOG 11:28:23.494] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Double
[LOG 11:28:23.494] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Vector2
[LOG 11:28:23.495] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Vector3
[LOG 11:28:23.495] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Vector4
[LOG 11:28:23.496] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Quaternion
[WRN 11:28:23.496] The type 'QuaternionD' is being registed as a config parse type, but is not a Unity-serializable type.  Unexpected results may occur.
[LOG 11:28:23.496] CFGUtil: Registered parse type QuaternionD
[WRN 11:28:23.497] The type 'Vector3d' is being registed as a config parse type, but is not a Unity-serializable type.  Unexpected results may occur.
 

It *does* occur.

[blowfish]

13 minutes ago, _Astra_ said:

For me it stops at Adapter_B9_SM1.

*snip*

It *does* occur.

Is that the end of the log?  Because that's a warning, not an error, and it doesn't affect the loading of that part.  Also, please put any long log output in spoiler view - it makes the thread a lot more readable for people whom it may not be relevant to.

Edited May 1, 2016 by blowfish

[Acvila]

14 minutes ago, _Astra_ said:

For me it stops at Adapter_B9_SM1.

 

[LOG 11:28:23.478] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'B9_Aerospace/Parts/Adapter_M1/Adapter_SM1/B9_Adapter_SM1'
[LOG 11:28:23.489] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Boolean
[LOG 11:28:23.489] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Char
[LOG 11:28:23.490] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Byte
[LOG 11:28:23.490] CFGUtil: Registered parse type SByte
[LOG 11:28:23.490] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Int16
[LOG 11:28:23.491] CFGUtil: Registered parse type UInt16
[LOG 11:28:23.491] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Int32
[LOG 11:28:23.492] CFGUtil: Registered parse type UInt32
[LOG 11:28:23.492] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Int64
[LOG 11:28:23.493] CFGUtil: Registered parse type UInt64
[LOG 11:28:23.493] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Single
[LOG 11:28:23.493] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Decimal
[LOG 11:28:23.494] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Double
[LOG 11:28:23.494] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Vector2
[LOG 11:28:23.495] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Vector3
[LOG 11:28:23.495] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Vector4
[LOG 11:28:23.496] CFGUtil: Registered parse type Quaternion
[WRN 11:28:23.496] The type 'QuaternionD' is being registed as a config parse type, but is not a Unity-serializable type.  Unexpected results may occur.
[LOG 11:28:23.496] CFGUtil: Registered parse type QuaternionD
[WRN 11:28:23.497] The type 'Vector3d' is being registed as a config parse type, but is not a Unity-serializable type.  Unexpected results may occur.
 

It *does* occur.

i had this problem because of last the Module Manager.

 

[Tomato29]

noooooo landing legs are gone ;-;

[_Astra_]

2 hours ago, blowfish said:

Is that the end of the log?

 

Yes. The game locks up here.

BTW found that a Firespitter being suplied with B9 is not up to date.

 

Up. The module manager 2.6.24 seems to fix it. *shocked*

Edited May 1, 2016 by _Astra_
update

[blowfish]

@_Astra_ strange, if it was MM then there should have been a nice exception in there.

Firespitter was up to date when the current version of B9 was released.  If you're using a different KSP version than the one the release was intended for (1.1.0 in this case), you should expect to have to update some dependencies.  In general, some things might be broken too but I'm not aware of any serious issues with 1.1.1/1.1.2 in this respect.

EDIT: I could have told you that MM was out of date immediately if you'd shown me the whole log.  Just saying.

Edited May 1, 2016 by blowfish

[kickning]

10 hours ago, blowfish said:

Make sure all the dependencies are there and up to date?  Kind of hard to tell what the problem is without logs.  And welcome to the forums

I have no clue what this problem might be (how could I?).  Logs might shed some light.

And this is a good opportunity to remind everyone that all support requests need to include logs.  Outside a small minority of cases, I (and everyone else) have no clue what the issue is just from saying "none of the parts show up" or "it keeps crashing."  Really, you're just delaying the time it takes to find a solution because when I see it, I'm just going to ask for logs, then it goes back to you, then I need to see it again, etc, etc.  In almost every case, the problem can be diagnosed by a quick glance at the logs - I've gone through hundreds of these things, I'm pretty good at it.

My patience is not infinite.  If I get too many incomplete support requests I just might start ignoring the ones that are missing information.

Forgive my inexperience but how would i check the dependencies and where would i find the logs?

 

[blowfish]

44 minutes ago, kickning said:

Forgive my inexperience but how would i check the dependencies and where would i find the logs?

 

Dependencies, just go to the respective threads and see if there have been updates.  They should all be linked in the OP and the readme.  Instructions on how to find logs are in the first link in my signature, once you find them you can upload to Google Drive or Dropbox (or something similar), share, and post the link.

[Infinity00]

First, I'd like to say that I've loved this mod since I started playing KSP around the .23 days. It's pretty much my favorite KSP mod.

Having said that, I've noticed some stuff that, to me, doesn't really make sense balance-wise.

First off, the Mk2b cockpits have 15 torque for each axis, but the probe core only has 3. This makes it hard to build an unmanned spaceplane without using one of the manned cockpits for torque or sticking a reaction wheel inside of a cargo bay somewhere. 

Second, the cockpits only have 1000/2200 internal/skin heat threshold before they explode, while the stock Mk2 cockpits have 1400/2500 heat threshold. Pretty much every spaceplane I built with the Mk2b cockpits exploded, while the ones I built with a stock Mk2 cockpit made it into orbit. The probe core has a higher heat threshold as well. When I combine the probe core with a Mk2b nosecone I can get my planes into orbit, but then they are essentially uncontrollable without RCS or that awkward reaction wheel.

Third, and this isn't necessarily a balance complaint, but a request for clarification...are the R12 RCS thrusters included with this pack intended to have lower thrust output than the smaller ones, or is that just an oversight? The R5, for example, has a thrust of 1, and a resource consumption of .098/sec. The R12 has a thrust output of .75, and a resource consumption of .0735/sec. From the item description and size of the model, one would think that it would be higher performance. Am I correct that this is a mistake in the part file, or does it really perform better than the R5 thruster and that's not obvious from the VAB part info?

Finally, I'd just like to say, Amazing job on the Mk2 texture update. Keep up the fantastic work guys.

 

[Flashblade]

1 hour ago, Infinity00 said:

First off, the Mk2b cockpits have 15 torque for each axis, but the probe core only has 3. This makes it hard to build an unmanned spaceplane without using one of the manned cockpits for torque or sticking a reaction wheel inside of a cargo bay somewhere. 

Second, the cockpits only have 1000/2200 internal/skin heat threshold before they explode, while the stock Mk2 cockpits have 1400/2500 heat threshold. Pretty much every spaceplane I built with the Mk2b cockpits exploded, while the ones I built with a stock Mk2 cockpit made it into orbit. The probe core has a higher heat threshold as well. When I combine the probe core with a Mk2b nosecone I can get my planes into orbit, but then they are essentially uncontrollable without RCS or that awkward reaction wheel.

Third, and this isn't necessarily a balance complaint, but a request for clarification...are the R12 RCS thrusters included with this pack intended to have lower thrust output than the smaller ones, or is that just an oversight? The R5, for example, has a thrust of 1, and a resource consumption of .098/sec. The R12 has a thrust output of .75, and a resource consumption of .0735/sec. From the item description and size of the model, one would think that it would be higher performance. Am I correct that this is a mistake in the part file, or does it really perform better than the R5 thruster and that's not obvious from the VAB part info?

Finally, I'd just like to say, Amazing job on the Mk2 texture update. Keep up the fantastic work guys.

 

Which drone core are you talking about? If it is the D 25 Heavy drone core, this thing should have an insane amount of torque. Nearly looks like the decimal point was forgotten there.

Agreed @blowfish that is something I wanted to talk to you about. The MK2B is suppossed to be a spaceplane cockpit, but it has the same thermals as the MK2 with intake. In general I think the thermals need another pass. Looks like Squad raised the values we based this on in 1.0.4. I will get this done before the next update.

The R12 is WAY more powerful, it has a lot more nozzles than the R5. The values are therefore deceiving you here.

UPDATE: No the cockpit aside nothing has changed with Squads thermals.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Flashblade
Looked at thermals

[blowfish]

@Infinity00

I'm not quite sure why the R12 was set to 0.75 kN per port where the rest are 1kN per port.  It predates my days in B9.

Re: cockpit temperatures, those two parts have comparable heat resistance to the the Mk1 cockpits.  Certainly not re-entry optimized, but I think it's still doable if you do a shallow re-entry from low orbit and keep your AoA high in the upper atmosphere to bleed off speed early.

Torque ... I'm probably not the best person to judge this since i think that stock reaction wheels are cheaty and OP.  My first thought is to cut the torque on the cockpits, but maybe that's not what people actually want.

Edited May 1, 2016 by blowfish

[jbakes]

Not sure whats up but my game won't load with b9 installed, its get stuck on the loading screen when it starts loading b9 parts

Edit: Nvm, should have done a little digging, new module manager fixed it.

Edited May 1, 2016 by jbakes

[Steel Dragon]

First Love the mod.

I do have a request. Can you break the MK2 parts you have made into a smaller lighter mod. Not to replace but just to have a second option. 90% of the time those are the parts I use. While I love many of the parts your pack has it really seams like you have focused on the MK2 hull (love them). Please make it a stand alone mod pack.

[Alvargon]

The game doesn't charge the adapter.SM1 u.u

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, Steel Dragon said:

First Love the mod.

I do have a request. Can you break the MK2 parts you have made into a smaller lighter mod. Not to replace but just to have a second option. 90% of the time those are the parts I use. While I love many of the parts your pack has it really seams like you have focused on the MK2 hull (love them). Please make it a stand alone mod pack.

You can safely delete any parts you don't want - each folder in Parts is self-contained so you don't have to worry about removing anything you shouldn't.

At some point in the future I may think about splitting B9 into a bunch of smaller packs, but I don't think I've figured out all the details yet.  There are a lot considerations for something like that...

1 minute ago, Alvargon said:

The game doesn't charge the adapter.SM1 u.u

Please read "how to get support" in my signature - no one can help you unless your provide the proper info.

[SirusKing]

Although its fine in stock, when using real fuels (idk if you have a config for it in b9 automatically?) The SABRE's ISP's should be much, much higher, seeing as it is a hydrogen rocket. IRL Sabre has isp of 360-460.

[blowfish]

1 minute ago, SirusKing said:

Although its fine in stock, when using real fuels (idk if you have a config for it in b9 automatically?) The SABRE's ISP's should be much, much higher, seeing as it is a hydrogen rocket. IRL Sabre has isp of 360-460.

That's the responsibility of whatever RF engine config pack you use.  I know RF Stockalike does it, not sure about RO.

[Infinity00]

On 5/1/2016 at 3:08 PM, Flashblade said:

Which drone core are you talking about? If it is the D 25 Heavy drone core, this thing should have an insane amount of torque. Nearly looks like the decimal point was forgotten there.

Agreed @blowfish that is something I wanted to talk to you about. The MK2B is suppossed to be a spaceplane cockpit, but it has the same thermals as the MK2 with intake. In general I think the thermals need another pass. Looks like Squad raised the values we based this on in 1.0.4. I will get this done before the next update.

The R12 is WAY more powerful, it has a lot more nozzles than the R5. The values are therefore deceiving you here.

UPDATE: No the cockpit aside nothing has changed with Squads thermals.

I was referring to the Mk2b Drone Core, which has a torque of 3, while the Mk2b Cockpits both have torque values of 15. I totally understand the sentiment that reaction wheels feel cheaty, and since it's your guys' mod you can balance it however you wish. I was only advocating balancing it to be the same as the cockpits. I always saw the high torque as being necessary to overcome some of the game's early limitations, like needing to offset the torque from not being able to fire through a spaceship's center of mass, and being unable to easily build a balanced RCS-based attitude control system.

Which i suppose brings me to the R12. Thanks for the clarification. It's not immediately obvious that more nozzles means more thrust, just from the part information. Thanks for clearing that up (again, likely, as it's probably been asked before).

My complaint with the Mk2b cockpits is that they would explode on the way out of the atmosphere, rather than coming back down. The 400 degree difference in heat tolerance between your cockpits and the stock Mk2 cockpit was enough to get a plane into orbit without the cockpit exploding and killing Jeb.

Anywho, thanks again for all your hard work.

 

P.S. I had the same issue, where KSP would lock up at the same point as all the others. It wasn't because of KSP though. When I tried to delete the parts in question, they were "opened in another program," that program being Windows Defender. Perhaps the Windows 10 Antivirus saw something in MM .23 that it didn't like. I dunno. It went away due to a combination of Steam updating to 1.10.2 and breaking my game entirely, forcing me to uninstall and reinstall entirely. /shrug.

[blowfish]

44 minutes ago, Infinity00 said:

P.S. I had the same issue, where KSP would lock up at the same point as all the others.

That issue was caused by ModuleManager 2.6.23 not working with KSP 1.1.2.

E: Heating on the way up seems to be a problematic issue ... in my tests I haven't even been able to get to mach 5 without things exploding, even with the most heat resistant parts.  But maybe things have changed since I last checked.

Edited May 3, 2016 by blowfish

[Torih]

Hi, I'm having an issue with nre spam when using any cockpit from B9. Soon as its launched (with just the cockpit) the spam starts.

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at DeadlyReentry.ModuleHeatShield.FixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

I've done a fresh install of KSP 1.1.2 to test, with only DR 7.4.3 and B9 (and its dependencies) and its the same.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26687/output_logDRE.txt

 

I posted over in the Deadly Reentry thread and @Starwaster has replied that its an issue with the B9 configs and what needs to be done:

[danfarnsy]

27 minutes ago, Torih said:

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at DeadlyReentry.ModuleHeatShield.FixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

Thanks for the heads up. I've dropped into the DRE thread to see if I can get some pointers on fixing B9's DRE MM patch (its contents look like they need updating).

[blowfish]

I don't use DRE and I have no clue how the configs work.  If someone wants to submit a PR to fix things I will welcome it.

[danfarnsy]

13 minutes ago, blowfish said:

I don't use DRE and I have no clue how the configs work.  If someone wants to submit a PR to fix things I will welcome it.

I'll submit a PR. Starwaster just replied, and I've got appropriate stuff for updating the DRE MM patch.

[Torih]

15 minutes ago, danfarnsy said:

I'll submit a PR. Starwaster just replied, and I've got appropriate stuff for updating the DRE MM patch.

Thanks for working on it  If you need some testing doing let me know once you get chance to update the configs.

Also I only checked the cockpits, so not sure if the other parts are affected also.

[Darael]

Is anybody else having trouble with the 4x1.25m S2W engine mount?  I'm finding it doesn't voxelise properly, or something - my cross-sectional area curve has a huge dip in it anywhere I include one.  Actually, having done a touch more testing while writing this, all the S2W engine mounts (4x1.25m, 2x2.5m, 3.5m) seem to count for significantly less cross-sectional area than either the S2W fuselage or the S2 tail section, despite being visually slightly larger than the former and significantly larger than the latter.  It's most pronounced with the 4x1.25m though.