bac9

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

Recommended Posts

The exploding is likely due to a typo in maxTemp. I'll look into the other issues. About the gimbal - you did install Klockheed Martian from the repository, right?

Thx for the quick reply. Yes I installed it. But to be sure I will quickly double check and update this post afterwards.

UPDATE:

Ok, I had installed Klockheed Martian from the repository. Due to the fact, that the gimbals were working prior to your awesome work, I tried and reinstalled the old version of Klockheed Martian and the result is, that the gimbals are working again.

That would mean, at least if there is no issue with any of my other around 140 mods, anything went wrong during the recompile.

Regarding the controll surfaces I will try to use the origin parts and configs from the 0.90 release and see if those would work.

UPDATE 2:

The controll surfaces work also with the old files from the original release. I just replaced the "Aero_Wing_ControlSurface" folder within the parts folder with the old one and everything is fine.

I hope this will help you guys a bit.

Edited by JohnWildman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you going to integrate procedural wings into B9 itself or will it still be an external Addon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you going to integrate procedural wings into B9 itself or will it still be an external Addon?

Probably not, there isn't a single shared dependency between B9 and B9-PW, and B9-PW requires frequent updates to plugin code, so it makes no sense to cram them into the same download. It would be very inconvenient to reupload entire B9 just because of some minor change in the B9-PW plugin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE 2:

The controll surfaces work also with the old files from the original release. I just replaced the "Aero_Wing_ControlSurface" folder within the parts folder with the old one and everything is fine.

I hope this will help you guys a bit.

Thank you for your feedback, I just fixed the control surfaces. I had included unnecessary stuff into the config and after removing these they are now WAY overpowered in stock. Needs balancing but they work perfectly now. Also s2 wide now has lifting body properties included. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your feedback, I just fixed the control surfaces. I had included unnecessary stuff into the config and after removing these they are now WAY overpowered in stock. Needs balancing but they work perfectly now. Also s2 wide now has lifting body properties included. :)

Awesome, thank you.

Btw. it is correct, that there is a typo in the sabre s intake config. I changed "maxTemp = 200 // = 3400" to "maxTemp = 2000 // = 3400" and now the intakes are working also again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed you changed it to the value that it is supposed to have. But I am kinda surprised that that is the only issue you found with it. It doesn't give anywhere near enough intake air as it is now. It needs to be rebalanced against stock intakes. :)

Edited by Flashblade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes indeed you changed it to the value that it is supposed to have. :)

Thought so after having a look into the sabre M intake! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The intakes all need rebalancing anyway. I've got nominally fixed values sitting on my computer at home, will commit when I get back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well guys... if you don't mind telling you, I have just found another issue.

It seems the stabilators are also kinda broken. While building a plane in the SPH you can attach these parts but you cant remove them. Not sure what the reason is but every SW Stabilator has that problem.

The winglets have the same issue.

Edited by JohnWildman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The intakes all need rebalancing anyway. I've got nominally fixed values sitting on my computer at home, will commit when I get back.

Well 2 pull requests will be waiting for you as well lead. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bac9 You mentioned that you wanted to remove as many mod dependencies as possible. In that case I got some news that may annoy you. So far blowfish and I have determined that for new icons for bulkheadProfiles filter extensions will be needed. This concerns the HX fuselage since there is really no existing category it fits in. It would make more sense to give it its own category and that is what has been done so far. I mean we don't have to include filter extension but than that category will always show that empty questionmark icon which isn't such a pretty solution. It won't impede functionality but the placeholder icon really isn't that nice to look at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@bac9 You mentioned that you wanted to remove as many mod dependencies as possible. In that case I got some news that may annoy you. So far blowfish and I have determined that for new icons for bulkheadProfiles filter extensions will be needed. This concerns the HX fuselage since there is really no existing category it fits in. It would make more sense to give it its own category and that is what has been done so far. I mean we don't have to include filter extension but than that category will always show that empty questionmark icon which isn't such a pretty solution. It won't impede functionality but the placeholder icon really isn't that nice to look at.

I don't really mind a question mark, to be honest. HX is a very isolated set of parts, and it's with it's insane cross section size a shaped icon won't tell you much about it's difference vs. for example S2 profile anyway. But if you feel it's a necessary dependency, go on, it's up to you to decide, you are doing the bulk of the update job anyway, - I'm just fiddling with some assets. :^)

Speaking of which, here is a quick and dirty job at MK2 pod IVA.

tC0B2SEh.png

Needs prop placement, and that's the most unfun and tedious work ever, made worse by quirks of the Part Tools, so I don't know when I'll finish it, heh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@bac9 You mentioned that you wanted to remove as many mod dependencies as possible. In that case I got some news that may annoy you. So far blowfish and I have determined that for new icons for bulkheadProfiles filter extensions will be needed. This concerns the HX fuselage since there is really no existing category it fits in. It would make more sense to give it its own category and that is what has been done so far. I mean we don't have to include filter extension but than that category will always show that empty questionmark icon which isn't such a pretty solution. It won't impede functionality but the placeholder icon really isn't that nice to look at.

I think it's fine to leave it as an optional but recommended dependency. The question mark is undesirable but not awful, and there's nothing else that would directly benefit from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that. Also bac9 your new mk2 parts look stunningly good. :)

Edited by Flashblade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, just in case: don't bother updating the node plugin yet, it has some fundamental issues and I just came up with a better way to switch nodes that avoids them. I'll probably make a new module for that task on HX parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far blowfish and I have determined that for new icons for bulkheadProfiles filter extensions will be needed.
I think it's fine to leave it as an optional but recommended dependency. The question mark is undesirable but not awful, and there's nothing else that would directly benefit from it.

On that topic, do you want to distribute the B9 category config rather than it being lumped into the package as it is now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You folks had me at "HX parts", yet again. Easily my favorite parts to work with, in the entire game. Keep up the great work! And Bac9, if you need any outside assistance modeling or texturing, just say the word. Maya for a living, here, and I'm okay with Unity so far with Maya 2015's new "Send to Unity" features and all.

You guys rock. Here's my latest hybrid from .90, just for visual fun:

AHHs71S.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi bac9, this is just another voice from the bandwagon ..... "your parts are the dogs n*ts!"

beautiful stuff dude, ksp is not complete without them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my previous plan for sorting out the engine thrust curves fell through, and I'm open to input as far as what the final curves should be. For reference, here are the stock curves

stockthrustmach_zpscgdy10rp.png

stockthrustdensity_zps5kv7jtnu.png

My current thinking is this:

  • I'm hesitant to give any more high altitude (low density) thrust than the stock engines, because it encourages air-hogging. I might have considered even suppressing the B9 curves at high altitude relative to stock, but the new aero heating system probably makes that unreasonable.
  • The SABRE should follow the RAPIER's mach curve at low mach numbers (I might give a bit of a bonus at the sound barrier). Thrust growth will continue to about mach 5-5.5 or so and then fall off sharply. In exchange for better thrust growth, Isp, and slightly better static thrust, the SABRE will be more expensive and heavier than the RAPIER.
  • Subsonic engines will gradually loose thrust with mach before hitting zero just above Mach 1. They will have very good Isp.
  • The B9 turbojet will have its mach curve slightly below that of the stock turbojet before falling off between Mach 3 and 4. Isp will be better than the stock turbojet, with somewhat less static thrust.
  • The F119 will gain thrust slightly slower than the B9 turbojet and then fall off between Mach 2.5 and 3. Max static thrust will match the IRL F119 (160 kN) and Isp will be between the stock basic jet and B9 turbojet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One consideration here is the fact that stock engines are... hideous, aesthetically speaking. So, I'd say it's reasonable to balance turbojet and F119 as replacements for two currently existing stock engines, not as parts that must go to some new niche relative to stock and must keep stock parts place in the craft designs.

Also, if I remember correctly, stock engines were a bit unreasonable with some stats (low mass or insanely low fuel consumption? can't really remember well, best to ask ferram4), so, just like in the previous versions of the mod, I don't think it would be a big deal not to use them as an absolutely neutral baseline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't contain my excitement for the updated version. I've been anxious for this ever since the 1.0 update of KSP. I'm amazed how much work and care is put into this mod and the sheer amount of content it adds to the game. Such a great mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So my previous plan for sorting out the engine thrust curves fell through, and I'm open to input as far as what the final curves should be. For reference, here are the stock curves

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/blowfishpro/KSP/Debug/stockthrustmach_zpscgdy10rp.png

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/blowfishpro/KSP/Debug/stockthrustdensity_zps5kv7jtnu.png

My current thinking is this:

  • I'm hesitant to give any more high altitude (low density) thrust than the stock engines, because it encourages air-hogging. I might have considered even suppressing the B9 curves at high altitude relative to stock, but the new aero heating system probably makes that unreasonable.
  • The SABRE should follow the RAPIER's mach curve at low mach numbers (I might give a bit of a bonus at the sound barrier). Thrust growth will continue to about mach 5-5.5 or so and then fall off sharply. In exchange for better thrust growth, Isp, and slightly better static thrust, the SABRE will be more expensive and heavier than the RAPIER.
  • Subsonic engines will gradually loose thrust with mach before hitting zero just above Mach 1. They will have very good Isp.
  • The B9 turbojet will have its mach curve slightly below that of the stock turbojet before falling off between Mach 3 and 4. Isp will be better than the stock turbojet, with somewhat less static thrust.
  • The F119 will gain thrust slightly slower than the B9 turbojet and then fall off between Mach 2.5 and 3. Max static thrust will match the IRL F119 (160 kN) and Isp will be between the stock basic jet and B9 turbojet.

I think you are on right track with this.

I will try to help with your decision with folowing thought:

  • To be able to go at fast speed and avoid overheating, you need to fly at high altitudes. Speeds above 4 mach is only safe above 20km.
  • To be able to go higher (near level flight 10-15 pitch angle max. and with maximum AoA of 15 degree) you need to go faster. For 30km leveled flight you will probably need speed of 5 mach or more
  • Higher speed also means higher drag, you need more thrust from engines to overcome high drag, and higher you fly, less air you have. More speed you gain, less thrust from engine you have.

With FAR and stock RAPIER it is hard to achieve high altitude of 30 km @5 mach due to mentioned limitations.

In very rare ocasions, even with highly streamlined plane you will get 24km @ 4.4 mach with RAPIER. To get higher you need more speed, if you dive to gain that speed, your plane will be melted down due to overheating. And you can't go higher because you need to go faster, and you can't go faster because engine thrust drops down rapidly above 4.4 mach and gained speed start to drop with altitude you may gain if you pitch up more.

I'm talking this, because of observations trough test flights, I think you should aim for SABRE engines to be able to have at least 30 kN of thrust at 5 to 5.5 mach near 30 km. Also consider air requiremets, so one sabre air intake with cooler should be able to provide enough air for airbrething mode at 30km@5 mach.

I hope that it will help for your final decision, and thanks for all your hard work on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the other things I'm doing is increasing the heat tolerance of the intakes (mainly via thermal mass modifiers). My recollection is that intakes are usually the first thing to overhead, followed by engines (governed by machHeatLimit and machHeatMultiplier, which I will be tweaking). This will hopefully allow faster flight a bit lower in the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.