[1.0.2] B9 Aerospace | Procedural Parts 0.40 | Updated 09.06.15

[Van Disaster]

OK, so apparently thickness was just cosmetic ( and now it determines tankage ). Original pWings were formula-fixed thickness so I guess it didn't matter anyway.

Would having the logging button in the flight scene work? ( ie it won't upset anything by toggling logging there ) - that will be handy, I suspect.

[bac9]

OK, so apparently thickness was just cosmetic ( and now it determines tankage ). Original pWings were formula-fixed thickness so I guess it didn't matter anyway.

Thickness is cosmetic in terms of aerodynamics, since there is no way to actually use real wing profiles without disastrous results - FAR is using one of the average profiles from NASA, I think, but it contributes to volume correctly, so it's not cosmetic in terms of fuel tank limits.

Would having the logging button in the flight scene work? ( ie it won't upset anything by toggling logging there ) - that will be handy, I suspect.

It would work but I'd prefer not to add it there to avoid cluttering the interface. There is no point in doing that, I think, in most of the possible cases where logging might be necessary I'd prefer to have it enabled right on the first load of the KSC scene and not afterwards, god know when from within the flight scene.

[Van Disaster]

Yeah, so given the strength calcs were using calculated aero data there's no use of thickness in there. I guess you could add average thickness as a multiplier if you really wanted.

Things which worked previously still seem to work so far, so hurrah.

[starikki]

When you select edge type 1, calculated volume is correctly adjusted to remove edge width no matter it's value, so it shouldn't be an issue. It was not always the case, but it was fixed few versions ago.

Volume is also correctly adjusted to any edge width setting, be it 4cm, 40cm or 1m and any difference between root/tip widths of the edges.

My point is a wing should hold the same amount of fuel no matter with or without edges, as fuel tanks should not be in the edge section anyway. Well in most aircraft in real life that is

[bac9]

My point is a wing should hold the same amount of fuel no matter with or without edges, as fuel tanks should not be in the edge section anyway. Well in most aircraft in real life that is

I highly doubt it's the case with very thick wings, it would leave huge volume unused. But thanks, I'll look into it more.

[starikki]

I highly doubt it's the case with very thick wings, it would leave huge volume unused. But thanks, I'll look into it more.

Large real life aircraft has to have enough space for LE and TE devices, IIRC spars usually sits on roughly 20% and 60% chord for modern airliners, tanks are between the spars. Fighters are more complicated.

[bac9]

Makes sense. I'll modify the volume calculation used for fuel-related parts to exclude any edge widths then and will keep the centerpiece at 70% use then.

Edited January 23, 2015 by bac9

[AngelLestat]

Good job bac9, I still dint find any bug with your previous mod versions.

So if I understand, thickness matter for fuel volume, strenght properties and dry mass?

But it does not have any effect on aerodynamics..

What happens if the drag parameters increase just a bit? I never understand why all parts had the same drag parameters. Cd coeficient depends on shape, and drag on area, far does good job calculating drag and lift with cylinders or other shapes at any angle (I guess), but it seems that the thickness of the wing can not be calculated.

[blowfish]

Good job bac9, I still dint find any bug with your previous mod versions.

So if I understand, thickness matter for fuel volume, strenght properties and dry mass?

But it does not have any effect on aerodynamics..

What happens if the drag parameters increase just a bit? I never understand why all parts had the same drag parameters. Cd coeficient depends on shape, and drag on area, far does good job calculating drag and lift with cylinders or other shapes at any angle (I guess), but it seems that the thickness of the wing can not be calculated.

Can't speak for stock aero, but in FAR all wings are modeled as ideal aerodynamic bodies for which thickness is not a parameter. I don't think thickness affects mass either since FAR determines wing mass based on the strength slider. The aerodynamic properties of wing thickness could probably be modeled somehow but as usual it's probably more effort than it's worth. In any case it would encourage thin wings with lots of struts rather than reasonably-sized wings.

[Van Disaster]

Thickness does *not* matter for strength in this version. FAR uses one wing profile so I don't really see a way of inserting it in there, given it uses a specific wing model.

[Akira_R]

Just wanted to say the new version is fantastic! Had .15 installed and the lag while editing the wings was very annoying, The new system is simple and easy to use and no noticeable performance hit on my potato. I definitely support removing all the editor functions from the stock rightclick menu as it still slows down a lot when trying to tweak some of the fuel out and other such things, a.

I recall reading on here that in one of the previous updates a system was enabled allowing a wing to acquire attributes from it's parent (surface materials, root thickness etc.) how does one do this? Am I blind and there is a button for it in the editor or is there a hotkey?

[AngelLestat]

it matters for connection strength if I dint missread..

but my questions remains.. what is the objective of the drag parameter of each part?

if we have:

then that drag value of each part is the Cd?

[bac9]

it matters for connection strength if I dint missread..

but my questions remains.. what is the objective of the drag parameter of each part?

if we have: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/2/6/52694ea39410aa410b12afef2746d8a4.png

then that drag value of each part is the Cd?

I have no idea what is the objective of the stock drag parameter since stock as a whole is not really rooted in reality, but FAR accepts no drag parameter as an input (only semispan, mean aerodynamic chord, mid-chord sweep and taper ratio) so my wings don't set it directly when you use a proper model. As far as I understand, FAR might actually take the thickness into account for wing interaction, because thicker wing naturally occludes more stuff, and it might take it into account for drag if something like frontal snapshot is taken to determine the craft shape. Just not for lift.

- - - Updated - - -

I recall reading on here that in one of the previous updates a system was enabled allowing a wing to acquire attributes from it's parent (surface materials, root thickness etc.) how does one do this? Am I blind and there is a button for it in the editor or is there a hotkey?

There are buttons on the bottom of the new menu, appearing contextually. If, for example, you have a wing that has a parent part that is also a procedural wing, a "Match shape" button appears that tweaks it's root measurements to match the tip of the parent. You also have "Match materials" button for any procedural parts attached to any other procedural parts.

Edited January 23, 2015 by bac9

[AngelLestat]

As far as I understand, FAR might actually take the thickness into account for wing interaction, because thicker wing naturally occludes more stuff, and it might take it into account for drag if something like frontal snapshot is taken to determine the craft shape. Just not for lift.

If it works like that, then already does what I wanna suggest.

[starikki]

it matters for connection strength if I dint missread..

but my questions remains.. what is the objective of the drag parameter of each part?

if we have: http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/2/6/52694ea39410aa410b12afef2746d8a4.png

then that drag value of each part is the Cd?

There will be Cd0 and Cdi term, thicker wing would have higher Cd0.

Also a too thick or too thin wing would both stall earlier.

Thin wings and sharp leading edges will bring a lot of benefits on supersonic region, we might be able to see this simulated in FAR, one day...

[blowfish]

If it works like that, then already does what I wanna suggest.

I don't think it does. All FAR wings are modeled aerodynamically as thin surfaces specified 2-dimensional parameters - the actual shape of the wing model doesn't factor in anywhere.

[bac9]

I don't think it does. All FAR wings are modeled aerodynamically as thin surfaces specified 2-dimensional parameters - the actual shape of the wing model doesn't factor in anywhere.

Well, they are not exactly modelled as 2d surfaces, equations use a certain profile, I think. It just can't be adjusted from the wing config.

[blowfish]

Well, they are not exactly modelled as 2d surfaces, equations use a certain profile, I think. It just can't be adjusted from the wing config.

I'm sure the model assumes some finite (but likely very small) thickness, but I don't think it comes up meaningfully in any of the calculations FAR does.

[starikki]

I'm sure the model assumes some finite (but likely very small) thickness, but I don't think it comes up meaningfully in any of the calculations FAR does.

There's a simple and useful theory called "thin airfoil theory"

I'm pretty sure FAR is using this for simulation.

[bac9]

Version 0.24

• Fixed the KSC scene configuration menu not initializing it's style properly
  
• Full wing volume no longer used to determine fuel tank size - trailing and leading edge volume almost never contains them, so their contribution is removed now
  
• Shape and material controls removed from the tweakable menu, now editable only through the new UI

[CrisK]

bac9, I just upgraded to 0.24 and the wing shapes/sizes/etc. in my save files seem to have been lost.

On top of that, if I add a b9 procedural wing to a new plane, save the file, and then load it again the wing defaults to the default size/shape/texture. Any customizations are lost as soon as the craft is saved.

[bac9]

Version 0.26

• Whoops, fixed wing properties not being correctly loaded and saved
  
• Edit: Whoops again, uploaded 0.25 without the .dll itself :^)

Edited January 24, 2015 by bac9

[CrisK]

Awesome. Thank you for the great mod, and the fast development!

[Bakase]

Bac9, man, you're insane! How are you putting updates out this fast?! I can barely keep up... This mod is just getting ridiculous now.

[CrisK]

Bac9, Sorry to point two more bugs: The settings that were nested in their own menus are no longer editable. This includes the edges and surfaces. Clicking the plus sign does nothing. Also, when you right click a wing that has been customized a list of all of the customizations is displayed. This makes it difficult if not impossible to edit any FAR settings.

On the plus side, the saves now load properly.

Javascript is disabled. View full album