Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

First off, I realize it's a little unreasonable to expect you to read 10+ pages back to see your question already answered, so I'm sure nobody here is mad about it. Instead, I'll pull up the answer that was given last time :D

Hi, is it possible that you will add curvature as one of the options? It would be really cool.
First off. Sweet mod. Replaced the old procedural wing mod and use this one now...

Secondly, some requests:

1) Is it possible to allow compound shapes? what I mean is I want to duplicate the shape of the "Big-S Wing" but have it still be one part.

2) can you make the root/tip have an option to "flare" such that right at the root or tip the surface will flare out to match a cylinder. So that if we attach a wing tip pod or where the wings meet a fuselage the surface will flare out to meet that cylinder to make a nice smooth transition.

3) can we get a surface texture to match the stock Mk2 parts? Or if it is possible I guess I can maybe make my own textures? (have not looked into this yet)

4) can you add support for having the wings carry fuel. Like modular fuel tanks etc. (I guess I could do this with MM?)

Going back to read this thread now to see if any of these have been discussed before, as I just posted this without having read this entire thread.

Crzyrndm is correct.

1. Impossible to implement without completely rewriting how geometry is generated.

2. Increased root thickness + editor offset tool helps with that, or if you want independent slope just near the connection point, attach a reversed wing segment to the inward-facing plane of your main wing, and make it tip-wide and tip-high. Or use low span root-thick wings near fuselage segments which can have big sloping from thickness without spreading it into the main part of the wing span.

3. I'll look into it once I finish modeling MK2 update for the B9 pack.

4. Already in.

The bolded lines contain your question's answer. Unfortunately it isn't possible at the moment. bac9 never said it was impossible, but he doesn't sound like he wants to do it, which is totally fair. So for now, no, it's not possible and there seems to be no plans to add it.

I hope this helps! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My B9 pwings are sort of broken.

I can't attach p-wings to p-wings, and their icons are colorful (this happens when there's something wrong in my experience)

I've installed the latest dev version of FAR, but nothing seems to work.

EDIR: I'm stupid, I was using the allmoving wings *facepalm*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, question again is it possible to add box type of thing where you can input exact number rather than slider? If someone anwser that before or it is impossible sorry.

Sorry for my english

Link to post
Share on other sites
does this work with nuFAR yet?

It seems to work fine in the latest 0.15.3 (IIRC) version. Whatever the latest non-master version is, seems to work fine.

I'll let someone more technical answer the question in-depth if I'm mistaken, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I'm using it in 1.0.4 and it's all good.

Honestly, all that needs doing (for stock) is to tell the game that it's compatible for 1.0.4. I don't know what the requirements for FAR is, I haven't used it for ages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope. I'm using it in 1.0.4 and it's all good.

Honestly, all that needs doing (for stock) is to tell the game that it's compatible for 1.0.4. I don't know what the requirements for FAR is, I haven't used it for ages.

I'll update the AVC and remove the warning on Kerbalstuff then, thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://imgur.com/ElAhAHg Hi, I am just wondering why I can't use all the options mentioned on the wings, I only have 6 and it shows some edge and surface options that I can't use...

ElAhAHg.png

Can you not open the sections other than Base by clicking on the headers?

PS

bac9, you can remove the FAR incompatibility warning from the OP since 15.3+ is out

Edited by Crzyrndm
Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any chance of an opt out on the sixteen size limit? It's really a bit too small for some scales, and I generally use this kind of thing to avoid high part counts. Otherwise I much prefer this to the other procedural wing system.

Requested by lot of users, it is answered somewhere in thread why low part size. Bigger part size leads to unusual trapezoid shapes that does not match with each other well enough and that leads to even more bugs/glitches. And it is not much big performance hit if you build plane with 4 parts instead of just 2. Still much better than building from stock wing parts.

I guess that we all have to develop new crafting technics to overcome this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I have used B9 procedural wing parts to built cranked arrow designs, using one B9 wing as the forward strake, another for the aft connector bit and then a third for the remainder of the wing:

4Ibi3M6.png

The trick there is to make sure that the root of the main part of the wing is the same length as the aft connector bit, and then to make sure the root thickness of the wing is the same as the tip thickness of the connector. The strake thicknesses should also be the same as those of the aft connector, and its length should also be the same.

It's a perfectly good plane, using six B9 parts for the main wing and another 2 for the V-tail. My point in all this is that it is possible to make composite wings with lengths that exceed the sixteen-meter limit if you're careful about how you do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly in my case it's more of a geometry thing. I have a habit of building unconventional wing structures that don't always work out in a reasonable way to stack. I'm a big fan of boxwings, among other things, and recently forked tails.

14549792440740478976_screenshots_2015-05-09_00001.jpg

Turns out that design produces great area ruling for the size and is extremely stable. Elevator design also provides for the alternate blocking of the upper or lower thrusters on the central sabre engines, a kind of crude thrust vectoring system. I love the performance I've gotten out of it, I just wish I could use procedural wings to avoid the ugly overlap midships. Any advice on how to put that together with what we have?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...