B9 5.0 pre-release (with download)

[SCurry13]

Question: Is the S2 cockpit getting an RCS rebalance? It usually throws the RCS system out of alignment for me

[K3-Chris]

Question: Is the S2 cockpit getting an RCS rebalance? It usually throws the RCS system out of alignment for me

Could you expand on that?

[S1000RRHP4]

LIMITLESS

it's limitless

- - - Updated - - -

I love it ^^

[SCurry13]

The S2 shuttle cockpit has RCS ports, they tend to cause a very slight sideways misalignment when used, causing an irritating rotation when translating. Would it be possible to slightly tweak the direction to make them point directly sideways?

[Taverius]

The S2 shuttle cockpit has RCS ports, they tend to cause a very slight sideways misalignment when used, causing an irritating rotation when translating. Would it be possible to slightly tweak the direction to make them point directly sideways?

Not really.

If you don't want to have that happen disable the built-in RCS thrusters, but since the external mesh will likely undergo changes to improve ground visibility while IVA I'd rather not embark on other changes now to balance the RCS.

Just balance it out with RCS Build Aid in SPH or disable it.

[SCurry13]

Ok, thanks!

[Spagoose]

I noticed an issue with the SW winglets with the built-in control surfaces. The control surface seems to be inverted but still function as if they were the correct way round.

[Hitokiri]

I find HX parts really cool, maybe with single issue/item missing, there is no Kerbal storage capability for them, so they are currently only good as tanks, do you plan extension of HX parts this way too?

Also it may be useful (and rather easy to do) to provide half and 1/4 length of HX parts.

[K3-Chris]

I noticed an issue with the SW winglets with the built-in control surfaces. The control surface seems to be inverted but still function as if they were the correct way round.

I haven't had that, they should be inverted ahead of CoM, canards point the front up to pitch back, control surfaces on the back point the rear up to pitch you back.

Is the winglet in front of the CoM?

I find HX parts really cool, maybe with single issue/item missing, there is no Kerbal storage capability for them, so they are currently only good as tanks, do you plan extension of HX parts this way too?

Idea is that you can put crew tanks or pods inside the hollow parts, but yes down the line we might add ones specially made for it, problem is that you can't have that many kerbals in the same IVA without getting really bad FPS, and I don't like having parts containing kerbals with no IVA.

Also it may be useful (and rather easy to do) to provide half and 1/4 length of HX parts.

That's a sensible suggestion, we'll see what bac9 says.

Edited August 24, 2014 by K3|Chris

[Spagoose]

I haven't had that, they should be inverted ahead of CoM, canards point the front up to pitch back, control surfaces on the back point the rear up to pitch you back.

Is the winglet in front of the CoM?

Not going to lie, I didn't realise it changed depending on CoM, this game never fails to amaze me.

[K3-Chris]

Not going to lie, I didn't realise it changed depending on CoM, this game never fails to amaze me.

Heh no problem, if control surfaces on the front and rear move in the same direction you don't rotate, you translate kinda if the forces are balanced, otherwise unpredictable rotation perhaps in the reverse direction of what you wanted.

[Hitokiri]

Idea is that you can put crew tanks or pods inside the hollow parts, but yes down the line we might add ones specially made for it, problem is that you can't have that many kerbals in the same IVA without getting really bad FPS, and I don't like having parts containing kerbals with no IVA.

I understand that this will be awfully large IVA with really a lot of Kerbals, single HX1 may have 32 of them, or so, but if the idea of HX parts is to have large amount of "items" transferred/stored without large amount of parts (in order not to kill FPS) it make little sense to make single big hollow part and stuff it with 16 Hitchhikers pods to fill in Kerbals. From this perspective I would rather be without IVA...

[K3-Chris]

I understand that this will be awfully large IVA with really a lot of Kerbals, single HX1 may have 32 of them, or so, but if the idea of HX parts is to have large amount of "items" transferred/stored without large amount of parts (in order not to kill FPS) it make little sense to make single big hollow part and stuff it with 16 Hitchhikers pods to fill in Kerbals. From this perspective I would rather be without IVA...

I tried 24 in the 6m S2 IVA, it doesn't work, Squad never properly optimized kerbals in IVAs, because they use 1-3, having 24 in the same IVA drops the FPS on my pretty beefy gaming rig to a slideshow even looking zoomed in at a wall.

It's a technical limitation.

My ideas around it so far involve either crew tanks that fit together in a pre-determined larger shape and each IVA basically feels like a "room" of the whole or I could outright make each IVA have a section of seating with your actual kerbals in it and adjacent seats with fake kerbals, the distance and light obstructions should make it impossible to tell they're fake.

Another solution is to show less kerbals in the IVA than the part actually contains, could have a very large part with an IVA inside that's much smaller and has a open door out to a corridor, so you get the feeling of it containing many of those rooms even if you can only see 3-4 of them or something.

Completely IVA-less isn't an option for me.

Edited August 24, 2014 by K3|Chris

[Hitokiri]

Another solution is to show less kerbals in the IVA than the part actually contains, could have a very large part with an IVA inside that's much smaller and has a open door out to a corridor, so you get the feeling of it containing many of those rooms even if you can only see 3-4 of them or something.

This seems to me optimal approach, Habitat in HX1 module will be anyway several floors and it is only logical that such large space is divided into rooms. HX1 Hab seems to me like 4 floors each with 4 rooms and central shaft/stairs, for HX2 or HX4 more rooms on each floor.

Also HX2 may would have windows optionally switchable to be on short side and long side...

I'm asking about it because I have on particular space station that may be build from such great pieces.

[S1000RRHP4]

This mod have everything!

Except maybe only one thing, some kind of door for the HX parts i don't know....

[Donziboy2]

So who do we have to bug to death to get an HX1-UH cargo door or end cap door?

That's an HL Cockpit and HL 4m bay for comparison.

Also can we get a MAC gun in this size?

[K3-Chris]

So who do we have to bug to death to get an HX1-UH cargo door or end cap door?

HX1-A-375B Adapter or C convert HX1 to 3.75m round.

[Donziboy2]

HX1-A-375B Adapter or C convert HX1 to 3.75m round.

They don't have doors they are just caps/adapters. I don't want to just glue stuff inside I want to be able to take cargo out of the HX once in space or landed. (I'm picky)

Also this has bugged me for several months now. Why does the R12 RCS have less thrust then the R5 RCS block?

[K3-Chris]

They don't have doors they are just caps/adapters. I don't want to just glue stuff inside I want to be able to take cargo out of the HX once in space or landed. (I'm picky)?

HX isn't or planes, it's for zero-g.

Also this has bugged me for several months now. Why does the R12 RCS have less thrust then the R5 RCS block?

It's per RCS nozzle, R12 has a total of 12 * 0.75 = 9, R5 has 5 * 1 = 5.

[jonrd463]

So this is the biggest SSTO I've ever done that actually made it to orbit. It has no other purpose than to just be g*******d huge.

I call it the S.S. MOTHER OF GOD!

HX isn't or planes, it's for zero-g.

Capt. Ronzon Kerman of the above behemoth would like a word with you about that.

Edited August 24, 2014 by jonrd463

[Subasean]

Played with the prerelease HL cockpit. Am dying for the release version. ::rubs hands together:: Yes, it will do nicely...

[Donziboy2]

Hx1-urc = 45t rtg.....

[The Space Man]

Can the Spot Light Array lights be edited to support changing the RGB Colour?

And will the craft file for that awesome HX fusilage system ship in the OP images be included in the full release?

[Nsomnia]

Can the Spot Light Array lights be edited to support changing the RGB Colour?

I actually agree with this question, some mod I have installed lets me edit the RGB values of Mk1/2 Illuminators (or is that stock in 0.24.2 now?). Although as Tav is pointing out, if you dont like it, delete it, if you want it done someway thats already possible, do it that way instead and let us focus on what we do have. I have to take his opinion on this. I was worried this would bring an onslaught of can you make this can this be changed, when it seems everything is almost ready, and people think making new parts and textures for these huge HL parts is a walk in the park.

Looking at the commits you guys are really chugging along at least one fix every 45 minutes on average during that sides of the worlds daytime.

[Taverius]

Can the Spot Light Array lights be edited to support changing the RGB Colour?

I'll make a note to check on that.

And will the craft file for that awesome HX fusilage system ship in the OP images be included in the full release?

Those are bac9's toys ... I kind of want them, and at the same time don't - because I can see the million 'how do I orbit it' questions.