bac9 Posted September 6, 2014 Author Share Posted September 6, 2014 Speaking of which, we should probably break the stock intake stacking trick next, if we going down the line of making things fair. :^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taverius Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Here is part of the craft with B9 MFT removed.*snip*Yeah, looks like you need to remove all tanks from existing parts, so definitely not something you want to do with crafts in flight Speaking of which, we should probably break the stock intake stacking trick next, if we going down the line of making things fair. :^)Heh, if you can figure out a way to do it I'm all for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konnor Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Speaking of which, we should probably break the stock intake stacking trick nextDoesn't FAR break it already making all but the first intake in a stack shielded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donziboy2 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Yeah, looks like you need to remove all tanks from existing parts, so definitely not something you want to do with crafts in flight Ya, guess I wont be using MFT on B9 for while lol, I managed to live without it, that VTOL I built was balanced to within 0.1m from full to empty without using MFT tanks. MFT does make it easier but Kerbals dont do things easy anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bac9 Posted September 6, 2014 Author Share Posted September 6, 2014 Doesn't FAR break it already making all but the first intake in a stack shielded?Afaik shielding is determined from craft hierarchy, and surface attached intakes won't always be flagged as shielded depending on how they are attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K3-Chris Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Here is a video of my S3 "V2" blockout test model: WIP B9 S3 re-haul, old model doesn't afford the kerbal inside any visibility, new version allows the kerbals a lot better visibility and they actually fit inside.External texture is the old S3 texture for now, interior had no texture for now, this is just a test for positioning and geometry and IVA visibility etc, completely non-final, but should give some ideas of where it's going.Normals are auto-generated thus hideous, and I'm not sure where that light is coming from... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekan1k Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Can you leave both in the pack? I like the new one, but I also like the old one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K3-Chris Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 (edited) Can you leave both in the pack? I like the new one, but I also like the old one...Old doesn't have an IVA and will never have an IVA, so no, they also serve the same purpose.The old model does look a bit better in some ways I agree but (no offense) bac9 didn't really think about the IVA when he made I assume, neither mode has usable visibility, kerbals have huge heads with eyes about in the vertical center, put a kerbal's head touching the inside of the ceiling and their sight-line in the old model is well bellow the window, meaning they're looking up at the window, and sky beyond it, similar to the front mk2 seat or S3 (I got ideas for improving front visibility in both of those), but even worse angle and even smaller window, making the non-retracted cockpit mode pretty redundant. Edited September 6, 2014 by K3|Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekan1k Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Old doesn't have an IVA and will never have an IVA, so no, they also serve the same purpose.I know, but the dipping nose means that the vessels that use it will always need a large minimum frontal ground clearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K3-Chris Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 I know, but the dipping nose means that the vessels that use it will always need a large minimum frontal ground clearance.That angle/animation isn't final, just a test, and you don't have to use the nose animation, it's for people that want that concord experience.Hopefully we can get multi-angle and multi-stage animation working, ideally we want at least 3 modes, visor and nose up (supersonic flight), visor down, nose either up or down very little (subsonic flight, taxi on runway) visor and nose down (landing) could also go back to nose only down a bit or not at all like subsonic mode just before touchdown while landing if your have short landing gear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardestroyer Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Landing gears still have a lateral drift problem... All my planes drift laterally. I use b9 5.2 and Firesplitter 6.3.5What am I doing wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mekan1k Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 There are no 3 meter fueltank parts... Can the next upgrade include some? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonrd463 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 There are no 3 meter fueltank parts... Can the next upgrade include some?The HL segments are 3 m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bac9 Posted September 6, 2014 Author Share Posted September 6, 2014 Nope, there are 0.5m, 1m, 2m and 6m HL parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taki117 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Question: What is the reasoning behind recommending using 32bit KSP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_v Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Landing gears still have a lateral drift problem... All my planes drift laterally. I use b9 5.2 and Firesplitter 6.3.5What am I doing wrong?They certainly do, but it looks like nobody's listening. Try the .cfg from 5.0, I liked it better but YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bac9 Posted September 6, 2014 Author Share Posted September 6, 2014 Question: What is the reasoning behind recommending using 32bit KSP?Always try x64 first (nevertheless, using Active Texture Management, just without compression), you might be lucky one who has no issues with it. But majority of players gets random crashes and various issues, so we can't really recommend x64 to everyone. It's not really a B9-specific thing, x64 Windows build in general isn't working well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamesca Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 okay so i like ksp and i like b9 aerospace but when i get the game to launch properly i get this graphics glitch where everything flashes black and white really quickly. any one have a solution? it wasn't happening before i put this mod pack in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Rod Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 Always try x64 first (nevertheless, using Active Texture Management, just without compression), you might be lucky one who has no issues with it. But majority of players gets random crashes and various issues, so we can't really recommend x64 to everyone. It's not really a B9-specific thing, x64 Windows build in general isn't working well.Lol I was so stuck on 64 bit for a while until yes it would crash for no reason during the weirdest places, ( like switching back to KSC) But the reason why was so I could use a lot of mods but I tried 32 bit now and it actually is working way better than 64 bit if it makes sense? I mean I'm using KW, FAR, NovaPunch, Hangar Extender, Editor Extensions, MechJeb, and of course B9 with ATM and Mechjeb. I'm using aggressive for ATM and it looks ok but I thought B9 would not play nice with so many mods in 32 bit... I was wrong I guess. Has anyone else been using a lot of mods with B9? Can I go for some more like Visual enhancements Kethane and KAS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardestroyer Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 They certainly do, but it looks like nobody's listening. Try the .cfg from 5.0, I liked it better but YMMV.I've tryed the 5.0 .cfg files as you said but nothing changes... Planes still drift laterally by some unknown force... I don't know what to do except to use stock landing gears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alvin853 Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 I'm having huge problems with the MFT config. Apparently it's adding 3 tons of dry mass for every ton of fuel that I put into a part. This is totally breaking my S2 plane that used to be well balanced because now the tail section weighs in at 60 tons.Did you maybe confuse the "mass" and "basemass" variables? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyHook Posted September 6, 2014 Share Posted September 6, 2014 I've tryed the 5.0 .cfg files as you said but nothing changes... Planes still drift laterally by some unknown force... I don't know what to do except to use stock landing gearsWhen I installed an unofficial patch of b9, it came with a module manager file called "B9 Gear Fix" in the top level of GameData. Look for that or another similar file and you should find your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardestroyer Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 When I installed an unofficial patch of b9, it came with a module manager file called "B9 Gear Fix" in the top level of GameData. Look for that or another similar file and you should find your answer.Yes, the file you said it's still there in my GameData folder but the problem stand still... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyHook Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 (edited) Yes, the file you said it's still there in my GameData folder but the problem stand still...I'm sorry I was unclear earlier. REMOVE that file and it should fix your problem. Let me know if that works! Edited September 7, 2014 by SkyHook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardestroyer Posted September 7, 2014 Share Posted September 7, 2014 I's sorry I was unclear earlier. REMOVE that file and it should fix your problem. Let me know if that works!Thank's! You were right!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts