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

[Climberfx]

Yep, but for a quick change this one got similar height's then before, and are more efficient. Got more 100 m/s of dV than before. (900m/s dV on 125k orbit)

To try a version with a Rapier, that i will do, i need to rebalance all the ship, for sure that will take a time.

[Murph]

Given that the fastest official world airspeed record under turbine power is an SR-71 at Mach 3.0, and the fastest recorded airspeed powered by a turbojet is a MiG-25 @ Mach 3.2 (engines oversped and had to be subsequently scrapped) I think the values are pretty much spot-on.

I believe the SR-71's design cruise was 3.2, and that it could actually go beyond that without converting the engines into slag, but I could be wrong. I also have to disagree that the SR-71's ram-turbo-blowtorch is a good measure for the theoretical top end of that engine design today. It's 50 years old, and there's a credible article out there which suggests that the only thing holding it back is materials (to cope with the shock and thermal loads), and that the basic design is actually good for 5-6 (updated with suitable stress and thermal engineering). Don't ask me to cite the specific article, please, it's just something I read and remembered when reading up on the design and engineering of the SR-71, and the proposed SR-72 replacement. If we're going to have SABREs in KSP, it seems reasonable to have something akin to the SR-71 engine with an additional 50 years of development.

I do kinda get where you guys are going with the change, but I'm personally less than convinced that it's correct as-is, or that a popular parts mod pack should really be heavily nerfing Squad parts as an opt-out, rather than opt-in. Big changes in behaviour of stock are expected with something like NEAR or FAR, but it seems to me that including this in B9 violates the principle of least astonishment.

[Taverius]

I believe the SR-71's design cruise was 3.2, and that it could actually go beyond that without converting the engines into slag, but I could be wrong. I also have to disagree that the SR-71's ram-turbo-blowtorch is a good measure for the theoretical top end of that engine design today. It's 50 years old, and there's a credible article out there which suggests that the only thing holding it back is materials (to cope with the shock and thermal loads), and that the basic design is actually good for 5-6 (updated with suitable stress and thermal engineering). Don't ask me to cite the specific article, please, it's just something I read and remembered when reading up on the design and engineering of the SR-71, and the proposed SR-72 replacement. If we're going to have SABREs in KSP, it seems reasonable to have something akin to the SR-71 engine with an additional 50 years of development.

5-6 seems somewhat high, given that 5 is the theoretical limit for ramjets - the physics of the gases involved predict that at that point you can't extract any useful thrust from an airstream that's been decelerated to subsonic speeds, because of the rise in temperature caused by the normal shockwave necessary to slow it down.

SABRE bypasses that by cooling said airstream with cryogenic gas, so I'm not sure how you could go to 6 without a cryogenic precooler.

Mach 4 might be believable, that's probably achievable with better materials (the main limitations on the SR-71 were exhaust temperature) so long as every is happy taking a massive hit in TMR due to the increased mass. Increased heat resistance in metal alloys is not free.

I do kinda get where you guys are going with the change, but I'm personally less than convinced that it's correct as-is, or that a popular parts mod pack should really be heavily nerfing Squad parts as an opt-out, rather than opt-in. Big changes in behaviour of stock are expected with something like NEAR or FAR, but it seems to me that including this in B9 violates the principle of least astonishment.

Well, I see where you're coming from, but that's based on some assumptions about the intended direction of the mod.

The jets being rebalanced wasn't included back in the origin of B9 because back then we didn't have module manager, and doing it involved overwriting the stock files.

After that, since we always play with the stock jets adjusted ourselves, we plain forgot to put it in B9 until now. We've wanted to put it in since we started.

[iamzac]

There is a simpler way to deal with the overpowered stock turbojet: just consider it to be a Scimitar engine which can do sustained cruise speed of mach 5 and could theoretically go to mach 5.5

You already have SABRE engines, Scimitar are (will be) the same thing, only without the rocket mode and with longer operational life.

They are basically a turbojet + ramjet in one.

Edited September 7, 2014 by iamzac

[Murph]

5-6 seems somewhat high, given that 5 is the theoretical limit for ramjets - the physics of the gases involved predict that at that point you can't extract any useful thrust from an airstream that's been decelerated to subsonic speeds, because of the rise in temperature caused by the normal shockwave necessary to slow it down.

SABRE bypasses that by cooling said airstream with cryogenic gas, so I'm not sure how you could go to 6 without a cryogenic precooler.

Mach 4 might be believable, that's probably achievable with better materials (the main limitations on the SR-71 were exhaust temperature) so long as every is happy taking a massive hit in TMR due to the increased mass. Increased heat resistance in metal alloys is not free.

It's quite possible that my memory is less than perfect on that point, as it was a good while ago that I did some reading on the SR-71 (around when it was finally being retired for good, and details were becoming more public). I'd believe 4-5 could be the number, instead of 5-6.

[K3-Chris]

There is a simpler way to deal with the overpowered stock turbojet: just consider it to be a Scimitar engine which can do sustained cruise speed of mach 5 and could theoretically go to mach 5.5

You already have SABRE engines, Scimitar are (will be) the same thing, only without the rocket mode and with longer operational life.

They are basically a turbojet + ramjet in one.

Wouldn't that necessitate a very different design and possibly quite a lot more mass? And frankly it says turbojet on the box.

[DaMichel]

I'm wondering what your intention is with the Mk1 Radial Fairing part. I think you have forgotten that FAR uses parts with Fairing in the name to shield other parts. And it actually does that. I checked your example crafts and there is no way this is intentional. Check the Stapledon for instance. It has a shielded wing part ...

I love the example crafts btw. Excellent work.

One more thing. Have you changed the SABER M effects? I created a new KSP install just to mess with B9 planes. Now the effects are much better. If you changed it: Thanks! If not: Apologies. Something was messing with the FX on my side then.

[Taverius]

I'm wondering what your intention is with the Mk1 Radial Fairing part. I think you have forgotten that FAR uses parts with Fairing in the name to shield other parts. And it actually does that. I checked your example crafts and there is no way this is intentional. Check the Stapledon for instance. It has a shielded wing part ...

I love the example crafts btw. Excellent work.

One more thing. Have you changed the SABER M effects? I created a new KSP install just to mess with B9 planes. Now the effects are much better. If you changed it: Thanks! If not: Apologies. Something was messing with the FX on my side then.

Oh, that's a good point. I'll quickfix that, as I've only started uploading 5.2.1

[Alvin853]

Wouldn't that necessitate a very different design and possibly quite a lot more mass? And frankly it says turbojet on the box.

Personally I liked the progression:

Basic Jet ~ Mach 1 --> B9 Turbojet with afterburner ~ Mach 3 --> Stock (C7) Turbojet with RAM intake ~ Mach 5 --> SABRE/RAPIER for orbital speeds and beyond

Yes, the stock turbojet is labeled "turbojet", but it does come bundled with a RAM air intake, so I always imagined it being more of a ramjet. But now we have 2 turbojets that are quite similar and then nothing until SABRE/RAPIER.

[NKL]

I'm maybe wrong, but did the Sabre M have rotation vectoring in R4?

Anyways, HX/ IVA/ Landing gear sound/ etc/ are so PRO guys. It's clearly amazing.

Can't wait to see people's fortress. =D

[pigreko]

MAc version is not loading at all.

I cannot make a search so I do not know if this is already solved or not, just willing to report it.

I have only this mod installed + the other mods required in read me file.

I have 32gb of ram and a pletora of graphical and raw processing power. The game won't load.

[Taverius]

Personally I liked the progression:

Basic Jet ~ Mach 1 --> B9 Turbojet with afterburner ~ Mach 3 --> Stock (C7) Turbojet with RAM intake ~ Mach 5 --> SABRE/RAPIER for orbital speeds and beyond

Yes, the stock turbojet is labeled "turbojet", but it does come bundled with a RAM air intake, so I always imagined it being more of a ramjet. But now we have 2 turbojets that are quite similar and then nothing until SABRE/RAPIER.

We'll probably look into adding a ramjet to cover the speed gap until you unlock sabre/rapier.

[Alvin853]

We'll probably look into adding a ramjet to cover the speed gap until you unlock sabre/rapier.

That'd be awesome

[K3-Chris]

MAc version is not loading at all.

I cannot make a search so I do not know if this is already solved or not, just willing to report it.

I have only this mod installed + the other mods required in read me file.

I have 32gb of ram and a pletora of graphical and raw processing power. The game won't load.

How much ram you have doesn't matter, there isn't a x64 version of KSP for Macs, get Active Texture Management.

[Climberfx]

MAc version is not loading at all.

I cannot make a search so I do not know if this is already solved or not, just willing to report it.

I have only this mod installed + the other mods required in read me file.

I have 32gb of ram and a pletora of graphical and raw processing power. The game won't load.

Pigreko. I'm using in a Mac, with a vast of other mods here too.

But for that, i had to put down a lot of the parameters. Quality, texture, almost everyone of than, in KSP squad config.

And too applied the Active Texture in the Aggressive mode.

I hope that could help you.

[MunarJetman]

I'm very new to modding Kerbal Space Program, so I was wondering what the best way of applying the update is. Should I remove the old files from GameData before putting the new one in? Or can I just put the new files into the directory?

[snashkille]

I have encountered a strange glitch with a couple of the new B9 parts in the utilities tab. My guess is it has something to do with the sample image for each part. Anyone know a fix?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv6HRMSTP4o&feature=youtu.be

[K3-Chris]

I'm very new to modding Kerbal Space Program, so I was wondering what the best way of applying the update is. Should I remove the old files from GameData before putting the new one in? Or can I just put the new files into the directory?

Usually safer to delete old install first, but normally it shouldn't be necessary.

[Alvin853]

I have encountered a strange glitch with a couple of the new B9 parts in the utilities tab. My guess is it has something to do with the sample image for each part. Anyone know a fix?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv6HRMSTP4o&feature=youtu.be

That is KSP Interstellar, not B9. But here is the fix anyway: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/63109-0-23-Modulefixer?p=1259754&viewfull=1#post1259754

Edited September 7, 2014 by Alvin853

[Guest]

Theres a Bug In the Strugatsky,Once I exit,it doesnt let me exit through the ladder door,as I have to exit through the cargo bay. It Is Very Weird,I dont Know if others are experiencing this. Im on Mac,Latest version Of B9 with fresh install and deleted previous install version. Latest version of KSP. Mods:HyperEdit And B9 Only. Tell me if i have to provide anything else,thanks

[Torminator]

That is KSP Interstellar, not B9. But here is the fix anyway: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/63109-0-23-Modulefixer?p=1259754&viewfull=1#post1259754

Module fixer just covers up the problem. What I find usually causes that is if you have more than one version of the OpenResourceSystem plugin. Go to that folder in game data and make sure you only have ORS 1.2

[Gotcha]

With the last release (version 5.2) the airacraft can not take off form the runway... but with version 5.0 it can.

[Surefoot]

Didnt have time to read everything since the v5 release, so i'll go with a quick note - with S2 body multipart, when i switch it to LFO it only contains LF (and no Ox), and the tank submenu doesnt give me the opportunity to autofill it 45-55%.

[bac9]

Version 2.5.1 released.

• Added 4th pair of engines to D-175 Strugatsky.

• Increased thrust of Turbofans under FAR/NEAR.

• Fixed a part name in deprecated file.

• Disabled TACLS resources on 6m S2 Crew Cabin when MFT is not present.

• Adjusted mass/cost of Y1 endcap.

• Fixed per-tank masses when using ModularFuelTanks.

• Fixed usage amounts of B9_ServiceModule tank type.

• Added small service module/life support tank to Y1 endcap.

• Moved stock turbojets to supersonic flight tech node.

• Adjusted thrust dropoff on stock/b9 turbojet to be slightly less abrupt.

• Fixed name of MK1 junction so that its not interpreted as a payload fairing by FAR/NEAR.

[Surefoot]

Awesomeness. You put out new patches so fast i couldnt even complete my new KerbalJet. Well done guys, really, you have been coding like crazy during this nice sunny weekend, that's dedication.