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

[Temeter]

Look what i found

Some kind of bug/incompability. Installed Bahamuto Critter-Crawler+stuff and it popped up. Seems like some files (i've seen the concepts) found their way into the installation.

Btw, I wonder how it is possible to actually build this kind of concorde-style design.

[blowfish]

It's the WIP S3 cockpit which somehow found its way into the release.

[asdfCYBER]

Look what i found

Some kind of bug/incompability. Installed Bahamuto Critter-Crawler+stuff and it popped up. Seems like some files (i've seen the concepts) found their way into the installation.

Btw, I wonder how it is possible to actually build this kind of concorde-style design.

R5.2.6

• Fixed .version files for 0.25

• Removed files erroneously included in the previous version

Get the lastest version, and it's gone.

[Wolfwood]

I've been working on updating to the latest KSP from 24.2 to .25. However i have narrowed down an error screen that pops up when i start that says a Mod is incomparable with 64-bit. This mod turned out to be B9. Wasnt sure if you were aware of this or not. Also not sure if you are able to affect that error window by putting your mod in it, as i had to manually go though each mod to figure out which one was causing the error to appear.

[MonaBabii]

I've been working on updating to the latest KSP from 24.2 to .25. However i have narrowed down an error screen that pops up when i start that says a Mod is incomparable with 64-bit. This mod turned out to be B9. Wasnt sure if you were aware of this or not. Also not sure if you are able to affect that error window by putting your mod in it, as i had to manually go though each mod to figure out which one was causing the error to appear.

I would say you would be better off adopting a safer mindset than rely on someone else to keep you up and running For instance, I never install a mod without first checking the OP and a few pages of comments (sometimes ). In this case you would probably have started your elimination process with B9 right off the bat if you would have read the F.A.Q. at the bottom of the first post

• Q: It doesn't work with KSP x64

We'll have to repeat the first answer here. There is nothing different about x64 KSP build from the modding support standpoint, so we can't do anything about it's performance. Reports indicate it is highly unstable no matter what mods you are using. Some people manage to make it work, but it might as well be a roll of the dice, and since nobody has any idea why it crashes so much.

Let me clarify though that I'm just trying to help here just so you could maybe avoid unpleasantries in the future! Not trying to be a smartsas

[Wolfwood]

I would say you would be better off adopting a safer mindset than rely on someone else to keep you up and running For instance, I never install a mod without first checking the OP and a few pages of comments (sometimes ). In this case you would probably have started your elimination process with B9 right off the bat if you would have read the F.A.Q. at the bottom of the first post

Let me clarify though that I'm just trying to help here just so you could maybe avoid unpleasantries in the future! Not trying to be a smartsas

I understand. But realize, i never said it didnt work. Just that it tosses up an error on loading in .25, where as it didnt in 24.2 (64-bit). I dont even mind if that is in there as just a warning, it would just be helpful if (as i said, if you were able to) the error message listed which mod was giving the warning.

http://cloud-4.steampowered.com/ugc/539631097973719983/16107BFA8E6EF574A80BBCC121CA9C96D176BC42/

As you can see, its not very helpful in telling which mod it 'detected'. It does seem like a general game warning, but it only brings that window up after I install B9.

[AetherGoddess]

I've been working on updating to the latest KSP from 24.2 to .25. However i have narrowed down an error screen that pops up when i start that says a Mod is incomparable with 64-bit. This mod turned out to be B9. Wasnt sure if you were aware of this or not. Also not sure if you are able to affect that error window by putting your mod in it, as i had to manually go though each mod to figure out which one was causing the error to appear.

i'll be a smartsas: B9 is a parts mod. it doesn't have any code that could be incompatable with Win64.

Granted B9 has plenty of plugins it depends upon, like Crossfeedenabler, Firespitter, JSI,KineTech, Klockheed, ResGen, Virgin Kalactic, etc. and some prerequisites that explicitly don't support Win64, like FAR & NEAR, but the way Unity (actually .Net) handles plugins, there isn't any difference between x64 and x86 code.

All of this is immaterial when compared against the known Win64 instability. the Win64 version has some unknown memory allocation bug that fails spectacularly when allocation approaches the 32-bit line. this is why Ferram, among others, don't support Win64. it's too hard to sift through the default bugs to find actual bugs caused by the mods.

in summary, as you already know, B9 has A LOT of stuff in it, and by itself it can crash a 32-bit version with an out of memory error. so if we have a known stock bug when you get past the 32-bit line, and a mod that can push memory over the 32-bit line by itself, then that mod will trigger the stock bug regardless, and make it seem like it was the mod's fault, when really the same amount of memory with ANY mods will trigger that bug.

Edited November 2, 2014 by AetherGoddess

[BudgetHedgehog]

The bottom warning is due to ModuleManager and the dialog box is from CompatabilityChecker - usually bundled with plugins. Plugins are not from B9. Sure, B9 uses them (extensively), but if you remove the B9 folder, you'll still likely see that warning.

EDIT: Ninja'd by a goddess

[Wolfwood]

The bottom warning is due to ModuleManager and the dialog box is from CompatabilityChecker - usually bundled with plugins. Plugins are not from B9. Sure, B9 uses them (extensively), but if you remove the B9 folder, you'll still likely see that warning.

EDIT: Ninja'd by a goddess

yea, i was just including the screenshot as a whole, i knew it was from the module manager.

Regardless, the mod itself does work in game. I was just making the suggestion for more information.

[Dermeister]

Engin test of new prototype.

[Konnor]

new prototype

Nice, but how does it perform without vertical stabilizer?

[Damaske]

Nice, but how does it perform without vertical stabilizer?

The Vector ability of the Engine is very high, Also there is control surfaces that might help keep is straight. I've messed around with a few myself but they were difficult to fly.

[Dermeister]

Nice, but how does it perform without vertical stabilizer?

It dosent need Stabs since its got Trust vectoring and the Flaperons do pitch aswell and the Elerons do roll. The wings are twards the back and I have plans to add canards at the front. I also have plans to add Rudders later on but in that pic I was only testing the engine and making sure my control surfaces and flaps were configured properly. It's Still WIP

[Lei07]

Hi! Firstly, just a massive thankyou to the B9 team, and the other mod authors that lend different elements to this mod, for keepng it up to date, fresh, and fun. The B9 team have really outdone themselves with this release, it's really quite mindblowing!

Okay, this is just a quick question, not a complaint or a gripe, and I'm repeating this post in both the B9 and FAR forums, as it relates to both. Are the airbrakes working as intended? I remember many stated that there were "overpowered" in 24.2 and prior builds, have they been adjusted to compensate for this? Just cant find anything specifically in the patchnotes of both FAR and B9.

Thats it! Thanks for any response, and please keep up the fantastic work!

[Master Tao]

Not mentioned anywhere that I've seen, but FAR cuts all deployed airbrakes to 1/5 of their default drag.

[Lei07]

Thanks muchly!

[K3-Chris]

Protip: can use tweakscale to embiggen (yes it's a word) the airbrakes to make em more effective.

[TheGatesofLogic]

The Vector ability of the Engine is very high, Also there is control surfaces that might help keep is straight. I've messed around with a few myself but they were difficult to fly.

Regardless of the degree to which that engine can vector, it can only vector in one dimension so it provides absolutely no yaw control. Engine yaw control requires two of those engines and the ability to adjust the thrust on those engines individually, which is only possible with a plugin that I forget the name of.

Alternatively you could rotate that engine sideways, but that would remove the pitch authority the engine gives

[Dermeister]

Regardless of the degree to which that engine can vector, it can only vector in one dimension so it provides absolutely no yaw control. Engine yaw control requires two of those engines and the ability to adjust the thrust on those engines individually, which is only possible with a plugin that I forget the name of.

Alternatively you could rotate that engine sideways, but that would remove the pitch authority the engine gives

I plan to add rudders like I said WIP it was to test the engines that I had it out on that peg holder thing I haven't even doen the first flight yet.. I'm taking my time with it. Designing wing shapes checking out the data in FAR ect. it's a slow process but I'm very meticulous when it comes to designing stuff.

[K3-Chris]

I'm not sure FAR supports having splitting control surfaces that act like rudders the way real flying wings do it, basically on the trailing edge are a double set of control surfaces on both sides that join together to make a fairly sharp rear edge or split to act like an airbrake.

Can see the rudder in action on the wing here:

Pretty sure they also help with pitch, both the combined angle and combined spread used so to speak.

Could use the compressed air nozzles like our drone examples.

Quite interesting study in how my B9 HL SSTOSPs to launch OKS modules to my station has progressed:

Realized by the last one that I came back nearly half full of fuel and oxidizer, cut the fuel load drastically and thus could get away with a smaller overall plane with the same payload capacity.

Full album here: http://imgur.com/a/0OHkE#0

Edited November 5, 2014 by K3|Chris

[protonv]

sorry for stupid question and bad english. Anyone have craft file of these giant ship? .I try to build them but can't find out how to decoupler part, how to use docking port...etc .It will be great if I have craft file for reference.

http://i.imgur.com/lKUcJR5.jpg

[Ren8428]

Yeah it's a very weird problem, I can't figure it out for the life of me, the flaps/control surfaces/ailerons don't respond to the proper "wsad" input, and there doesn't seem to be any setting to change this, the parts are simply decorations that provide no function.

Stock control surfaces, Saber and other engine gimbals, SAS reaction wheels, and RCS thrusters all work, but wing flaps don't. How can I fix it? I've done a clean install twice and none of the mods I have conflict. I'm running KSP on x64 (because x32 just doesn't pull the load) could there be some kind of issue there? I know you guys wouldn't just leave being able to control the plane out of the mod (an aerospace mod at that) so I wouldn't dare assume that.

I would greatly appreciate your help with this.

Cheers.

[Master Tao]

I'm running KSP on x64

Do you have FAR or NEAR installed? They disable themselves on KSP x64 for Windows to avoid adding to it's inherent instability. You could try Linux x64 or ATM.

[Guest]

Or you could try the 64bit fix for FAR. There's one on the forums. And don't use ATM's aggressive version. It'll kill your texture quality. Use LoadOnDemand if you decide to go 32bit, together with ATM basic (which doesn't spoil textures).

[Ren8428]

Do you have FAR or NEAR installed? They disable themselves on KSP x64 for Windows to avoid adding to it's inherent instability. You could try Linux x64 or ATM.

I did have it installed but I uninstalled it when I found out that it may be part of the problem. The error still occurs after I uninstalled it, the bug seems to be coming from B9 itself.