Flashblade Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 @national-holiday the engines are not in working condition as of yet, no point in using them yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumghai Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 New MK2 cockpit, slightly inspired by F-35. Has a subtype with an intake somewhat resembling X-32.https://i.imgur.com/AErSigEh.jpgI hate opaque matte glass material KSP parts are forced to have, so I guess I'll use a sideloaded reflective shader.Looks nice!Have you considered using the JSITransparentPod part module that already comes with the JSI RPM plugin? It'll allow you to make transparent windows and canopies that allows the cockpit interiors to be visible from the outside of the vessel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railgunner2160 Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 Damn, Awesome work Bac9!! Your remade MK2 system is going to be one badass set!! They'll likely become my go-to parts for Spaceplanes, looking forward to more!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
national-holiday Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 @national-holiday the engines are not in working condition as of yet, no point in using them yet.Well, apart of absence of teh animation I haven't noticed anything strange. Just have finished Kerbin-Mun-Minmus-Kerbin route using it and it's absolutely amazing, filling the gap between Terrier and Poodle this engine is exactly what I wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZewelVonLelek Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 New MK2 cockpit, slightly inspired by F-35. Has a subtype with an intake somewhat resembling X-32.https://i.imgur.com/AErSigEh.jpgI hate opaque matte glass material KSP parts are forced to have, so I guess I'll use a sideloaded reflective shader.Magnificent P.S. I don't want to push this too much or to sound rude, but you might have overlooked this:S2 is 2.5m with sides cut off and it has a very short adapter to 2.5m available, so I don't see any point in creating MK2 to S2 adapter.I understand... However, that 2.5m adapter looks kind of weird on planes when you have Mk.2 cockpit, then Mk.2 to 2.5m adapter, then 2.5m to S2 adapter, which is attached to mostly smooth S2 fuselage... the bulge is quite noticeable, especially when S2 is cut 2.5m... The same could be applied to S2 decouplers, that would come handy when creating F-111 style emergency capsule (but I have found a temporary way around that through docking port, poopload of struts, fuel lines and B9-PW cover parts), or to hollow S2 fuselage with small side doors (service module style) that might act as an short in-line cover for Mechjeb, KAS, TACLS and so on, when cargo bay is too long for your needs.But those are just small things, not that pressing... As about heat shielding, we'll see, I need to come up with a good way to toggle the textures on select parts of the mesh and the system from B9-PW will not work here.yeah, that might be difficult if you're trying to make the RAM usage as small as possible, and you would need new textures for top, bottom, both sides and whole thing covered in heatshield... or maybe not... dunno, I don't know much about texturing, and even less about what is possible in KSP or through Firespitter on that regard, but maybe you could have two types of textures (two .dds files), one shielded, one non-shielded, and have every texture separately applied four times on part of the part's mesh (top, bottom, left, right), and just switching which texture would apply for the part?Also, what is the fate of the Concorde/Tu-144/XB-70-style S3 cockpit? I'm looking forward to your reply... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grease1991 Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 New MK2 cockpit, slightly inspired by F-35. Has a subtype with an intake somewhat resembling X-32.https://i.imgur.com/AErSigEh.jpgI hate opaque matte glass material KSP parts are forced to have, so I guess I'll use a sideloaded reflective shader.Your stuff always blows my mind, Amazing work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murdabenne Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) Just a few pages back is this post from bac9 with a status update, which clearly states that there is no ETA:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92630-0-90-B9-Aerospace-Release-5-2-8-%28updated-30-12-14%29?p=1958396&viewfull=1#post1958396If you think 5 pages is too far back, it was quoted in this post 3 pages earlier:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92630-0-90-B9-Aerospace-Release-5-2-8-%28updated-30-12-14%29?p=1959079&viewfull=1#post1959079Then there’s this post just 2 pages back in answer to the last time someone asked the question:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92630-0-90-B9-Aerospace-Release-5-2-8-%28updated-30-12-14%29?p=1959953&viewfull=1#post1959953I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect people to read the few pages of the thread; I never suggested they read the whole thing. It’s true that it “might or might not tell you anythingâ€Â, but in my experience it’s “might†much more often than it’s “might notâ€Â.The thing is, this should not be necessary - almost all updates are posted to the first page via edits in many other addons. Thats why so many come in here asking. If you read the last page or 2, its all about models, but nothing clear cut to indicate that this is an official update thats in the works. Simply putting the status on the first page would stop a lot of these posts - and tat post is already 3 days back, which means the referenced posts are even farther back than that now - and what about 3 days from now when they are a dozen or so pages back? Reading a few pages isnt the right answer. Unless you repost the info every 3-4 pages, which is a waste. So maybe try again with that answer and reduce the snottiness a bit - a lot of newbies are here from 1.0 and Steam, and it might be more productive (and nicer) to refer them to the first page, as well as requesting the author to simply reference his latest posts in an edit of the first page - [;us it would prevent interruption to the thread with such things. Edited May 26, 2015 by Murdabenne typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarheel1999 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 The thing is, this should not be necessary - almost all updates are posted to the first page via edits in many other addons. Thats why so many come in here asking. If you read the last page or 2, its all about models, but nothing clear cut to indicate that this is an official update thats in the works. Simply putting the status on the first page would stop a lot of these posts - and tat post is already 3 days back, which means the referenced posts are even farther back than that now - and what about 3 days from now when they are a dozen or so pages back? Reading a few pages isnt the right answer. Unless you repost the info every 3-4 pages, which is a waste. So maybe try again with that answer and reduce the snottiness a bit - a lot of newbies are here from 1.0 and Steam, and it might be more productive (and nicer) to refer them to the first page, as well as requesting the author to simply reference his latest posts in an edit of the first page - [;us it would prevent interruption to the thread with such things.Stick around for for a while and you'll see how few people read the OP. It's a recurring issue that people will ask a question that is clearly answered in the OP. And that same question will be asked every 3-4 pages. This thread in particular is notorious for things like that because it is a very popular and highly recommended mod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashblade Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 If you read the last page or 2, its all about models, but nothing clear cut to indicate that this is an official update thats in the works.Are you serious? On the last two pages I posted a to do list progress report as well as what I had worked on yesterday which wasn't a small step at all. You are barking at the wrong tree right now. Bac9 is not working on a compatibility update because as he has stated he has a very limited amount of time, blowfish and I, we are doing this. By this post I can only guess that you have skipped over everything that has not been written by Bac9. There is no way to reach this conclusion otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowfish Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Yes, we have an officially sanctioned unofficial port in progress, which is not done but being actively worked on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barfing_skull Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Cheers,-BS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W1ntermute Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Hmm... I think with the news of KSP's update to Unity 5 coming and given the size of the mod, it's probably best to wait this one out and see how the other mods are affected first. There's a lot of stuff with Rigid body collisions, Audio, UV mesh compatibility issues, etc when porting from U4 to U5 that isn't compatible and may need overhauls. I feel if you are going ahead with it, it may be in vain for the time being. Were there no shift in engine builds occuring, then by all means. However, I think the community can afford to wait a little longer on B9 in this instance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elite0x33 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Hmm... I think with the news of KSP's update to Unity 5 coming and given the size of the mod, it's probably best to wait this one out and see how the other mods are affected first. There's a lot of stuff with Rigid body collisions, Audio, UV mesh compatibility issues, etc when porting from U4 to U5 that isn't compatible and may need overhauls. I feel if you are going ahead with it, it may be in vain for the time being. Were there no shift in engine builds occuring, then by all means. However, I think the community can afford to wait a little longer on B9 in this instanceThat probably won't be for a good little bit, at least 2-3 months if we're just throwing out spitball estimates and being super optimistic. What you've listed are very few things of which go with an engine update and with Squads QAQC's process it would take a while to ensure that nothing game breaking has occurred in the updated in terms of both performance and the game play itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railgunner2160 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 By Squad's own admission this is one massive undertaking going to Unity 5. Honestly I'd expect it to take quite a long time to even get to Experimentals, much less release. If Bac9 chooses to plow ahead regardless it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Also we don't have any idea just how bad things are even going to break at this point, with so little information about how things are going to break we have no reference for determining whether something is a good idea or not.....Honestly until we get that info I'm just happy to see the progress on B9 Aerospace!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bac9 Posted May 26, 2015 Author Share Posted May 26, 2015 There's a lot of stuff with Rigid body collisionsThere are no rigidbodies in the exported parts, so that's not an issue (and objects with that component don't break in U5 anyway).Audio, Parts don't contain audio components, so that's not an issue (they weren't changed anyway, U5 is just introducing a godly mixing system that has nothing to do with them).UV mesh compatibility issues, Nope, absolutely nothing like that. The only thing that can be stretched to be described as UV changes is the swap of Beast lightmapping system to Enlighten lightmapping system that made results of on-import UV2 lightmapping coords generations different between meshes imported in U4 and U5. Except parts have nothing to do with lightmapping system and not a single part is ever using UV2 coordinates, so that's not an issue.There are actual changes that can affect the mod, like removal of old wheel colliders - all B9 landing gears are guaranteed to be obsolete with U5 update landing. Except, uh, I'm thinking of dropping every single landing gear part from B9 anyway, because they serve no purpose anymore. BahamutoD adjustable landing gears are far, far superior versions of the same design filling every niche and far more than old static parts could ever have. And there are new perfectly looking stock landing gears from Porkjet. So there is no point in including old B9 gears anymore.Have you considered using the JSITransparentPod part module that already comes with the JSI RPM plugin? It'll allow you to make transparent windows and canopies that allows the cockpit interiors to be visible from the outside of the vessel.To be honest I'd prefer not to add any new external dependencies to already enormous dependency list, and I'm working on removing Firespitter dependency for mesh/fuel switched parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McPoisoned Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) Are you planning to support stock again with the 1.0 update or are you going to stick to Ferram? Edit: Forgot to say how cool the new Cockpit looks sir! Edited May 26, 2015 by McPoisoned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bac9 Posted May 26, 2015 Author Share Posted May 26, 2015 That depends on the definition of support. I'm thinking it would make sense to remove every single wing part from the pack once B9 procedural wing mod is stable, which is compatible with stock. Old issue with mass dependent drag making stock B9 aircraft impossible to fly is gone, and old B9 sample crafts are gone forever anyway, because new part set won't be compatible and balance is different. Old issue with intakes having to use absolutely insane mass values and very delicate aero values to work properly in stock is supposedly gone too.This makes stock viable with B9 again, I guess. It's not about "adding support", it's about some insanity disappearing from stock, which makes the part somewhat usable with no work on our side.I still can't recommend using stock over FAR at all, though, as it lacks extremely important features like occlusion between wing pieces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McPoisoned Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Alright thanks, with Support I ment "will it work with the new Aero in 1.0" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 what a funny airplane :-)Your cockpits are really pretty.The X-32 was more than a funny plane, it was the flying bullfrog. I actually watched a documentary on the competition between the X-35 and the X-32. In many ways the X-32 was a better craft, cheaper, more reliable, but not as "new" or "cool" as the X-35. So instead we got the X-35. I wont go into the "c"Raptor vs the YF-23. The F-23 was a FAR better aircraft than the F-22, but the F-22 was less revolutionary and thus the "safer" bet. Well we see how that is panning out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashblade Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 It's not about "adding support", it's about some insanity disappearing from stock, which makes the part somewhat usable with no work on our side.And that is what he says when I spent all of yesterday adding in stock Aero support for wings and lifting surface properties for MK2. I must say I am bit saddened to hear that you are going to throw all that work away and probably some more that I will put in to get things working but as a player I whole heartedly agree. By the way bac9 the testplane for stock I built yesterday actually had fairly good flight characteristics for stock Aero which feels all kind of wrong flying in. So the parts would actually work fairly well in their updated state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbrand Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) \o/ all this makes me happy! because soon I can start making decently futuristic looking craft again also: you sould make a tiny little tailgear or maybe some kickass chunky rover wheels.! Edited May 26, 2015 by Hellbrand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bugrahanlacin Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 All i wanted to say is thank you for this great mod. And we realy do appreciate your hard work on this mod and also the usefulness of the mod. I honestly dont even wanna play without it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bac9 Posted May 26, 2015 Author Share Posted May 26, 2015 And that is what he says when I spent all of yesterday adding in stock Aero support for wings and lifting surface properties for MK2. I must say I am bit saddened to hear that you are going to throw all that work away and probably some more that I will put in to get things working but as a player I whole heartedly agree. By the way bac9 the testplane for stock I built yesterday actually had fairly good flight characteristics for stock Aero which feels all kind of wrong flying in. So the parts would actually work fairly well in their updated state. I think blowfish wanted to make a legacy pack as some people prefer old wings, so I wouldn't say it was for nothing even if procedural wings would be the only wing part left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnWildman Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 @blowfish & FlashbladeFirst of all I would like to thank you guys for working on the compability.I have downloaded and installed your changes and found 2 issues so far (I dont know how to use github which is the reason that I use this thread if you guys do not mind)The first issue is, that the Sabre Intakes (at least the small ones) explode as soon as the craft is loaded on the runway.The secont issue is, that the sabre gimbal and controll surface animations are not working anymore. Not sure I this is my fault by making a mistake during installation.I used the 0.90 version before and it kinda worked without tweaks and by activating that cheat option. The first flight with your update (except for the annimation and the exploding intakes) was awesome. So once again thank youl.@bac9Thanks alot for this awesome mod, I am using it since 0.23 if I remember correct. Those new textures you have posted are looking awesome! Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowfish Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 The first issue is, that the Sabre Intakes (at least the small ones) explode as soon as the craft is loaded on the runway.The secont issue is, that the sabre gimbal and controll surface animations are not working anymore. Not sure I this is my fault by making a mistake during installation.The exploding is likely due to a typo in maxTemp. I'll look into the other issues. About the gimbal - you did install Klockheed Martian from the repository, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts