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

[JaredTheDragon]

I tried installing the dev version, and while some of the parts showed up, it seemed like a large majority were missing. I didn't see any of the huge ship parts, for instance. Are those not included in the current dev version, or did I mess up somewhere along the way? Sorry if there's an obvious answer to this somewhere, but I could find none.

Do not install the Deprecated folder. All the parts are there, in mine, using the latest Dev build. Engines seem to be working more predictably and similar to the stock engines. That is to say, they sure overheat quickly! But good work, Blowfish and company. I can't even begin to keep up with you guys!

I'm using Heat Control and Heat Management. Would anyone be opposed to an HX-sized part, along those lines?

[Flashblade]

Juicy progress on blowfishs side of things, very nice. As for the problem with engines not getting any intake air at the runway, when you start that plane is there still unconsumed intake air? If so this is a problem that reared its ugly head for me in the new version of KSP. Never had it prior to this. Intakes and engines have to be built in a specific order or not all engines will be properly supplied with intake air. There is a post somewhere describing what the order is. I never looked it up myself because I came across this nifty little tool Intake build aid. It will sort the necessary order without you having to do anything but you can also manually assign intakes to an engine this way. Since I use this I never had problems with sputtering engines on the runway or the problem that an engine flames-out while the other runs on full power before reaching the point where it would run out of air.

As for the engines not reaching the desired output in stock how about a simple solution to that problem blowfish. Let's keep the curve the way it is but adjust thrust accordingly? I think the engines should reach the speed which bac9 put into the description in stock and FAR.

Also since quite a lot of people have been asking I am putting an as direct as possible link into my signature to get the B9 dev version.

Jared a HX size radiator would be a good addition I think but it isn't really in the scope of this project to add parts, it is just about making the parts we have now work as they should.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Flashblade

[blowfish]

As for the engines not reaching the desired output in stock how about a simple solution to that problem blowfish. Let's keep the curve the way it is but adjust thrust accordingly? I think the engines should reach the speed which bac9 put into the description in stock and FAR.

It's not a question of them reaching their max speed - if anything that will be easier now since supersonic thrust growth is much higher. It's a question of breaking the sound barrier - my recollection is that transsonic drag is quite hight in 1.0.2, and unlike in FAR there's no design changes you can make to minimize it. One other possibility bac9 suggested is including a config to revert the stock drag values to what they were in 1.0.0 since those were slightly more forgiving. If people would prefer more stockalike thrust curves then I can put those together, but I'd like some feedback on the current state of things first.

[NathanKell]

Given what's been said about 1.0.3 aero on Squadcasts etc., I'd just wait a bit.

[Vegatoxi]

In last dev build engines are messed up.

Both turbojets (b9 and stock) have ridiculous ~2500 thrust at mach 3.2 but cant even pass through the sound barrier.

My maximum is ~270 m/s in cruise flight at all altitude ranges.

Instead of turbojets, stock jet easly reach transonic speed and i believe - can pass through sound barrier but i dont fly high enough to check it.

Also both b9 turbofans are underpowered compare to previous dev build. Now they can barely reach half of transonic speed.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Vegatoxi

[ikarus]

Juicy progress on blowfishs side of things, very nice. As for the problem with engines not getting any intake air at the runway, when you start that plane is there still unconsumed intake air? If so this is a problem that reared its ugly head for me in the new version of KSP. Never had it prior to this. Intakes and engines have to be built in a specific order or not all engines will be properly supplied with intake air. There is a post somewhere describing what the order is. I never looked it up myself because I came across this nifty little tool Intake build aid. It will sort the necessary order without you having to do anything but you can also manually assign intakes to an engine this way. Since I use this I never had problems with sputtering engines on the runway or the problem that an engine flames-out while the other runs on full power before reaching the point where it would run out of air.

Hey thanks for the air innput aid !

Still, kinda useless tho since i cant attach any stock/other mod parts to b9 parts and vice versa ( cant attach b9 to any other parts) but to b9.

They do attach to surfaces (im talking about engines here mostly) but nothing will snap to the sockets besides the b9 parts.

Edit:

There's something really wrong here. I just attached some SABRE engines and they have no sounds and no particle FX

Edit2:

Gimbals of the SABRE engines dont work.

Edited June 16, 2015 by ikarus

[Flashblade]

@NathanKell That is good advice, let's wait and see what 1.03 has in "stock " for us (pun fully intended).

@Vegatoxi sounds like you are using stock aero. I guess we will wait with adjustments on that front until 1.03 hits. After all these changes could make any work obsolete.

@ikarus, that sounds like a messed up install. I am getting back to you on that, haven't tested our latest version yet.

Edit: Parts attach to stock parts without any trouble, Sabre's don't gimbal for me either but we have conflicting reports here. We have had claims that gimbal works and other claims it doesn't so this might just be a problem on our end.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Flashblade

[Vegatoxi]

@Vegatoxi sounds like you are using stock aero. I guess we will wait with adjustments on that front until 1.03 hits. After all these changes could make any work obsolete.

Well yes 1.0 stock aero good enough. But what you suggest? FAR?

No way. i've tried it 2 times since 1.0. First time i meet constantly aero failure on maneuver. Second time ("Ferri" build) in addition constantly craft shaking and destruction on bypass the sound barrier. It was enough to reject FAR use.

[Flashblade]

Well yes 1.0 stock aero good enough. But what you suggest? FAR?

No way. i've tried it 2 times since 1.0. First time i meet constantly aero failure on maneuver. Second time ("Ferri" build) in addition constantly craft shaking and destruction on bypass the sound barrier. It was enough to reject FAR use.

Question how sensible are you maneuvering? Past Mach 1 there should be only small adjustments to the course of your craft. If your trying to pull 15 gs in a turn your aircraft should disintegrate. If you want to turn hard do it below Mach 1 and your craft will stay intact as long as you watch your g meter a bit. But I haven't really suggested to you to use FAR. What I do suggest is to use stock engines until 1.03 hits and we see what kind of adjustments (if any) make sense in that hopefully improved aero system. 1.02 is a badly cobbeled together hotfix which doesn't even allow the basic jet engine for example to reach the speed of 1,7 Mach it should be able to reach by the description. It is a waste of time to adjust for this.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Flashblade

[Bakase]

Well yes 1.0 stock aero good enough. But what you suggest? FAR?

No way. i've tried it 2 times since 1.0. First time i meet constantly aero failure on maneuver. Second time ("Ferri" build) in addition constantly craft shaking and destruction on bypass the sound barrier. It was enough to reject FAR use.

Yes, FAR is good. If you're not going to build and fly your planes in a sensible manner, of course FAR won't be happy with it. With FAR, you actually need to consider the shape of your aircraft rather than just slap sixteen wings and a turbojet on a fuselage and call it a day.

Otherwise, you can wait until they update B9 for the stock aerodynamics -- which won't happen until 1.03 is released (along with a stock aerodynamics overhaul).

[Insanitic]

@NathanKell That is good advice, let's wait and see what 1.03 has in "stock " for us (pun fully intended).

@Vegatoxi sounds like you are using stock aero. I guess we will wait with adjustments on that front until 1.03 hits. After all these changes could make any work obsolete.

@ikarus, that sounds like a messed up install. I am getting back to you on that, haven't tested our latest version yet.

Edit: Parts attach to stock parts without any trouble, Sabre's don't gimbal for me either but we have conflicting reports here. We have had claims that gimbal works and other claims it doesn't so this might just be a problem on our end.

The Sabres gimbal for me. I know since I tested it out in orbit and used the rocket mode and my ship turned without any RCS/reaction wheels. All part attachments so far work well for me too in the latest dev build. Maybe the gimbal issue has to do with people having different versions of KM_gimbal?

[AccidentalDisassembly]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned - didn't see it in the last few pages; read the commits on bitbucket, not sure if it was fixed. In the dev version before the one I just downloaded right now, the stack nodes weren't placed right on the long MK2 to 1.25m adapter - they were both on one end of it.

[ikarus]

What about the sounds ? All the files are there. How come the SABRE doesnt make sounds ?

*and no visual effects

Edit1: Also automatic switching doesnt work.

it could be mod interference with others that use firespiter maybe *shrugs*

Edited June 16, 2015 by ikarus

[Flashblade]

For me the Sabre's have visual and audio effects as they should. Either it is mod incompatability or your install is borked. What exactly did you install? All you need is to copy the GameData folder over your GameData folder. If you copied everything the file structure won't be right.

[ikarus]

I think its some sort of mod incompatibility. Maybe with OTP ? the rest are way too different to make any relevance i think.

but then again b9 isnt compatible with ksp since version 0.9 ... and im not gonna download 700 mb of temporary dev files to clutter up my gamedata folder. :\

[blowfish]

I think its some sort of mod incompatibility. Maybe with OTP ? the rest are way too different to make any relevance i think.

but then again b9 isnt compatible with ksp since version 0.9 ... and im not gonna download 700 mb of temporary dev files to clutter up my gamedata folder. :\

Oh, so you're not using the dev version. In that case, your inability to attach B9 and stock parts is expected because many of the stack nodes had to be flipped all of the issues you have experienced are expected. If you don't want to use the dev version then sorry, can't help you. Either go back to 0.90 or wait for an official release.

Edited June 16, 2015 by blowfish

[Flashblade]

I think its some sort of mod incompatibility. Maybe with OTP ? the rest are way too different to make any relevance i think.

but then again b9 isnt compatible with ksp since version 0.9 ... and im not gonna download 700 mb of temporary dev files to clutter up my gamedata folder. :\

Indeed if your are not even using the mostly functional version but instead R 5.2.8 why do you even bother to report stuff? We have already fixed all of the stuff you have reported.

[run1235]

I think its some sort of mod incompatibility. Maybe with OTP ? the rest are way too different to make any relevance i think.

but then again b9 isnt compatible with ksp since version 0.9 ... and im not gonna download 700 mb of temporary dev files to clutter up my gamedata folder. :\

if your not gonna use the dev version, then dont bother reporting bugs. of course 0.9 isnt going to be compatible with 1.0.X so i dont know why you even tried.

[ikarus]

Ok then sorry about that.... If i wish to use the dev version do i have to delete the 0.9 or can i copy paste it?

Edit: also i keep getting crashes with mono.dll in the log. Is that related to b9 ?

mono.dll caused an Access Violation (0xc0000005)
  in module mono.dll at 0023:1011940a.

Edited June 16, 2015 by ikarus

[Flashblade]

I am in a charitable mood ikarus. You do not have to clutter up your GameData folder with dev files. Indeed the repository information states that it is over 700 MB in size. If you had bothered to click the link you would have discovered though that you are downloading a zip file which is only about 73 MB in size. From this zip file you only need to extract what is in the GameData folder and put that into your GameData folder which means you will hardly use much more space than with the R 5.2.8 version and you actually would have a mostly functional version at this point.

But please don't come into this thread with an outdated version and start reporting bugs. I mean what is even your though process here? B9 is THE spaceplane mod and KSP 1.0.x has been out for over a month. Don't you think in this timeframe all these issues were known MUCH earlier. What you just did actually doesn't help but obstructs progress, because you make us chase ghosts. Fortunately by your report it was easy to tell that something really major was off.

Edit: Always remove earlier versions of a mod to be safe. There is no mono.dll in B9.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Flashblade

[ikarus]

Right. That make so much sense i feel stupid now, please forgive my clumsiness for creating this major confusion. Im a dev too(concept artist tho) used to work on a modding team for unreal engine and repositories ended up being lots of gigabytes of temporary texture and large unused files just for the sake of reverting and that's why i imediately ran away from the b9 download ( also thought it would require tortoise SVN). Anyway, thanks again for sharing the developer version with the community!

Edited June 16, 2015 by ikarus

[Squeaky]

Really happy to see so much work going into getting this mod updated.

Keep up the good work guys, wish I was smart enough to help in some way.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

Just another quick fix (latest dev): the T2 tail adaptor's nodes appear not to have been updated yet (maybe still need the 1.0 to -1.0 flipperoo thing?)

[Flashblade]

@AccidentalDisassembly checked both your reports. The MK2 adapter is fine there are no problems on this front. I think you are getting confused there. Most of B9 fuselage parts also allow for surface attachment. When you are a little unprecise while trying to node attack, the part will often flip to surface attach instead. Press the ALT key to force node attachment and that will not happen. I do confirm problems with the T2 (tail) engine mount though. It only attaches right when you use Non-strict attachment rules in the debug menu, else the fuselage node gets ignored and it will attach at the engine node. I guess it is a part that is rarely being used because it only really fits the M2 cargo bays and s2 parts and nothing else. Thanks for reporting, not fixed yet cause not sure what causes that.

Fixed, will be in the next version.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Flashblade

[blowfish]

Hey bac9 - the Mk2 Adapter - 1.25m shroud doesn't appear to be voxelizing correctly in FAR. This can usually be traced to a non-solid collider.

EDIT: Also most of the parts appear to lack surface attach nodes, but that can be fixed in the configs.

Edited June 17, 2015 by blowfish