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

[V8jester]

I've been checking this post every day hoping that a 1.0.4 version would be released....

Any news?

You do know about the dev version correct?

https://bitbucket.org/blowfishpro/b9-aerospace

[EspenB89]

Ehh, I think it's fine to answer here. The reason is that thrust now falls off with atmospheric density, which it did not in 0.90. Thrust also increases with speed though, so you really just need to go faster to go higher.

I will add that the way I have it set up right now, thrust falls off faster than in stock - in B9 it's linear with density whereas in stock it doesn't fall off that fast.

Tnx so much Blowfish for your answer.

However when I try now, im maxed at mach 1,2 at 5km, TWR is at 0.88. With 5-10 degree inclination I ended now at around mach 2,5 at 12k height, but at that point the thrust and lift was so little I started to fall soon after no matter which inclination I had. Is there any1 else that manages to get their plane to orbit? Has there been any major difference made in the latest FAR? btw im also using b9 procedural wings.

Tnx

Espen

[blowfish]

Tnx so much Blowfish for your answer.

However when I try now, im maxed at mach 1,2 at 5km, TWR is at 0.88. With 5-10 degree inclination I ended now at around mach 2,5 at 12k height, but at that point the thrust and lift was so little I started to fall soon after no matter which inclination I had. Is there any1 else that manages to get their plane to orbit? Has there been any major difference made in the latest FAR? btw im also using b9 procedural wings.

Tnx

Espen

It's definitely possible to get to orbit, you just have to manage your ascent path. If you're using FAR, you can use the dynamic pressure (Q) indicator - thrust is roughly proportional to Q, so if it drops too much it will kill your thrust. I try to keep it between 30 and 50 kPa for the whole flight, but going a bit higher isn't necessarily bad. I don't usually pay attention to the altitude indicator on my flights (mach and Q are better descriptions of plane performance), but I can tell you that I have no trouble reaching mach 5 before switching modes.

[Temeriki]

Will try...

I think the force is applied in such way that the craft spin axis goes right through the CoM, which is where the clamp is placed. I noticed the bug for the first time when launching the craft, on wheels, and direction and point of application looked exactly the same.

I have not tried to load it in the VAB.

KJR and StockBugFix, right?

Yes to both of those, they have definitely increased my success rate developing viable craft, especially with initial physics loading. I loved those bugs that would cause random vibrations after physics load, the oscillation would increase until it exploded everywhere. Were talking launching parts past physics distance. KJR covers the majority of part connections, stockbugfix works on specific parts, notably the mk3/mk2 parts and adapters.

[PCanas]

Ok, so tried again with the mods and... it took 1.5 seconds to happen, instead of just 1 lol

In fact, it blew up in such a way that I managed to go at 12k m/s in just 1 second... amazing!

Anyway, I managed to place 3 trailing edges in a row, all next to each other and nothing happened, then tried, from fuselage outwards, trailing edge --> trailing edge --> control surface --> trailing edge, and it went boom. Basically, I can't seem to find a pattern...

Meanwhile, built a large SSTO and placed a control surface between 2 trailing edges and everything works fine. The wing pieces are not centered with the fuselage, they are "one tick" below the center. However, noticed another bug: the S2 part that expands to the wide parts (can't remember the name) and has air intakes on it, these don't work. I turned the SABRE engines on with just that air intake and they switched to rocket mode instantly.

[blowfish]

Ok, so tried again with the mods and... it took 1.5 seconds to happen, instead of just 1 lol

In fact, it blew up in such a way that I managed to go at 12k m/s in just 1 second... amazing!

Anyway, I managed to place 3 trailing edges in a row, all next to each other and nothing happened, then tried, from fuselage outwards, trailing edge --> trailing edge --> control surface --> trailing edge, and it went boom. Basically, I can't seem to find a pattern...

Thanks for the info. If more reports about this surface I'll look into it more, but for now I don't think there's much that can be done.

Meanwhile, built a large SSTO and placed a control surface between 2 trailing edges and everything works fine. The wing pieces are not centered with the fuselage, they are "one tick" below the center. However, noticed another bug: the S2 part that expands to the wide parts (can't remember the name) and has air intakes on it, these don't work. I turned the SABRE engines on with just that air intake and they switched to rocket mode instantly.

Good catch. Fixed.

[EspenB89]

It's definitely possible to get to orbit, you just have to manage your ascent path. If you're using FAR, you can use the dynamic pressure (Q) indicator - thrust is roughly proportional to Q, so if it drops too much it will kill your thrust. I try to keep it between 30 and 50 kPa for the whole flight, but going a bit higher isn't necessarily bad. I don't usually pay attention to the altitude indicator on my flights (mach and Q are better descriptions of plane performance), but I can tell you that I have no trouble reaching mach 5 before switching modes.

Tnx :-)

Ill try that :-)

Espen

[PCanas]

Good catch. Fixed.

So I have redownload the mod to fix the part? Or is there any easy file editing I can do?

[EspenB89]

Tnx :-)

Ill try that :-)

Espen

Tnx Blowfish it worked :-D Though now my engine explode at 3-4mach cause of overheating :-P

Im though wondering if this might be because of a b9 bug.

As you can see the sabre precooler says "precooler: offline. Intake: Not found." Even though I have 4 intakes, 2 DISX Diverterless large and 2 RNM Variable Geometry Intake, one of each that you can see in the picture.

Does the Sabre precoolers only work with the sabre intakes?

Tnx

Espen

[blowfish]

So I have redownload the mod to fix the part? Or is there any easy file editing I can do?

If you just redownload the cfg for the S2W intake it will be fixed, but the download really isn't that huge.

- - - Updated - - -

Tnx Blowfish it worked :-D Though now my engine explode at 3-4mach cause of overheating :-P

The SABREs? That's odd, they have no mach dependent heating. Maybe it's related to the issue below?

Im though wondering if this might be because of a b9 bug.

As you can see the sabre precooler says "precooler: offline. Intake: Not found." Even though I have 4 intakes, 2 DISX Diverterless large and 2 RNM Variable Geometry Intake, one of each that you can see in the picture.

Does the Sabre precoolers only work with the sabre intakes?

So here's the thing. The precoolers don't actually do anything. It looks like you have some mod that *makes* them do something, but it's not B9. And whatever that mod is, it's not working properly.

[Konnor]

So here's the thing. The precoolers don't actually do anything. It looks like you have some mod that *makes* them do something, but it's not B9. And whatever that mod is, it's not working properly.

Might be Interstellar, and it only recognizes stack-mounted intakes attached directly to the precooler (or at least it did so, back in the days).

[EspenB89]

If you just redownload the cfg for the S2W intake it will be fixed, but the download really isn't that huge.

- - - Updated - - -

The SABREs? That's odd, they have no mach dependent heating. Maybe it's related to the issue below?

So here's the thing. The precoolers don't actually do anything. It looks like you have some mod that *makes* them do something, but it's not B9. And whatever that mod is, it's not working properly.

Might be Interstellar, and it only recognizes stack-mounted intakes attached directly to the precooler (or at least it did so, back in the days).

Yeah, I can see this is still true. After setting it up with 4 small sabre intakes directly connected to 4 small precoolers it works again :-)

Tnx for the help all :-), Now i just need to learn to keep it stable in higher altitude and not flip , and ofc land it again ^^

Again tnx

Espen

[PCanas]

So here's the thing. The precoolers don't actually do anything.

Will they ever work?

[blowfish]

Will they ever work?

There are no plans to give them functionality, no. But it's not immediately clear how they should work to begin with. The real (planned) SABRE could not function without the precooler - the compressor does work by extracting a temperature difference between the air and the fuel. So we could require precoolers for the engines to function, but that doesn't seem very interesting. Alternatively, the precoolers could extract heat from the engines, but (1) that's not really realistic and (2) You're basically in the same situation where you need precoolers in order to do anything useful with the engines.

[PCanas]

If you just redownload the cfg for the S2W intake it will be fixed, but the download really isn't that huge.

How/Where?

[EspenB89]

Hey. Found a bug with the cargo bays in the b9 MK2 series. For some reason the cargobay wont attach straight, when I hold the part over the spot where it snaps to the fuselage(before you click and fasten it) the part either flicks between a 45 degree angle and straight an untellable amount in a second(or as long as you hold the mouse over the spot.

I have not preangled the part. And it happens no matter which other mk2 part I try to attach it to.

I'll link a video which shows the problem.

[V8jester]

Hey. Found a bug with the cargo bays in the b9 MK2 series. For some reason the cargobay wont attach straight, when I hold the part over the spot where it snaps to the fuselage(before you click and fasten it) the part either flicks between a 45 degree angle and straight an untellable amount in a second(or as long as you hold the mouse over the spot.

I have not preangled the part. And it happens no matter which other mk2 part I try to attach it to.

I'll link a video which shows the problem.

https://youtu.be/Xu1tgfOBazw

It's just sensitive to switching between surface and node attachment. Hold "alt" and it will only attach by a node.

[blowfish]

How/Where?

Download this file:

https://bitbucket.org/blowfishpro/b9-aerospace/raw/c09f1a6315681a135b54883f87c047198ad575db/GameData/B9_Aerospace/Parts/Cockpit_S2_W_Body/Body-Front-Intake.cfg

and use it to replace the one at in GameData/B9_Aerospace/Parts/Cockpit_S2_W_Body/

[EspenB89]

It's just sensitive to switching between surface and node attachment. Hold "alt" and it will only attach by a node.

That doesnt work for me :S

And i dont think its switches between surface and node attach either as my mouse pointer is far away from the other craft part. I forgot to mention that there is one area where I can hold the part and it "presticks" to the other part (green glow) but then its at the odd angle and trying to tilt it upwards makes no visible difference no matter how much I press it to flip (though tilting it to the side and rotate works)

[blowfish]

Hey. Found a bug with the cargo bays in the b9 MK2 series. For some reason the cargobay wont attach straight, when I hold the part over the spot where it snaps to the fuselage(before you click and fasten it) the part either flicks between a 45 degree angle and straight an untellable amount in a second(or as long as you hold the mouse over the spot.

I have not preangled the part. And it happens no matter which other mk2 part I try to attach it to.

I'll link a video which shows the problem.

https://youtu.be/Xu1tgfOBazw

You're right, I messed up the stack nodes. Should be fixed now.

[bartof]

You're right, I messed up the stack nodes. Should be fixed now.

OK guys I got enuffffff:)

pls make it clear so we, simple ppl, can use HX to HaX galaxies?

Fixed means = download latest developer version nooow? the one 500+ mb with source catalogue?

[blowfish]

Fixed means = download latest developer version nooow? the one 500+ mb with source catalogue?

The actual download is only about 80 MB - the listed size of the repository includes previous versions of stuff which aren't included when you download it. And it's still in development, which changes can and will occur. If you want an elegant solution, learn how to use git so that you can have a local copy of the repository and have it pull only the necessary changes.

[barfing_skull]

Thanks again for getting this updated, seems like it's in at least a playable state now.

Question though on the CF34's. I don't know if it's the part, or the new aerodynamics, but they seem weak. In the below craft, I have 6 of them, but the plane maxes out at about 215m/s. The engines are TweakScaled to 1.875m, so have even more thrust. The craft weighs about 77 tons.

Previously I'd get the best speed, well over 300m/s, out of a similar plane at about 8000-10000m - a normal cruising altitude. This one, the thrust drops so fast that optimal is maybe between 3000 and 5000m. Is this behaving as expected, or do the CF34's need a bit more thrust?

Thanks....

[blowfish]

Thanks again for getting this updated, seems like it's in at least a playable state now.

Question though on the CF34's. I don't know if it's the part, or the new aerodynamics, but they seem weak. In the below craft, I have 6 of them, but the plane maxes out at about 215m/s. The engines are TweakScaled to 1.875m, so have even more thrust. The craft weighs about 77 tons.

Previously I'd get the best speed, well over 300m/s, out of a similar plane at about 8000-10000m - a normal cruising altitude. This one, the thrust drops so fast that optimal is maybe between 3000 and 5000m. Is this behaving as expected, or do the CF34's need a bit more thrust?

Thanks....

http://i.imgur.com/sH1nWNg.jpg

You have a very high TWR, so evidently it's not pure lack of thrust that's the problem. That being said, I tested the engines under FAR, and as I recall, the stock atmosphere is still a bit soupy. The thrust curves fall off pretty aggressively with mach number, but perhaps they fall off too quickly for stock aero. I'll take a look at this eventually, but more information on this and how much of a boost is needed at what mach numbers would be helpful.

[barfing_skull]

You have a very high TWR, so evidently it's not pure lack of thrust that's the problem. That being said, I tested the engines under FAR, and as I recall, the stock atmosphere is still a bit soupy. The thrust curves fall off pretty aggressively with mach number, but perhaps they fall off too quickly for stock aero. I'll take a look at this eventually, but more information on this and how much of a boost is needed at what mach numbers would be helpful.

Right, at the surface the TWR is great. It takes off like a bat outta hell. But by the time I'm at 8500m it's just above 0.30. The CF34, being a subsonic engine, it would seem to need decent thrust at mach 0.9 or so, a typical cruising speed.

Full Throttle:

At 435m, I have a TWR of around 1, and about 178m/s in a modest climb. Level at that altitude I can go about 246m/s. I get 115.4kN.

At 5000m, TWR is around 0.5. 205 m/s. 65.4kN.

9000m, TWR 0.31, 170m/s, 37.2kN.

10800m (ceiling?), TWR 0.25, 114m/s, 31.1kN.

So the loss of thrust seems mostly due to altitude or air intake, and not necessarily mach number. I'm flying pretty slowly at 10800m, so it's a low mach number, and my thrust is piddly. I can fly a lot faster at nearly ground level. In the past, up to abound 10000m, the lessening of drag overcame reduced thrust and I went faster. The opposite is happening here. I suppose it could be some drag problem, but that wouldn't explain the higher speeds at lower altitude.

I can't say I have a good feel for the effects of a boost or change in the curve, but it seems like it should decrease maybe half as fast?

Cheers,

-BS