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

[kademlia]

Overheating issues have nothing to do with B9. It is a stock bug with the new heating system.

apparently yeah, just tried it without having b9 installed and same thing happens. so not related to B9.

[joebopie]

Hey B9 devs. First id like to say thankyou for ALL your hard work I really love this pack.

But ive realised something after doing a little testing. All the vtols I have made in the past (In .90) do no take off Vtol any more.

Now I know pretty much every engine in-game has had its power turned down due to the now massive lack of Drag we now have in stock and FAR has always had.

However the "mass" of the objects has not changed atall so now trying to use the stock ATMO engine as VTOL (E.G pointing down inside a cargo bay) is much less affective as well.

for this reason and for Funs sake Im asking that you to please make the Atmo VTOL engines much more powerfull more like a max thrust of 70-80 rather than 45.

as most people ive seen will only use the VTOL engines lifting the craft and have other engines to propel the plane to good speeds. so if the VTOLS were say less efficient or had a much more aggressive atmos and speed curves. it shouldn't allow people to "cheat" or abuse their power.

I know its possible to change the numbers in the config myself but i always feel like im cheating myself and when i live stream i feel im cheating the viewers. as they could not build the same thing i could with the same pack.

Great appreciation if you would consider my idea.

Thanks Joseph

"edit" maybe an after burner mode on them instead

Edited July 24, 2015 by joebopie

[Black Science Man]

Question:

When all the work on B9 is finished(Bac9, Blowfish, Flashblade, everyone else), will past B9 craft files break? Or will the past parts just be overwritten? Will my .90 or before crafts still work?

Thanks in advance, and I really do appreciate all of your hard work on this mod. B9 is a KSP must-have!

[danfarnsy]

Does somebody want to point me in the right direction for taking a look at fixing/updating the MFDs for the cockpits (in particular, the navigational displays)? I have programming experience, but I haven't really tried my hand at mods besides playing with config files. Or if there is some other gap you all could use some help with, I'd love to help out.

[blowfish]

Does somebody want to point me in the right direction for taking a look at fixing/updating the MFDs for the cockpits (in particular, the navigational displays)? I have programming experience, but I haven't really tried my hand at mods besides playing with config files. Or if there is some other gap you all could use some help with, I'd love to help out.

The RPM stuff should be mostly just config changes. I'll point you to this and this commit to RPM's configs. I think those are the two that include the breaking changes.

- - - Updated - - -

Question:

When all the work on B9 is finished(Bac9, Blowfish, Flashblade, everyone else), will past B9 craft files break? Or will the past parts just be overwritten? Will my .90 or before crafts still work?

Thanks in advance, and I really do appreciate all of your hard work on this mod. B9 is a KSP must-have!

They'll still load, but there are a huge slough of balance changes which might cause them to not fly as they did before, if at all.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey B9 devs. First id like to say thankyou for ALL your hard work I really love this pack.

But ive realised something after doing a little testing. All the vtols I have made in the past (In .90) do no take off Vtol any more.

Now I know pretty much every engine in-game has had its power turned down due to the now massive lack of Drag we now have in stock and FAR has always had.

However the "mass" of the objects has not changed atall so now trying to use the stock ATMO engine as VTOL (E.G pointing down inside a cargo bay) is much less affective as well.

for this reason and for Funs sake Im asking that you to please make the Atmo VTOL engines much more powerfull more like a max thrust of 70-80 rather than 45.

as most people ive seen will only use the VTOL engines lifting the craft and have other engines to propel the plane to good speeds. so if the VTOLS were say less efficient or had a much more aggressive atmos and speed curves. it shouldn't allow people to "cheat" or abuse their power.

I know its possible to change the numbers in the config myself but i always feel like im cheating myself and when i live stream i feel im cheating the viewers. as they could not build the same thing i could with the same pack.

Great appreciation if you would consider my idea.

My experience in testing was that the current thrust is workable, though it requires a very light craft to work. Based on the actual size of the engine, I wouldn't feel comfortable increasing the thrust as it is, but I might consider upscaling the engine a bit and increasing the thrust if it's really necessary. The Isp is already quite low.

Edited July 26, 2015 by blowfish

[joebopie]

I understand why for realism you are reluctant to change it.

but that's precisely why I ask because I know you updated the engine thrust using "real" data but "real" isn't always fun as we know.

if the only VTOL's are simple and small that sounds very boring to me. None of the elaborate VTOLS I used to build are possible anymore as ive been trying but most of the plane endsup being there just to be VTOL.

how about an after burner mode that has 2x thrust with 2.5x the fuel use or something.

thanks for thinking about it even if you don't change anything.

[JaredTheDragon]

VTOLs are still possible, and Thrust Controlled Aviation is the key, regardless of which part-set you prefer.

[joebopie]

yes, but Possible and FUN are different matters. I used to have VTOL SSTO planes that took fuel to my space stations.

Thrust Controlled Aviation? you mean auto balancing the craft on each engine?

if so that doesn't help if you don't have the thrust to take off in the first place.

[blowfish]

For reference, the real life engine I based the VA1's stats on is the RD-41. Right now I have the Isp a lot higher than the real thing though, so I suppose it would be reasonable to bring the Isp down to realistic levels (2600-2800s whereas I have it at 4800s currently) in exchange for a comparable boost in thrust.

Afterburning doesn't make sense for two reasons: (1) High temperature exhaust is precisely what you don't want for VTOLs and (2) The way KSP currently works, every time you switch modes the engine needs to spool up from zero again. A little bird told me this might change in future versions but for now it won't work.

[Wolf Baginski]

Afterburning doesn't make sense for two reasons: (1) High temperature exhaust is precisely what you don't want for VTOLs and (2) The way KSP currently works, every time you switch modes the engine needs to spool up from zero again. A little bird told me this might change in future versions but for now it won't work.

High temperature exhaust for VTOL does two things. It damages stuff on the ground (particularly bad for use on ships) and if you pick up the hot air through the intake the thrust plummets. Even with the Hawker Harrier that could be a problem. It was one of the reasons why the idea of afterburning, an obvious thrust-improver, didn't really get off the ground.

The F-35B does some things differently, but it still looks a bit marginal in tropical conditions for STOVL.

[danfarnsy]

The RPM stuff should be mostly just config changes. I'll point you to this and this commit to RPM's configs. I think those are the two that include the breaking changes.

I've finished the config files, with only a couple of remaining issues:

First, the original static masks for the navball were too small under MOARdV's changes (they need to take up the full 512x512 space now). I've resized them with GIMP, but the pfdStatic.png came out fairly harsh and pixellated (and StaticMask came out pretty!), even though I used cubic interpolation on both. If somebody has the original resources used to make those, or isn't a n00b with GIMP, they may have better results. Or I can suck it up and soften it pixel-by-pixel... *shudder*.

Second, the HUD/APFD changes were a little beyond me right now. I did change them, and they're somewhat better, but the ladders are still upside down and the vertical bars are now defined in /JSI/RPMPodPatches/BasicMFD/PlaneHUD.cfg, rather than in B9's HUD.cgf and B9_MFD.cfg, which means they're now using RPM's vertical bars instead of /B9_Aerospace/Props/B9_MFD/images/HUDPFD/ADI_rightscale and ADI_leftscale.

Vertical bars used to take up several lines in the .cfg; now they've been replaced by this: "verticalBar = RadarAltOceanBar;VSIBar", which is given in PlaneHUD.cfg as

JSIHUD_VERTICAL_BAR

{

name = RadarAltOceanBar

texture = JSI/RasterPropMonitor/Library/Components/HUD/rightscale

useLog10 = true

variableName = RADARALTOCEAN

position = 480,160,64,320

scale = 0, 10000

textureLimit = 855,170

textureSize = 640

}

JSIHUD_VERTICAL_BAR

{

name = VSIBar

texture = JSI/RasterPropMonitor/Library/Components/HUD/leftscale

useLog10 = true

variableName = VERTSPEED

position = 96,160,64,320

scale = -10000, 10000

textureLimit = 1845, 208

textureSize = 640

}

I don't know if it's safe to create our own versions of these, e.g. name = B9RadarAltOceanBar, such that we're not calling the ones in the RPM package and instead we get to use the original B9 vertical bar textures.

Do you want what I've got so far, or should we wait until I've learned the difference between my asymptote and a hole in the graph? And how would you like to receive it?

[blowfish]

Wow, nice job. I'll try got get in contact with K3|Chris and see if he can provide the originals. As for what you have now, any fix, even an incomplete one, is welcome. If you don't know how to use Git, just post the modified files and I can integrate them.

[JaredTheDragon]

If somebody has the original resources used to make those, or isn't a n00b with GIMP, they may have better results. Or I can suck it up and soften it pixel-by-pixel... *shudder*.

If you need a hand with imagery, shoot me the image(s) and I'll resize it with Photoshop and some fancy plugins. I upsize stuff constantly for my architectural work (most construction material sites have horrible reference photos), so hopefully I can help here.

[danfarnsy]

I got the PFD and APFD working, including fixing textures that needed to be resized or flipped and changing the config files to match the new RPM format. Everything properly uses the B9 textures again, as well. The inversion on the APFD ladder was just a texture issue, too. I didn't convert any textures to .dds format, though it may be a worthwhile project as it may reduce overhead and load times.

Blowfish,

I installed git and a gui front-end, but I don't have permission to access your git repository on bitbucket. So here it is on dropbox:

removed link, see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92630-0-90-B9-Aerospace-Release-5-2-8-%28updated-30-12-14%29?p=2111662&viewfull=1#post2111662 for updated link

JaredTheDragon,

The relevant texture is in that dropbox link in /GameData/B9_Aerospace/Props/B9_MFD/images/pfdStatic.png . You can compare the old with the new and see if you can improve it any. In particular, the old one was already fairly harsh (no transparency fade on the border), so when I upscaled it, it simply reinforced the pixellation and isn't very pleasing. Compare it with StaticMask.png, which is much easier on the eyes. Otherwise, it's sized correctly and functional.

Edited July 30, 2015 by danfarnsy
Removed dropbox link and pointed to newer post

[dc4bs]

I've finished the config files, with only a couple of remaining issues:

First, the original static masks for the navball were too small under MOARdV's changes (they need to take up the full 512x512 space now). I've resized them with GIMP, but the pfdStatic.png came out fairly harsh and pixellated (and StaticMask came out pretty!), even though I used cubic interpolation on both. If somebody has the original resources used to make those, or isn't a n00b with GIMP, they may have better results. Or I can suck it up and soften it pixel-by-pixel... *shudder*.

If you've got the RAM and CPU horsepower, a 'brute force' method I've used with reasonable success for upscaling an image is to first enlarge it REALLY big. EG:2560x2560 Then you can do some easy, broad blurring and/or painting strokes using a very large brush around the details. Then rescale it back down to the size you need letting the editor do the final smoothing of the image that way. It looks horrendous while you are working on the big image but the end results can be surprisingly good for MUCH less work than pixel by pixel editing. MANY sins are smoothed over and made invisible in that last shrink step. And once the bulk work is done, you can always go back in and pixel edit those last few pesky drips and blobs.

[JaredTheDragon]

JaredTheDragon,

The relevant texture is in that dropbox link in /GameData/B9_Aerospace/Props/B9_MFD/images/pfdStatic.png .

I messaged you two updated .pngs, 512 and 1024 for forward-compatibility. Hope it helps.

[Yagami007]

Im willing to help out with development of this mod if you guys can direct me to the tutorials on how to mod.

[danfarnsy]

Jared, thank you very much!

I made small translation and scale changes, and they came out beautifully:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Blowfish,

I have posted an updated download with Jared's smoother PFD overlay, and I will be removing the previous link. Can you incorporate it into the dev version, because AWESOME!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r8c6gx24zj9v5ov/Danfarnsy_B9_MFD_Changes_20150730.zip?dl=0

Hopefully we can get some feedback on any other bugs with the MFD. In particular, I think there may still be some funkiness with the AFPDs' vertical bars.

[danfarnsy]

Im willing to help out with development of this mod if you guys can direct me to the tutorials on how to mod.

Yagami, Blowfish may be nearly done with the maintenance port. He may be able to answer any questions about immediate needs.

Bac9's update to the MK2 frames seems to be on hold, and I think the mod may still benefit if we could do some IVA work, but K3|Chris is a tough act to follow. I'm taking a look at Blender (and maybe Maya), but I'm not an experienced artist. The closest I've come to this sort of stuff is apparatus design with SolidWorks. If you've got some skills in this vein and can match the style / aesthetic of this mod, my guess is nobody will turn you down (though I'm not in charge of anything).

While I have seen some tutorials on modding wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Category:Modding_Tutorials, I haven't really gotten much use from them. If you have programming experience, you can likely pick up the syntax of C# fairly easy (if you already know it, even better), which is used to make .dll files for mods which add to or change game behavior. I know there are a few mod-makers who learned to program specifically to make KSP mods. It might be worthwhile to go through config files of stock and mod parts, as well as looking at the source code available from different mods to see how they're structured.

Those are just a few starting points from a guy who is just starting.

[JaredTheDragon]

I'm taking a look at Blender (and maybe Maya), but I'm not an experienced artist. The closest I've come to this sort of stuff is apparatus design with SolidWorks. If you've got some skills in this vein and can match the style / aesthetic of this mod, my guess is nobody will turn you down (though I'm not in charge of anything).

I use Maya and Photoshop for a living doing architectural visualiztion (arch/vi), and also Rhino3D (my main modeler). If we need any work done on models, I'm down to help. Here's a rather basic spaceplane I was building from the ground up, for practice, as a game-related example:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Nothalogh]

I use Maya and Photoshop for a living doing architectural visualiztion (arch/vi), and also Rhino3D (my main modeler). If we need any work done on models, I'm down to help. Here's a rather basic spaceplane I was building from the ground up, for practice, as a game-related example:

http://imgur.com/a/0Jxqn

Flashy design, but I'd look into area ruling if I were you

[blowfish]

Jared, thank you very much!

I made small translation and scale changes, and they came out beautifully:

http://imgur.com/a/EPVYJ

Blowfish,

I have posted an updated download with Jared's smoother PFD overlay, and I will be removing the previous link. Can you incorporate it into the dev version, because AWESOME!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/r8c6gx24zj9v5ov/Danfarnsy_B9_MFD_Changes_20150730.zip?dl=0

Hopefully we can get some feedback on any other bugs with the MFD. In particular, I think there may still be some funkiness with the AFPDs' vertical bars.

Awesome. The changes have been integrated.

Unfortunately, I discovered something else about the MFDs: it appears that having a camera view in the PFD background is no longer supported. Made a note about it in the RPM thread, but for now we'll just have to accept having the PFD and camera on different screens.

[SpaceToad]

So as far as an official release compatible with 1.0, not a beta, how far off are we? Starting to get impatient....

[blowfish]

So as far as an official release compatible with 1.0, not a beta, how far off are we? Starting to get impatient....

If you're getting impatient open up some configs and start updating cost and temperature values to equivalents in the squad parts. This isn't going to happen quickly if it's just me working on it.

[ss8913]

I tried, on a whim, making a new folder under GameData and copying just the old B9 landing lights and the infodrive part into it - I've revised/updated other stock parts by doing this in the past, such as my advanced vernor engines that run on hydrazine to complement the Interstellar part set... but anyway, I drop the 3 folders for the A1 N1 and Infodrive lights/parts in there. Logfile says parts are loading. I do have firespitter installed which is the only dependency I saw in the part config folders. Didn't show up in game though, and no error messages in the log.. what should I check next? Or should I just wait, and this is something that should not be attempted?