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

[Nansuchao]

Thanks Blowfish for your hard work. Sadly I don't I'll be able to offer my help for these mansions. Looking forward for the next release!

[kcs123]

Thanks for all devoted time, not only for B9, but for work on AJE too.

Speaking of latest:

There's a new feature in 1.0.5 which I'm torn on whether to use - varying Isp with mach. The stock jet engines don't do it, but real jets do. I know from experience that it creates an interesting, but also very challenging gameplay element, since you burn a lot more fuel as you go faster and efficiency drops. Thoughts?

I like all chalanges that KSP have to offer, but it might be just too much for some players. In my opinion, it will be better to tweak engines in more close to stock behaviour. Some players might like B9 parts but might dislike engine tweaks.

So, varying Isp with mach should be handled by AJE or similar mod. Or maybe be optional, separate MM config for varying Isp feature that could be enabled if wanted. Even better if it could be enabled/disabled trough mod GUI on KSC scene.

[asdfCYBER]

Just an update regarding my future plans.

I'd like to get a 1.0.5 update for B9 out.

Can't wait! Without B9 the game is not suitable for cool-looking planes IMHO.

There's a new feature in 1.0.5 which I'm torn on whether to use - varying Isp with mach. The stock jet engines don't do it, but real jets do. I know from experience that it creates an interesting, but also very challenging gameplay element, since you burn a lot more fuel as you go faster and efficiency drops. Thoughts?

My thought: HYPE! But seriously though, I don't think everyone will like that, since it will get even harder to build a SSTO.

I like all chalanges that KSP have to offer, but it might be just too much for some players. In my opinion, it will be better to tweak engines in more close to stock behaviour. Some players might like B9 parts but might dislike engine tweaks.

So, varying Isp with mach should be handled by AJE or similar mod. Or maybe be optional, separate MM config for varying Isp feature that could be enabled if wanted. Even better if it could be enabled/disabled trough mod GUI on KSC scene.

MM config file? That won't work for the CKAN addicts. Better get a in-game button in the toolbar indeed, shouldn't be too hard (But I've never tried it, I haven't any coding skills beyond PHP, and even that is very bad ).

[blowfish]

So, varying Isp with mach should be handled by AJE or similar mod.

Well AJE does something completely different - a fully analytic model of engine performance. But the end result would be similar.

Or maybe be optional, separate MM config for varying Isp feature that could be enabled if wanted. Even better if it could be enabled/disabled trough mod GUI on KSC scene.

An optional config might work, but having something like that doable through the GUI is actually somewhat difficult.

- - - Updated - - -

My thought: HYPE! But seriously though, I don't think everyone will like that, since it will get even harder to build a SSTO.

Actually, based on the efficiency curves I've computed in the past, SSTOs wouldn't suffer too much, since the SABRE and RAPIER maintain most of their Isp as they gain speed. What would really suffer are supersonic planes, where fuel usage would increase a lot.

[kcs123]

MM config file? That won't work for the CKAN addicts. Better get a in-game button in the toolbar indeed, shouldn't be too hard (But I've never tried it, I haven't any coding skills beyond PHP, and even that is very bad ).

Actualy, if it is separate config file, preferably out of main B9 folder, it will be more CKAN friendly, for all parties, users, moders and CKAN staff, whoever handle metafiles for CKAN bot. It can be easier marked as optional/recommanded addition to main B9 mod for CKAN installs.

blowfish already answered second part, as tweakable button on GUI is too much work, probbably additional plugin(DLL) for this is required to be developed.

So, additional config file for this is more feasible option. But, since the final result will be similar to AJE, with exception that AJE is more accurate model for engine performance, why even bother with it ?

If someone is up for additional chalange, it can install AJE. I'm fine with either decision, just few additional thoughts on topic.

Anyway, thanks for all effort and time spent to improve this mod.

[Flashblade]

Just an update regarding my future plans.

I'd like to get a 1.0.5 update for B9 out. There is a fair bit of work to do for it though.

Some of the actively maintained plugins have been updated, others haven't. VirginKalactic and KineTechAnimation hopefully don't require any changes so I can just recompile them.

The jet engines are the area that's going to need the most work. Most importantly, given the presence of the new stock engines, their roles need to be rethought

• Small turbofan: Given that the Juno has the performance characteristics of a small turbojet, a more efficient option for small planes can remain. I don't think a change is needed here.
  
• Large turbofan: Currently redundant with the Wheezley. Since it's not stack attachable, it can be scaled though. There's a pretty big gap between the Wheezley and the Goliath, so this might be a good place for it. Real life equivalent would be CFM56 or similar, used on 737/A320 sized planes.
  
• F119: Will get an afterburning mode. It will have more thrust than the Panther (while of course being heavier), and better dry thrust in supersonic mode (to facilitate supercruise)
  
• B9 Turbojet: For fast planes but not as extreme as the Whiplash. Will probably have both wet and dry modes. Top speed just shy of mach 3
  

There's a new feature in 1.0.5 which I'm torn on whether to use - varying Isp with mach. The stock jet engines don't do it, but real jets do. I know from experience that it creates an interesting, but also very challenging gameplay element, since you burn a lot more fuel as you go faster and efficiency drops. Thoughts?

Plenty of other stuff to look at as well. The engines need contract constraints. The cargo bays should have adjustable deployment limits. Probably some stuff I've missed in this list.

After that's done, I'll work on integrating bac9's new parts. The plugin is now complete enough and tested enough that I feel comfortable releasing it. Hopefully I can complete this update before 1.1 comes around and breaks everything.

Hello blowfish, my advice on this matter is to postpone working on most of what you mentioned and just push out a functionality update. This update is suppossed to have a very short lifespan. Squad is aiming for a Christmas release of 1.1. Whether they can make that or not remains to be seen and they have been casting doubt on this possibilty as well, but if they miss it it is probably going to be early or mid January at the most. So this update is so short lived that most of the things you mentioned are simply not worth delaying an update for. Work on it after the functionality update. If you can still include it down the line, great. If you can't just include the stuff when we reach 1.1 and a major rework is probably inevitible. In the meantime everybody will still be able to use B9 in 1.05, which should be the primary goal here I think.

As for the varying ISP at mach, if stock isn't doing it neither should B9 by default. This sounds like an optional feature for people who want it. Are deployment limits for B9 cargo bays even workable? After all B9 cargo bays are older than the stock method and don't work the same way.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Flashblade

[Stone Blue]

I agree with flashblade. If its possible to get the mod working with 1.0 to 1.05 (or at least 1.0.4 & 1.0.5, as there are lots of people that will probably be using 1.0.4 until well after 1.1 comes out), relatively easy, and just not add any thing new that 1.0.5 adds....Then I would just push a working update as-is...

[blowfish]

I'll think about it. Here's what would be required for a minimal update:

• Plugin updates: a bunch have been updated already, some haven't:
  
  • CrossFeedEnabler - NathanKell is active so I can poke him about it
    
  • KM_Gimbal_3 - Sarbian is active so I can poke him about it
    
  • VirginKalactic and KineTechAnimation are no longer being maintained but will probably be fine with a recompile
    

  [*] All ModuleScienceExperiment now need constraints. Can usually be copied from stock with some modifications

  [*] Might update intakes with mach curves from stock. Not strictly necessary but pretty easy to do.

[Nansuchao]

If this is helpful, I tested B9 on a new install with Exception Detector, and no NRE at all comes from B9 parts used in VAB/SPH or in flight.

[Jimbodiah]

It would be awesome to know this mod works on 1.0.5 and will be updated. It's too awesome to drop. I love the OPT spaceplane parts, this would be a super addition.

[Nansuchao]

The Maintenance Port from the Blowfish signature works properly.

[Flashblade]

I'll think about it. Here's what would be required for a minimal update:

• All ModuleScienceExperiment now need constraints. Can usually be copied from stock with some modifications
  
• Might update intakes with mach curves from stock. Not strictly necessary but pretty easy to do.
  

I have synced up with your repository, meaning I feel like working on this again. Where are the science constraints mentioned? I'm unable to find that.

Edited November 15, 2015 by Flashblade

[blowfish]

I have synced up with your repository, meaning I feel like working on this again. Where are the science constraints mentioned? I'm unable to find that.

On ModuleScienceExperiment, there are CONSTRAINT nodes which specify where you will get contracts to test them. They can mostly be copied from the stock engines.

[W1ntermute]

[quote name='Flashblade']Hello blowfish, my advice on this matter is to postpone working on most of what you mentioned and just push out a functionality update. This update is suppossed to have a very short lifespan. Squad is aiming for a Christmas release of 1.1. Whether they can make that or not remains to be seen and they have been casting doubt on this possibilty as well, but if they miss it it is probably going to be early or mid January at the most. So this update is so short lived that most of the things you mentioned are simply not worth delaying an update for. Work on it after the functionality update. If you can still include it down the line, great. If you can't just include the stuff when we reach 1.1 and a major rework is probably inevitible. In the meantime everybody will still be able to use B9 in 1.05, which should be the primary goal here I think.

As for the varying ISP at mach, if stock isn't doing it neither should B9 by default. This sounds like an optional feature for people who want it. Are deployment limits for B9 cargo bays even workable? After all B9 cargo bays are older than the stock method and don't work the same way.

Just my thoughts on the matter.[/QUOTE]

Squad will never release 1.1 by Christmas, nuh-uh, not with their history of long development time between versions. I'd say March next year at the earliest, and that's being optimistic...

[Motokid600]

[quote name='W1ntermute']Squad will never release 1.1 by Christmas, nuh-uh, not with their history of long development time between versions. I'd say March next year at the earliest, and that's being optimistic...[/QUOTE]

No, not that long. 1.1 has been in development for a long time. I'd be surprised if it was before new years, but more likely January.

[kcs123]

Well, what was time frames between 0.23 - 0.24 - 0.25. - 0.90 and how much time was passed between 0.90 and 1.0 ?
We all know how 1.0. was made, so after that we were quickly have 1.0.1 up to 1.0.4 in short time between versions, compared to 0.2x versions.

So, everything is possible, we can only guess about it. I would like 1.1. release ASAP, because most anoying bug (memory leak between scenes) is still present in 1.0.5. That limit amount of possible mod usage a lot on windows machine.

[Flashblade]

Since 1.05 was split off from 1.1 I think we do not have that long to wait. Meeting the Christmas release is doubtful I think, but January is likely. BTW blowfish there is a pull request from me.

[blowfish]

With help from Flashblade, many of the 1.0.5 critical changes have been made. ModuleScienceExperiment has been updated on the engines. All the intakes now have curves ([s]might need area adjustments though[/s] EDIT: done). A good number of the dependencies have been updated. All the changes are made in the Bitbucket repository, I'm not going to make a release for now (1) Because I wouldn't consider the 1.0.5 update complete yet and (2) Because bac9 still hasn't been around to make the previous release official. Edited November 19, 2015 by blowfish

[Flashblade]

So basic compatibility with 1.0.5 is in the repo, grab it while it is still hot :cool:

[Flashblade]

I discovered a bit of a bummer. I took a stock Aeris 4a and under normal conditions you should just be able to floor the whiplash turbojets on a 30 degree ascent until they run out of air. With B9 they mercilessly explode between 8000 and 9000 meters even if you put them on zero thrust. This is caused by a totally outdated global module manager config called B9_Aerospace-Squad_Jet_Balance.cfg. For now remove or rename this config file or you can't use the whiplash as intended.

blowfish I think we should simply delete this file since balancing Squads jets isn't at all necessary anymore just as ferram said when 1.0 hit the scene.

P.S. This only affects FAR users. Edited November 21, 2015 by Flashblade

[blowfish]

General update, for anyone who's managed to sort out their subscriptions at this point

• The gimbal module that B9 uses, KM_Gimbal_3, is currently incompatible with the particular setup that B9 engines have.  It should be possible to fix, however I'm not sure how long it will take.
• The F119 now has separate afterburning and dry engine modules, and more stockalike thrust curves.  The turbojet will follow, then the rest of the engines (no afterburning modules obviously)
• I discovered that intakes need some adjustment
• I've included a new plugin, B9 Animation Modules, which includes a few animation modules specific to B9
  • In order to avoid having to change the animations on the F119's model (which I don't have access to anyway, there is ModuleB9AnimateEngineMultiMode.  It gives some variation with mach number too.
  • KineTechAnimation will go away in a few commits, as I have replaced the single module we use from it with ModuleB9AnimateIntake
  • A bug with the stock ModuleFXAnimateThrottle prevents it from being used with the F119's heat animation.  Fixed in ModuleB9AnimateThrottle

Edited November 30, 2015 by blowfish

[blowfish]

So the engine overhaul is basically done.  Here are some highlights of the changes:

• The Turbojet now has separate dry and wet modes
• The medium jet pod has been scaled up so if fits nicely between the Wheezley and Goliath
• All engines have stockalike thrust curves, and the squad jet balance config has been removed
• Thrust has been adjusted on most jets to be more in line with stock
• Various intake adjustments
• KineTechAnimation is no longer a dependency.  I'm a little sad to see it go, but we were only using one module from it.
• On that note, if you're updating from git, make sure to install B9AnimationModules.  It is a required dependency and several things will not work without it.

I've also discovered that the Firespitter VTOL module is broken.  Firespitter has pretty generous licensing terms, so if I can find a quick fix I might fork it in order to fix.  In the long run this would also allow getting rid of the Firespitter dependency.  But we'll see.

[sarbian]

On 30/11/2015 21:38:52, blowfish said:

• The gimbal module that B9 uses, KM_Gimbal_3, is currently incompatible with the particular setup that B9 engines have.  It should be possible to fix, however I'm not sure how long it will take.

About hat, I did some test and it works fine for me...

[blowfish]

6 hours ago, sarbian said:

About hat, I did some test and it works fine for me...

With changes or without?  And in the editor or in flight?  It seems to work fine in the editor, and it's possible I saw it work once in flight (under unknown conditions which I couldn't replicate).  But as far as I can tell actual gimbal control in flight is generally broken.

[Hellbrand]

Hwy what's up with the Mk.2 Parts and fuselages. are we having to wait on those or will we not be seeing them any time soon?