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

[SkyHook]

Thank's! You were right!!!

Happy flying

[klikkolee]

this is a fantastic mod, and it makes the game much more fun, much easier, and much prettier. however, there are some things that I feel are sorely lacking from the new hx parts. sorry if you wanted suggestions in a different place than this; I couldn't find a link to such a place on the first page. here are my suggestions:

an hx4 version of the structural hubs - this would make the logistics of attaching parts to the side of a ship significantly easier.

connection nodes on the side of the large triangular pieces - this will also make the logistics of attaching part to the side of a ship significantly easier.

parts with non-strange length - most of the parts have a length that is slightly longer than the "one" length that the different part sizes of the series are based around.

an end cap for the hx2 size - I would invision it as being a scaled up version of the hx0 version in which case it (and the hx0 one) should have a connection node on the side.

a cockpit - I believe there has already been talk about this, so I won't linger on it.

I would also recommend that you make it so that the hollow hx4 piece cannot radially attach, since that makes it a nightmare to attach.

[rifter]

I would also recommend that you make it so that the hollow hx4 piece cannot radially attach, since that makes it a nightmare to attach.

Editor extensions: alt+R to toggle radial attachment for a given part (it seems to also disable it globally, so you may need to do it twice more to get radial attachment back when you want it later)

[eygc]

I'm having huge problems with the MFT config. Apparently it's adding 3 tons of dry mass for every ton of fuel that I put into a part. This is totally breaking my S2 plane that used to be well balanced because now the tail section weighs in at 60 tons.

Did you maybe confuse the "mass" and "basemass" variables?

I was wondering why my tiny fighter couldn't get off the damn runway Deleted the MFT cfg.

[klikkolee]

Editor extensions: alt+R to toggle radial attachment for a given part (it seems to also disable it globally, so you may need to do it twice more to get radial attachment back when you want it later)

I know that works and use it, but it is a setting that really should be off by default

[AccidentalDisassembly]

I was wondering why my tiny fighter couldn't get off the damn runway Deleted the MFT cfg.

Indeed.. the MFT stuff is borked. Still trying to build a successful gargantuan carrier - 170,000 tons of dry mass in the rear! Yikes

[ArcFurnace]

The FsFuel Switch module in the S2 6m crew tank is overriding the TAC Life Support resources that were added by the MM config (I have TAC-LS installed, no RealFuels or ModularFuelTanks). The life support supplies are listed in the tooltip description, but when you actually place the part you get the part options for Structural/LF/LFO/RCS tank setups, and none of them have the life support resources.

[Taverius]

Thanks for the MFT reports guys, I'll take a look at it this morning.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

Thanks for the MFT reports guys, I'll take a look at it this morning.

I fiddled with it. Replaced all tank definitions with simple things like this:

MODULE {

name = ModuleFuelTanks

volume = 980

type = Default

}

It fixed many of the mass problems. However, certain parts (notably HX size 3 / 4x4 universal) can't be modified by MFT - says "This tank cannot hold resources".

EDIT: Think the inability to modify tanks was actually a problem with the save, not the config. Maybe. However the mass problems were very much better with just using the Default tank definition. The MM Config for the MFT stuff was unnecessarily complicated, IMO.

Edited September 7, 2014 by AccidentalDisassembly

[Grease1991]

Lol I was so stuck on 64 bit for a while until yes it would crash for no reason during the weirdest places, ( like switching back to KSC) But the reason why was so I could use a lot of mods but I tried 32 bit now and it actually is working way better than 64 bit if it makes sense? I mean I'm using KW, FAR, NovaPunch, Hangar Extender, Editor Extensions, MechJeb, and of course B9 with ATM and Mechjeb. I'm using aggressive for ATM and it looks ok but I thought B9 would not play nice with so many mods in 32 bit... I was wrong I guess. Has anyone else been using a lot of mods with B9? Can I go for some more like Visual enhancements Kethane and KAS?

I'm also running 32 bit with B9, Spaceplanes+, Mechjeb, Kas, kerbalGPS, KW, Near future contruction/electrical/propulsion/solar/spacecraft, Nova, part angle (I love that plugin) Remote tech, Scansat, and tac fuel balancer, along with the small stuff that b9 and others need like firespitter etc, and at start i was at 2.1 gigs so i think i have a bit of headroom

for more excess.

[Taverius]

The FsFuel Switch module in the S2 6m crew tank is overriding the TAC Life Support resources that were added by the MM config (I have TAC-LS installed, no RealFuels or ModularFuelTanks). The life support supplies are listed in the tooltip description, but when you actually place the part you get the part options for Structural/LF/LFO/RCS tank setups, and none of them have the life support resources.

I've had to disable the life support tanks for TACLS on the 6m crewtank when you're not using MFT. It was either that or lose 2020 litres of switchable tank.

It fixed many of the mass problems.

I updated the mass values at the last minute but forgot a step, so they're much larger than they should be.

This happens every time I don't set up a spreadsheet for such values, you'd think I'd have learned the lesson by now.

A Hotfix version will be up later today.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

I've had to disable the life support tanks for TACLS on the 6m crewtank when you're not using MFT. It was either that or lose 2020 litres of switchable tank.

I updated the mass values at the last minute but forgot a step, so they're much larger than they should be.

This happens every time I don't set up a spreadsheet for such values, you'd think I'd have learned the lesson by now.

A Hotfix version will be up later today.

Also - this might not happen on a clean install, but I noticed with the original MFT config (not my altered one) that the option to swap between tank types (availableTank or whatever it is in the MFT definitions) didn't seem to do anything... might be my problem though.

[yohuan]

Would be nice to have the invert VTOL Rotation and other VTOL engine settings that are usually in launch mode, in the SPH and VAB as well. Having problems where the engine doesn't automatically invert the rotation so have to manually invert them every time in flight mode.

[Taverius]

Also - this might not happen on a clean install, but I noticed with the original MFT config (not my altered one) that the option to swap between tank types (availableTank or whatever it is in the MFT definitions) didn't seem to do anything... might be my problem though.

It seems to break if you do a database reload, even via Module Manager (ALT-F11). NKell knows about it, there's going to be a proper release of MFT/RF as soon as that's fixed and cost support is in.

Would be nice to have the invert VTOL Rotation and other VTOL engine settings that are usually in launch mode, in the SPH and VAB as well. Having problems where the engine doesn't automatically invert the rotation so have to manually invert them every time in flight mode.

That's all on firespitter, nothing we can do.

[bac9]

parts with non-strange length - most of the parts have a length that is slightly longer than the "one" length that the different part sizes of the series are based around.

Nope, most of the parts in the pack already follow 0.5m/1m/2m/3m/4m/5m/6m... length. Maybe you are comparing them with parts from stock or other mod packs that actually have incorrect length but pretend to have even metric length? I can't even remember anything that does not save for very special structural part from HX sets that allows you to equalize ship width to 8m when used in a pair around a structural hub.

[Tyren]

OK guys, fiddled around with the pack 0.5.2 a bit, can't say anything else than...

AWESOME!

Just some large decouplers (radial/inline) and done with it.

Turboedit: is it possible to get some ship files like the showcase ships you have in OP? I pretty like those designs

Edited September 7, 2014 by Tyren

[Climberfx]

Something is very wrong with this new settings of B9, i know it change the aspects of Stock Turbo Jets, but i never see a Turbo Jet going off when i just turn on a Rocket in between of two Turbo Jets.

I already try and retry, turning it on and off, when o turn the Rocket on together the turbo jets, the power of turbo jets goes off, gradually until zero force. in the same instance, if i turn again the rocket off, the turbo jets go on and grittily regain power.

That is so wrong.

Here is my setup:

That was the Argo Revision K, but the one i test is the revision L, bellow, with lower power rocket and heat shield on.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Climberfx

[Taverius]

What speeds are you going?

Tubojets in B9 are pseudo-realistic, ie, they'll stop giving useful thrust around mach 3.2-3.5 depending on altitude.

[Climberfx]

Thank you Taverius, must be it, because i was around 950m/s and i start to test turn on and of the rocket. But the way Turbo Jet behave was unnatural, it shut up power.

I was around 22km.

I believe if i just remove the cfg for that it would return to like it was for stock right?

Thank you again for the fast response.

[Alvin853]

In my opinion the stock turbojets got nerfed too hard. They're one tech level above the B9 ones and inferior in most ways except for gimbal, which is not all that useful on planes. I feel like I'm being forced to use the mod parts.

[K3-Chris]

In my opinion the stock turbojets got nerfed too hard. They're one tech level above the B9 ones and inferior in most ways except for gimbal, which is not all that useful on planes. I feel like I'm being forced to use the mod parts.

Well ideally there would be no reason to use them, they don't fit B9 visually, I have a feeling people only used them because they're so OP and didn't want to bother using the more realistic B9 engines, planes that carry cargo to space doesn't have jets that give them > 1TWR, If you want more than 1 TWR you need your plane to look like a fighter plane, just cockpit and enough fuel and wings to work.

Idea was never to make the stock turbo jets some kind of upgrade over the B9 ones, if they're on different tech nodes that might seem the case, but B9's jets were meant to replace stock ones.

Edited September 7, 2014 by K3|Chris

[Alvin853]

Well ideally there would be no reason to use them, they don't fit B9 visually, I have a feeling people only used them because they're so OP and didn't want to bother using the more realistic B9 engines, planes that carry cargo to space doesn't have jets that give them > 1TWR, If you want more than 1 TWR you need your plane to look like a fighter plane, just cockpit and enough fuel and wings to work.

I don't care too much about TWR, my planes usually take off with just over .3 TWR, but I want to go faster than Mach 3 on atmospheric engines

[Taverius]

I believe if i just remove the cfg for that it would return to like it was for stock right?

Sure

In my opinion the stock turbojets got nerfed too hard. They're one tech level above the B9 ones and inferior in most ways except for gimbal, which is not all that useful on planes. I feel like I'm being forced to use the mod parts.

Nah, I forgot the tech node. They should be in supersonic flight. That's also in 5.2.1

Apart from that they're pretty competitive - slightly lower speed, but less heat, better TWR, better Isp, much (~2x) faster response speed, gimballing.

Given that the fastest official world airspeed record under turbine power is an SR-71 at Mach 3.0, and the fastest recorded airspeed powered by a turbojet is a MiG-25 @ Mach 3.2 (engines oversped and had to be subsequently scrapped) I think the values are pretty much spot-on.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Taverius

[Climberfx]

I choose to leave all the B9 settings. Preferably because i could adjust my design to reach orbit again, with not too much effort.

The tail got a little to long, but Argo still a pretty SSTO VTOL for transport crew.

Here some pics after the change.

Good work guys.

screenshot216 by Climberfx, on Flickr

screenshot218 by Climberfx, on Flickr

screenshot220 by Climberfx, on Flickr

screenshot222 by Climberfx, on Flickr

[Taverius]

You can use the RAPIER if the SABREs are too long.

The values are a little different, but overall competitive.