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

[AccidentalDisassembly]

I've tried this but it doesn't seem to work. 1.41 and a b9 prerelease work fine together, for some odd reason... but not anything from 5.0 on with either 1.41 or 1.43. It's a tweakables issue right? Firespitter.dll/Tweakscale cross compatibility?

There's nothing actually wrong with B9 in relation to TweakScale that isn't wrong with TweakScale itself, i.e. it doesn't play well with firespitter tankswitching (other things are fine) and it doesn't do well with modular fuel tanks placed in symmetry, though single tanks seem OK.

[cannelladorf]

Hey, Sorry if you are busy, but I was wondering if you could help me. I am a mac user (ugh), the installation process described above does not seem to work for me. If you could get me a more detailed installation procedure, it would really help me out. Thanks.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

I have yet another (hopefully non-stupid) question - what exactly determines how much a part that is radially attached to another part will flop around when stresses are applied to it? Here's why I ask: if I radially attach a HX1-A-SD side adapter thingamajig to something - doesn't matter the scale, I don't think - and then put an engine on the back of it, and turn on said engine, the whole thing flails around as if weakly attached by a series of rubber bands... Is this the case for anyone else?

[Sarda]

I have yet another (hopefully non-stupid) question - what exactly determines how much a part that is radially attached to another part will flop around when stresses are applied to it? Here's why I ask: if I radially attach a HX1-A-SD side adapter thingamajig to something - doesn't matter the scale, I don't think - and then put an engine on the back of it, and turn on said engine, the whole thing flails around as if weakly attached by a series of rubber bands... Is this the case for anyone else?

I've been running into that with hanger bays, soon as the engines go on the joints at the hangers regardless of where their attached start rubber banding.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

I've been running into that with hanger bays, soon as the engines go on the joints at the hangers regardless of where their attached start rubber banding.

Actually, yeah, now that you mention it... I have to strut those like crazy too...

[jadebenn]

Hey guys, I'm a little confused why my engines are overheating really easy now, there seems to be no info on the subject.

[TheNorthFace]

Arent the HX parts (engine especially) incredibly overpowered? Or is something wrong with my install? I was able to get to orbit SSTO with just 5 parts or something and some wings (using ferram)

[Taverius]

Hey guys, I'm a little confused why my engines are overheating really easy now, there seems to be no info on the subject.

Which engines?

Hey, Sorry if you are busy, but I was wondering if you could help me. I am a mac user (ugh), the installation process described above does not seem to work for me. If you could get me a more detailed installation procedure, it would really help me out. Thanks.

The thing you have to always remember as a mac user: In serious operating systems, dragging a folder on top of another merges them. On mac, it replaces. So if you're not careful you'll replace the GameData folder and nothing will load.

I have yet another (hopefully non-stupid) question - what exactly determines how much a part that is radially attached to another part will flop around when stresses are applied to it? Here's why I ask: if I radially attach a HX1-A-SD side adapter thingamajig to something - doesn't matter the scale, I don't think - and then put an engine on the back of it, and turn on said engine, the whole thing flails around as if weakly attached by a series of rubber bands... Is this the case for anyone else?

I've been running into that with hanger bays, soon as the engines go on the joints at the hangers regardless of where their attached start rubber banding.

Radial attach connections did not get the changes that stacks connections of size 2 and above got in the ARM patch.

They are super-weak, have been buggy since forever (see my signature) and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it - you will have to strut for dear life.

Supposedly they will get the ARM patch node boosts in 0.25, but I would not bet on it.

The only thing I can suggest is make sure you have a tank enabled on any HX-S adapter that's bearing an HPD engine. Connections strength is affected by part mass, and the mass from propellants helps (a little).

If you have any feedback about stack connections in the HX parts, those I can do something about.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

Which engines?

The thing you have to always remember as a mac user: In serious operating systems, dragging a folder on top of another merges them. On mac, it replaces. So if you're not careful you'll replace the GameData folder and nothing will load.

Radial attach connections did not get the changes that stacks connections of size 2 and above got in the ARM patch.

They are super-weak, have been buggy since forever (see my signature) and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it - you will have to strut for dear life.

Supposedly they will get the ARM patch node boosts in 0.25, but I would not bet on it.

The only thing I can suggest is make sure you have a tank enabled on any HX-S adapter that's bearing an HPD engine. Connections strength is affected by part mass, and the mass from propellants helps (a little).

If you have any feedback about stack connections in the HX parts, those I can do something about.

Re: the stack connections, the hangar parts *seem* subjectively a little weak when scaled up. However, I am talking 3.5x scale - this may be an issue with the TweakScale node code more than anything. What I notice is that they jiggle around a lot in ways you wouldn't expect them to intuitively - and the jiggling doesn't seem to settle. Hard to express without a video, probably, and it may just be how the game works. I thought that this might be because of the way I arranged parts - maybe a clipping problem - but then I thought I remembered reading somewhere that a craft can't collide with itself, exactly.

That's pretty useless, I am guessing, but there's some vague and subjective feedback.

EDIT: Just remembered that that was often on hangar pats attached to other hangar parts radially attached to other stuff, so... might just be radial connection madness?

Edited September 9, 2014 by AccidentalDisassembly

[Sarda]

Radial attach connections did not get the changes that stacks connections of size 2 and above got in the ARM patch.

They are super-weak, have been buggy since forever (see my signature) and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it - you will have to strut for dear life.

Supposedly they will get the ARM patch node boosts in 0.25, but I would not bet on it.

The only thing I can suggest is make sure you have a tank enabled on any HX-S adapter that's bearing an HPD engine. Connections strength is affected by part mass, and the mass from propellants helps (a little).

If you have any feedback about stack connections in the HX parts, those I can do something about.

The connections between hanger blocks themselves is weak I assume then its because they weight next to nothing so if you have them in the center of the ship with heavy modules connected to them on the top and bottom it turns floppy. Try stacking 2 hanger blocks then put a couple blocks of RCS/Fuel/Capactor's above them and then the same below them, it goes nuts the second you launch. If this is intended then I guess you should only have hangers on the front and rear of the ship?

[Taverius]

Re: the stack connections, the hangar parts *seem* subjectively a little weak when scaled up. However, I am talking 3.5x scale - this may be an issue with the TweakScale node code more than anything. What I notice is that they jiggle around a lot in ways you wouldn't expect them to intuitively - and the jiggling doesn't seem to settle. Hard to express without a video, probably, and it may just be how the game works. I thought that this might be because of the way I arranged parts - maybe a clipping problem - but then I thought I remembered reading somewhere that a craft can't collide with itself, exactly.

That's pretty useless, I am guessing, but there's some vague and subjective feedback.

EDIT: Just remembered that that was often on hangar pats attached to other hangar parts radially attached to other stuff, so... might just be radial connection madness?

Tweakscale's scaling of values is whack, so would not surprise me either way.

The connections between hanger blocks themselves is weak I assume then its because they weight next to nothing so if you have them in the center of the ship with heavy modules connected to them on the top and bottom it turns floppy. Try stacking 2 hanger blocks then put a couple blocks of RCS/Fuel/Capactor's above them and then the same below them, it goes nuts the second you launch. If this is intended then I guess you should only have hangers on the front and rear of the ship?

They actually have slightly heavier mass than an empty fuel tank of the same size, and the same connection strength. This seems to work for the spaceplane cargo bays, so I'm not entirely sure why we're seeing issues now, but since nobody has seriously done parts with a 15m diameter it does not entirely surprise me.

Have to be careful with upping the values arbitrarily though, as there's a point where Unity's PhysX (which is ancient, like 5 years old) will freak out and the joint will vibrate from being too strong and shake the craft apart.

If you're willing to help me find a value that works nicely, try this file. Simple MM patch, multiplies the connection values for the Side adapter and Hangars by it. Currently set at 5.

Place it GameData somewhere, and try launching your space-skyscrapers.

Is it enough? Too much? Feel free to go in and change the number until the joints between hangars and other parts flex like other HX-HX joints.

I'll have a go at myself in a few days when I have some time.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

Tweakscale's scaling of values is whack, so would not surprise me either way.

They actually have slightly heavier mass than an empty fuel tank of the same size, and the same connection strength. This seems to work for the spaceplane cargo bays, so I'm not entirely sure why we're seeing issues now, but since nobody has seriously done parts with a 15m diameter it does not entirely surprise me.

Have to be careful with upping the values arbitrarily though, as there's a point where Unity's PhysX (which is ancient, like 5 years old) will freak out and the joint will vibrate from being too strong and shake the craft apart.

If you're willing to help me find a value that works nicely, try this file. Simple MM patch, multiplies the connection values for the Side adapter and Hangars by it. Currently set at 5.

Place it GameData somewhere, and try launching your space-skyscrapers.

Is it enough? Too much? Feel free to go in and change the number until the joints between hangars and other parts flex like other HX-HX joints.

I'll have a go at myself in a few days when I have some time.

Going to give it a whirl and see what happens! Wish Biotronic were around to address some of the tweakscale stuff =( Sad times.

EDIT: Forgot to mention. The masses of the hangars are about 1/6 or a little less of what an empty solid part is, aren't they? I see it as 12ish tons vs 78ish tons.

Edited September 9, 2014 by AccidentalDisassembly

[AccidentalDisassembly]

The SpaceWhale ascends! Well, with the help of a little infinite fuel and something like 20,000-thrust RCS nozzles:

Kerbal for scale:

The hangar parts seemed a little more durable, but it didn't seem like a night & day fundamental difference. They weigh something like 300 tons each as they are in the pics, versus several thousand tons for fuel-filled parts. EDIT: about 250 tons and 5500 tons respectively.

Edited September 9, 2014 by AccidentalDisassembly

[Taverius]

Well, at least its improved.

I've updated the file to multiply them by 10, which is more than the ratio of the masses, so hopefully that will do it.

In other news, DRE support is complete minus some final testing.

I'm not going to make you all download 90mb again just for a text file, and I sure as hell am not uploading 90mb three times for it, so it'll be available as a separate package - certainly on Curse and BitBucket, not sure if KS will let me do something like that.

[The Space Man]

I wish PhysicsSignificance = 1 didn't remove mass, it's a great way to get rid of all flex and wobble from parts. I've actually added it to the cfg's of nearly all the hx pieces and that large op ship i remade can get to orbit without needing a single strut.

[Taverius]

I wish PhysicsSignificance = 1 didn't remove mass, it's a great way to get rid of all flex and wobble from parts. I've actually added it to the cfg's of nearly all the hx pieces and that large op ship i remade can get to orbit without needing a single strut.

Sure, until you add so many together than KSP freaks out.

It also removes drag in the stock model.

[nli2work]

        velocityCurve
        {
            key = 0   0.9  0      -0.0014
            key = 234 0.75 0      0
            key = 825 1    0      0
            key = 945 0    -0.022 0
        }

so what's the significance of the 3rd and 4th numbers in each key? old config documentation says they mean nothing. all the squad engines don't use them.

[Taverius]

        velocityCurve
        {
            key = 0   0.9  0      -0.0014
            key = 234 0.75 0      0
            key = 825 1    0      0
            key = 945 0    -0.022 0
        }

so what's the significance of the 3rd and 4th numbers in each key? old config documentation says they mean nothing. all the squad engines don't use them.

Tangents for the curves.

Yeah, the squad engines don't use them, which is part of the reason their curves are terrible - they don't do what you think they do from just looking at the numbers.

Whoever wrote the docs obviously has 0 clues: KSP floatCurves are a wrapper around unit animation curves, and they've always had tangent support. They're just a numerical representation of the little handles you get on points when doing animations in the unity editor.

---

Example:

That curve, as seen in MuMech CurveEd:

Same curve, without explicit tangents:

Notice how now it shoots up above 100% thrust.

---

Here's one from one of the hotrockets FX - its supposed to increase emission with power, but:

It wasnt checked in CurveEd, and as you can see its not behaving as intended at all.

Adding one single explicit tangent makes the curve behave as intended.

---

Basically, if you have any floatCurve with >2 points and you have not checked it in CurveEd, its almost certainly not doing what you think its doing.

Edited September 9, 2014 by Taverius
Add link to MuMech CurveEd

[nli2work]

Thanks! makes perfect sense.

[Noimus]

Well I seem to have a problem with the textures. They are kind of stuck into each other and i cannot right-click the parts although i am using the texture mod

[Vaporo]

Could wings, especially the HW21 wings, be made to hold fuel via subtypes?

[K3-Chris]

Could wings, especially the HW21 wings, be made to hold fuel via subtypes?

Hmm, stock aero wouldn't manage that, not sure about FAR/NEAR, main problem I think is the pretty weak nature of radial connections in KSP, heavy wings full of fuel would probably be quite prone to breakage.

Well I seem to have a problem with the textures. They are kind of stuck into each other and i cannot right-click the parts although i am using the texture mod

You've installed it wrong or you have a conflicting mod.

[Guest]

Hmm, stock aero wouldn't manage that, not sure about FAR/NEAR, main problem I think is the pretty weak nature of radial connections in KSP, heavy wings full of fuel would probably be quite prone to breakage.

Last time I checked, stock aero was none of your concern. Besides, lift also depends on mass. Having wings full of fuel wouldn't change a thing, even for stock. As for radial connections, well, the invisi-strut is there for a reason. Besides, I've loaded wings with a few tons of engines, bombs and whatever and they didn't break. I'd love to see fuel in wings, it'd allow HL-based designs with a cargobay all the way through, without "where to put fuel?" issues.

[K3-Chris]

Well no, B9 still works fine in stock aero, just the stock craft files that aren't balanced for it, because it would take a lot of time getting one craft to work well in stock and FAR/NEAR and making a second set is cumbersome etc.

Cargo bays can store fuel now, and the HL extensions are there primarily for this purpose.

[Tidus Klein]

Hay whats the word on the new S3 cockpit....cant wait for that thing