[1.0.2] B9 Aerospace | Procedural Parts 0.40 | Updated 09.06.15

[starikki]

And now we have wing tanks wow!!This is like Christmas!

Next step would be real fuel support before we start to laugh even in sleep!

[bac9]

Version 0.22

• Control surface edge width limits no longer reset to 0-0 instead of correct 0.24-1 (rogue Vector2 was used instead of Vector4 at a certain point, losing those limits due to absence of .z and .w values)

Notes:

• Resource displays have to trigger stock context menu redraw to update themselves after wing volume is changed, which makes it impossible to continuously drag stock tweakable sliders on wings with fuel tanks - only single clicks will work. Either use my alternative menu, or switch the wing to STR mode for the duration of slider tweaking if that irks you.
  
• I don't have a slightest idea whether wing joints correctly support the added resource mass, I'll look into that later

Edited January 22, 2015 by bac9

[Van Disaster]

Note about wet wings - you need a staging tank somewhere in the fuselage ( even if it's miniscule & only holds a few units ) it appears.

0.22 fixed the trailing edges. Now maybe I'll get time to build a plane between releases

[starikki]

Still getting missing editor screen issue. 0.22

in middle of editing it says exiting editor mode or some thing, I quit SPH and enter again, J menu is gone.

Restarting game fixed the problem

[Van Disaster]

Noticed it hung at whatever the panel is when you switch away from a p-part - once... not managed to recreate it.

[starikki]

Wing tanks are awesome!

[falken]

starikki is that steamgauges for that HUD?

[starikki]

yes it is

[Ruedii]

Could we get some procedural length B9 aircraft bodies (and stock aircraft bodies)?

[Perihelionvw]

I have Deadly Re-entry and the wings burn up during re-entry, I'm guessing the black underside tile has no functionality? Other than that this mod is awesome, great work!

[bac9]

Still getting missing editor screen issue. 0.22

in middle of editing it says exiting editor mode or some thing, I quit SPH and enter again, J menu is gone.

Restarting game fixed the problem

I'm aware of the issue, already noted it around five versions ago.

Could we get some procedural length B9 aircraft bodies (and stock aircraft bodies)?

I'm not planning anything like that at the moment, sorry.

[eldiabs]

Thank you for creating this bac9. Have built 3 aircraft (2 jets, 1 SSTO) using these wings, and everything is working perfectly in version .22. Tested all three procedural types. The two fighters used fuel in the wings. Had to strut my larger fighter (wings were probably unnecessarily long, bad design, 6 turbo jets), but the SSTO (no fuel in wings) and smaller fighter worked perfectly.

Using NEAR and KJR. As well as a ton of other mods. Have found no conflicts with my mod list.

Again thank you. This should be in the stock game.

[Railgunner2160]

Wow, Amazing work!!! Just curious, but is the system you've created to allow changes in the coloration of the wings going to be implemented into B9 Aerospace?

[blowfish]

FAR's new skin drag is taking some getting used to

Might I suggest smaller, more swept wings? Having wings extending beyond the edge of the nose shock like that tends to create a lot of drag. You really don't need a lot of wing to fly at hypersonic speeds, though of course it makes take off and landing a little more difficult.

[Van Disaster]

I have Deadly Re-entry and the wings burn up during re-entry, I'm guessing the black underside tile has no functionality? Other than that this mod is awesome, great work!

I don't think there's a DRE config for these yet. Dynamic parts are a bit of an awkward area for mod integration...

@Blowfish: I'm mostly having problems with >Mach 5 instability atm, seems I need to do another round of research on wing shapes. Dealing with actual drag was just a case of getting used to the new flight profile in the end. That plane I knocked up was really just a research "do all the wing things at once" effort...

[sidfu]

I have Deadly Re-entry and the wings burn up during re-entry, I'm guessing the black underside tile has no functionality? Other than that this mod is awesome, great work!

just makea .cfg change increaseing the max temp of the parts that way u can use them for reentry.

[Van Disaster]

Bac9 - just to be clear, is wing thickness used as part of the joint strength calcs? does the length of the joint make any difference? ( if only connection nodes weren't points... ).

I can confirm KJR apparently doesn't do anything, or at least doesn't have any effect if it's trying to do something - the wing I'm testing has the same deflection with and without it installed.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Van Disaster

[kofeyh]

Not 100% certain, but think the memory leak is back, enabling the editor leaks at a pretty constant rate of 3-4mb / sec.

I'm able to exhaust beyond ~3.6Gb and crash KSP in less than a couple minutes of enabling editing. Also, I removed Kerbal Construction Time and the lag disappeared, so this may have been a culprit.

[starikki]

Anyone know how to edit the .cfg to add real fuel support? or this is more of Real Fuel mod side of thing?

[Van Disaster]

I don't think you can - it looks like ( from looking at the cfg rather than the dll source ) he's embedded the tanks completely in the dll, so you'd probably have to compile your own dll.

While I remember it, any chance of getting the surface area of the currently edited part in the tooltip? I was trying to balance spoilers & thought "hey that would make life considerably easier". As a longer term thing, if these wings could be internally strutted like pFairings in some way, that would open the possibility of knocking up a wing glove with a variable sweep hinge ( aside from the obvious lack of need to externally strut ).

Edited January 23, 2015 by Van Disaster

[bac9]

Version 0.23

• RealFuels support added, wings switch from inbuilt fuel switching code to RealFuel tweakables automatically upon detecting it installed
  
• Fixed the alternative UI getting stuck in the timeout mode upon after you exit and reenter the editor scene
  
• Added a button to the KSP editor appbar allowing you to close the alternative UI window and reopen it without mouseover+J (the button appears and disappears automatically whenever a procedural part is present in a scene)
  
• Added a configuration menu to the KSC scene, accessible through the appbar button. It allows you to enable one of 12 logging modes (all disabled by default) and might come in handy later when I might ask some of you to reproduce an issue with a certain logging mode enabled, sending me the resulting log
  
• Fixed fuel per volume multiplier - previously you were able to use the total internal volume of a wing for fuel, which is fixed now, with only reasonably realistic 70% of it available
  
• Various minor fixes and optimizations

- - - Updated - - -

While I remember it, any chance of getting the surface area of the currently edited part in the tooltip? I was trying to balance spoilers & thought "hey that would make life considerably easier".

It should be there, as a third from the last value with aero stat readout enabled in the stock context menu.

Not 100% certain, but think the memory leak is back, enabling the editor leaks at a pretty constant rate of 3-4mb / sec.

I'm able to exhaust beyond ~3.6Gb and crash KSP in less than a couple minutes of enabling editing. Also, I removed Kerbal Construction Time and the lag disappeared, so this may have been a culprit.

Use the alternative UI, I don't think it's possible to entirely stop the stock context menu from doing that. I'm considering removing all tweakable options but fuel from it altogether, leaving only alternative UI for shape and material configuration.

Bac9 - just to be clear, is wing thickness used as part of the joint strength calcs? does the length of the joint make any difference? ( if only connection nodes weren't points... ).

I can confirm KJR apparently doesn't do anything, or at least doesn't have any effect if it's trying to do something - the wing I'm testing has the same deflection with and without it installed.

Well, Cl is taken into account, which in turn means aspect ratio and surface area are taken into account, which in turn means semispan and MAC are taken into account for joint torque/breaking force values. No idea how effective the formula is, though, it's pretty much the same as one in pWings:

aeroStatSemispan = (double) sharedBaseLength;
aeroStatMeanAerodynamicChord = (double) (sharedWidthTipSum + sharedWidthRootSum) / 2.0;
                ...
aeroStatSurfaceArea = aeroStatMeanAerodynamicChord * aeroStatSemispan;
aeroStatAspectRatio = 2.0f * aeroStatSemispan / aeroStatMeanAerodynamicChord;
                ...
aeroStatAspectRatioSweepScale = MathD.Pow (aeroStatAspectRatio / MathD.Cos (MathD.Deg2Rad * aeroStatMidChordSweep), 2.0f) + 4.0f;
aeroStatAspectRatioSweepScale = 2.0f + MathD.Sqrt (aeroStatAspectRatioSweepScale);
aeroStatAspectRatioSweepScale = (2.0f * MathD.PI) / aeroStatAspectRatioSweepScale * aeroStatAspectRatio;
                ...
aeroStatCl = aeroConstLiftFudgeNumber * aeroStatSurfaceArea * aeroStatAspectRatioSweepScale;
aeroStatConnectionForce = MathD.Round (MathD.Clamp (MathD.Sqrt (aeroStatCl + aeroStatClChildren) * (double) aeroConstConnectionFactor, (double) aeroConstConnectionMinimum, double.MaxValue));
                ...
part.breakingForce = Mathf.Round ((float) aeroStatConnectionForce);
part.breakingTorque = Mathf.Round ((float) aeroStatConnectionForce);

Where constants (provided by Taverius long time ago, I think) are:

float aeroConstLiftFudgeNumber = 0.0775f;
float aeroConstConnectionFactor = 150f;
float aeroConstConnectionMinimum = 50f;

Edited January 23, 2015 by bac9

[starikki]

• Fixed fuel per volume multiplier - previously you were able to use the total internal volume of a wing for fuel, which is fixed now, with only reasonably realistic 70% of it available
  

Is this volume the whole volume of the wing, including LE and TE? Then if we get ride of the LE and TE the calculated fuel volume would be rather small right?

Might be a good idea to use say 80%- 90% of the base volume instead?

[bac9]

Is this volume the whole volume of the wing, including LE and TE? Then if we get ride of the LE and TE the calculated fuel volume would be rather small right?

Might be a good idea to use say 80%- 90% of the base volume instead?

This is whole volume including edges, yes, so if the wing has the volume of 3.25 cubic meters, only 2.275 cubic meters are available to fuel, which in case of stock equals around 305 units of liquid fuel. 70% is a pretty high estimate too, some people suggested 50% is closer to reality, so I think the current multiplier is pretty fair.

[starikki]

This is whole volume including edges, yes, so if the wing has the volume of 3.25 cubic meters, only 2.275 cubic meters are available to fuel, which in case of stock equals around 305 units of liquid fuel. 70% is a pretty high estimate too, some people suggested 50% is closer to reality, so I think the current multiplier is pretty fair.

Normally real aircraft only hold fuel between its front and rear spars, i.e. the "base section", 50-60% is fare, 70% is also good if we don't use large flap system as they took lots of space.

What I meant was if we select leading edge and trailing edge type 1, only the middle section will be counted for volume calculation, which would be at least 30% smaller, then this volume*70% would be too small would it not?

Thus I suggested only use the base section for fuel volume calculation, but with a bigger percentage. This way the fuel volume won't be affected by whether we have fixed or separate leading or trailing edge devices.

[bac9]

Normally real aircraft only hold fuel between its front and rear spars, i.e. the "base section", 50-60% is fare, 70% is also good if we don't use large flap system as they took lots of space.

What I meant was if we select leading edge and trailing edge type 1, only the middle section will be counted for volume calculation, which would be at least 30% smaller, then this volume*70% would be too small would it not?

Thus I suggested only use the base section for fuel volume calculation, but with a bigger percentage. This way the fuel volume won't be affected by whether we have fixed or separate leading or trailing edge devices.

When you select edge type 1, calculated volume is correctly adjusted to remove edge width no matter it's value, so it shouldn't be an issue. It was not always the case, but it was fixed few versions ago.

Volume is also correctly adjusted to any edge width setting, be it 4cm, 40cm or 1m and any difference between root/tip widths of the edges.