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

[capi3101]

Do you have an SPH screenie? How did you build what you have?

[Ryds]

Do you have an SPH screenie? How did you build what you have?

I'd be grateful to see that design from different angles too Balto, it looks very interesting.

[hobnob11]

So with stock re-entry heat my space planes tend to burn up, would it be possible to make the black heat shield texture for the wings actually function like the stock heat shields? that would be amazing

[Balto-the-Wolf-Dog]

Do you have an SPH screenie? How did you build what you have?

I'd be grateful to see that design from different angles too Balto, it looks very interesting.

Pic dump to follow.

^A good illustration of how the vectoring works. I've found the thrust of sabres does actually appear to originate from the visual quadrant of thrusters. The geometry of the elevators allows me to alternately block the top or the bottom pair but never both, shifting my thrust line.

Basically the wing structure is a pair of big stock wings, the first clipped forward into the fuselage to produce a big swept wing instead of a broad airliner wing and a second positioned on the base of the first and angled to produce a forked tail.

Another, smaller design that does use procedural wings:

A third design, since I mentioned boxwings. This one a large boxwing that uses pieced together procedural wings. Great lifting capacity, decent range, solid stability.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Balto-the-Wolf-Dog

[Ryds]

Brilliant! A lot of inspiration for my future designs in those pics, thanks!

[capi3101]

I'll admit to not having studied stock parts as closely as I should've. In particular, I've never used the Mk3 parts for anything, so I know nothing of their overall dimensions. That's an oversight I really need to get around to correcting. It's pretty simple to figure out the dimensions of those wings - start in the sandbox with a Cubic Octagonal strut, note its width, add the part to be studied, record the overall length and width and subtract out width of the cubic octagonal. The final result is its dimensions. Those Mk3 wings do have a bit of crank going on with them but that's getting buried into your fuselage, so it shouldn't matter all that much

I'm trying to think of how you'd build a wing assembly like the one you have with B9; you'd almost certainly have to design it as a sub-assembly. Start with a cubic-octagonal strut, and then attach a single B9 wing forward to act as a wing connector; you'd want its length equal to the desired final span of the wing assembly and as thin width-wise as you could manage. Then you'd put your main B9 wings on either side of that connector bit with dimensions close to (if not identical to) those Mk3 wings, trying to match up the edge of the wings with those of your initial wing connector bit as best you could. Since the cubic-octagonal is the piece by which you'd probably attach the whole assembly to the rest of your plane, you'd probably want to sweep the wing pieces towards the cubic-octagonal.

That'd be how I'd try to build something similar. I should probably post some screenies to show what I'm talking about. I also have no idea if this would actually work or not (I should try it myself before I offer it up as advice) but if it does it'd be a solution that would let you circumvent the sixteen meter limit and fix how it looks. Might be worth a try in any event.

[Nigeth]

I have a few minor questions about your mod, if that's OK

I suppose that it is a limitation of KSP that leads to B9 wings only having one attachment point (either fuselage or other wing)? I can't for the life of me get two procedural wing parts to attach to each other and the resulting combined wing to then attach to a fuselage part. Parts made up of multiple B9 wings always tend to only attach to the fuselage and not to each other, leading to the individual parts flexing individually. To get greater stability I'll always have to strut the parts to each other. Which ruins the whole look.

To put it another way. Suppose I want to design delta wing. What I'd like is for a way to first design the wing by attaching different procedural surfaces to each other and then make the result behave as if it was a single part that can attach to fuselage parts over the whole root area. Is that possible? I don't seem to be able to do that. Wing parts either attach to each other (which means they are not connected to the fuselage) or to the fuselage (which means they are not atached to each other

Is there a way to have modifications made by the sliders not be applied symetrically from the middle outwards but instead from the left or right side? This would make designing parts that fit to each other a whole lot easier.

Is there a way to input the numbers represented by sliders via the keyboard or to change the "sensitivity" of the tweakables? Sometimes I can't make two parts fit because I can't for example make one part have the same semi-span as another (slider won't snap to the right value)

[V8jester]

I have a few minor questions about your mod, if that's OK

I suppose that it is a limitation of KSP that leads to B9 wings only having one attachment point (either fuselage or other wing)? I can't for the life of me get two procedural wing parts to attach to each other and the resulting combined wing to then attach to a fuselage part. Parts made up of multiple B9 wings always tend to only attach to the fuselage and not to each other, leading to the individual parts flexing individually. To get greater stability I'll always have to strut the parts to each other. Which ruins the whole look.

To put it another way. Suppose I want to design delta wing. What I'd like is for a way to first design the wing by attaching different procedural surfaces to each other and then make the result behave as if it was a single part that can attach to fuselage parts over the whole root area. Is that possible? I don't seem to be able to do that. Wing parts either attach to each other (which means they are not connected to the fuselage) or to the fuselage (which means they are not atached to each other

Is there a way to have modifications made by the sliders not be applied symetrically from the middle outwards but instead from the left or right side? This would make designing parts that fit to each other a whole lot easier.

Is there a way to input the numbers represented by sliders via the keyboard or to change the "sensitivity" of the tweakables? Sometimes I can't make two parts fit because I can't for example make one part have the same semi-span as another (slider won't snap to the right value)

So you can attach one wing to the structure of a plane but you then cannot attach an additional wing to the first wing? Now you need to make your adjustments to the first wing first then leave it alone after placin a wing (or anything) onto it. As attached parts will not react to the changes of the first wing until you grab an replace those parts. Let me know if I'm missing something here. I built an f-117 80% out of P-wings so. I know you can attach them to one another. Also a good trick to stiffen without the visual toll. Is B9 invisible struts. Install the B9 WIP update and the struts will be there. I used them to stabilize the wings on my osprey, as the engines with fuel were very heavy at the ends of the wings. 3 struts a piece and it was solid as a rock.

[harryloud]

Hi i am here to report a bug. i have been having it recently. whenever i create a wing of any kind my CoL is always off center, either right or left. it seems the more wing i add the more severe this problem becomes. great mod btw. it only seems to happen to pwings.

http://i.imgur.com/lE5T8Fz.png?1 for reference with stock wings

https://i.imgur.com/dotMVIX.png?1 b9 pwings

thanks

[Crzyrndm]

To put it another way. Suppose I want to design delta wing. What I'd like is for a way to first design the wing by attaching different procedural surfaces to each other and then make the result behave as if it was a single part that can attach to fuselage parts over the whole root area. Is that possible? I don't seem to be able to do that. Wing parts either attach to each other (which means they are not connected to the fuselage) or to the fuselage (which means they are not atached to each other

Is there a way to have modifications made by the sliders not be applied symetrically from the middle outwards but instead from the left or right side? This would make designing parts that fit to each other a whole lot easier.

Is there a way to input the numbers represented by sliders via the keyboard or to change the "sensitivity" of the tweakables? Sometimes I can't make two parts fit because I can't for example make one part have the same semi-span as another (slider won't snap to the right value)

1) Surface attachment is all stock KSP behaviour. I have no idea why it would refuse to attach after another wing part is added, and I don't anticipate it being easy to fix (unless you were attaching wings to the root instead of the tip, that would probably do it but seems a difficult mistake to make...)

2) Would require redoing a whole chunk of code to just end up at the same behaviour for something that may or may not work better depending on how you build. Now, what would be nice would be altering the leading and trailing edge lengths (which I keep meaning to try adding but never get to...)

3) Right click on any slider gives a "free" selection between increments for when you need things to match up (ie. set with left, fine tune with right). Left click again to reset it to the snap increments

Hi i am here to report a bug. i have been having it recently. whenever i create a wing of any kind my CoL is always off center, either right or left. it seems the more wing i add the more severe this problem becomes. great mod btw. it only seems to happen to pwings.

http://i.imgur.com/lE5T8Fz.png?1 for reference with stock wings

https://i.imgur.com/dotMVIX.png?1 b9 pwings

thanks

images are deleted, and you will need to add your ModuleManager.cache file and output.log

[Balto-the-Wolf-Dog]

I'll admit to not having studied stock parts as closely as I should've. In particular, I've never used the Mk3 parts for anything, so I know nothing of their overall dimensions. That's an oversight I really need to get around to correcting. It's pretty simple to figure out the dimensions of those wings - start in the sandbox with a Cubic Octagonal strut, note its width, add the part to be studied, record the overall length and width and subtract out width of the cubic octagonal. The final result is its dimensions. Those Mk3 wings do have a bit of crank going on with them but that's getting buried into your fuselage, so it shouldn't matter all that much

I'm trying to think of how you'd build a wing assembly like the one you have with B9; you'd almost certainly have to design it as a sub-assembly. Start with a cubic-octagonal strut, and then attach a single B9 wing forward to act as a wing connector; you'd want its length equal to the desired final span of the wing assembly and as thin width-wise as you could manage. Then you'd put your main B9 wings on either side of that connector bit with dimensions close to (if not identical to) those Mk3 wings, trying to match up the edge of the wings with those of your initial wing connector bit as best you could. Since the cubic-octagonal is the piece by which you'd probably attach the whole assembly to the rest of your plane, you'd probably want to sweep the wing pieces towards the cubic-octagonal.

That'd be how I'd try to build something similar. I should probably post some screenies to show what I'm talking about. I also have no idea if this would actually work or not (I should try it myself before I offer it up as advice) but if it does it'd be a solution that would let you circumvent the sixteen meter limit and fix how it looks. Might be worth a try in any event.

As per your suggestion. Worked out pretty well, I think. Performance is very similar, area ruling is actually slightly better. Looses some elegance points in the comparatively simple shape of the wings, but eh. Thanks.

[harryloud]

Hi i am here to report a bug. i have been having it recently. whenever i create a wing of any kind my CoL is always off center, either right or left. it seems the more wing i add the more severe this problem becomes. great mod btw. it only seems to happen to pwings.

https://photos-6.dropbox.com/t/2/AAD4xcmDhixsUAPVXSv-Q1TNKxb-IMV4L5lwm13eDcDogg/12/70397275/png/32x32/1/_/1/2/KSP%202015-06-26%2017-58-05-33.png/CNvayCEgASACIAMgBCAFIAYgBygBKAI/CkkuHuttJxmwLymV1dGZsqYT2JdxwKqLp2GDHF8P0G4?size=1600x1200&size_mode=2 for reference with stock wings

https://photos-1.dropbox.com/t/2/AAAqfZbgDC_Ipth3owipuE0BD544ba3e8UO_3epm_bBktw/12/70397275/png/32x32/1/_/1/2/KSP%202015-06-26%2017-59-24-51.png/CNvayCEgASACIAMgBCAFIAYgBygBKAI/bj1SdncbkAL6FgKWqWulB2HU6WTgIm_2lX_Y5rGKZTU?size=1600x1200&size_mode=2 b9 pwings

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1cwcpiy76ta30r5/ModuleManager.ConfigCache?dl=0 config file

https://www.dropbox.com/s/g76rr3mi8c6wlpn/output_log.txt?dl=0 output file

thanks

[Crzyrndm]

Dropbox links for the pictures still aren't working. Regardless, the log makes it fairly clear why you'd be seeing an offset CoL. I have a few questions about the craft that's causing it

1) How is the craft throwing errors being loaded/built?

2) If it's a saved craft, was it first built for an older version?

3) Can I get a log with this version

[MyNameIsRicky]

Hey, good people. So I'm having an issue with this mod- I cannot tweak the wings, there is no tweakable menu, and the hotkeys do not work. This is true in a Windows install as well as a Linux install with FAR. Researching the issue I have been unable to find anyone having similar problems. Does anyone have any ideas?

[capi3101]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/61950362/Iditarod%20and%20Tasvira/screenshot12.png

As per your suggestion. Worked out pretty well, I think. Performance is very similar, area ruling is actually slightly better. Looses some elegance points in the comparatively simple shape of the wings, but eh. Thanks.

No problem; I'm glad it worked out for you.

[Dragon_Lance]

Hey, good people. So I'm having an issue with this mod- I cannot tweak the wings, there is no tweakable menu, and the hotkeys do not work. This is true in a Windows install as well as a Linux install with FAR. Researching the issue I have been unable to find anyone having similar problems. Does anyone have any ideas?

Are you following the instruction manual carefully?

Hover the mouse over the part (wing or elevator) after placing it and press "j" to open the menu for adjustments.

Also, more detailed info about your installation is always useful. Not just "Windows", but "Windows 32bit 1.04" and the version number of FAR

Good luck!

[Litar]

I am having the same problem. Win7 32, ksp 1.04. Pointing at a placed wing and pressing J does nothing.

[kcs123]

Well, you have to help yourself and mod developers to discover what went wrong on your install.

I can confirm that "J" key works as intended with mods that I currently use. I still searching for mods that works with each other well enough, but those listed below does not cause conflict with "J" key.

• Adjustable Landing Gear (AdjustableLandingGear v1.2.0)
  
• Animate Emissive Module (ModuleAnimateEmissive v1.5)
  
• Aviation Lights (AviationLights 3.7)
  
• B9 Aerospace Procedural Parts (B9AerospaceProceduralParts 0.40)
  
• Bahamuto Dynamics (Parts pack) (BahamutoDynamicsPartsPack v1.2.0)
  
• BahamutoD Animation Modules (BDAnimationModules v0.6.2)
  
• Better Buoyancy (BetterBuoyancy v1.3)
  
• Community Resource Pack (CommunityResourcePack 0.4.2)
  
• Community Tech Tree (CommunityTechTree 2.1)
  
• Contract Configurator (ContractConfigurator 1.5.0)
  
• Contract Pack: Kerbin-Side Jobs (ContractConfigurator-KerbinSideJobs 1.4)
  
• Contract Pack: SCANSat (ContractConfigurator-ContractPack-SCANsat v0.5.2.1)
  
• Contract Window + (ContractsWindowPlus 5.2)
  
• Crossfeed Enabler (CrossFeedEnabler v3.3)
  
• DMagic Orbital Science (DMagicOrbitalScience 1.0.4)
  
• Dynamic Deflection (DynamicDeflection 1.1.2)
  
• Environmental Visual Enhancements (EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements 7-4)
  
• Environmental Visual Enhancements - High Resolution (EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements-HR 7-4)
  
• Extraplanetary Launchpads (ExtraPlanetaryLaunchpads 5.2.0)
  
• Ferram Aerospace Research (FerramAerospaceResearch 1:v0.15.3.1)
  
• Firespitter Core (FirespitterCore v7.1.4)
  
• Firespitter Resources config (FirespitterResourcesConfig v7.1.4)
  
• Graphic Memory Monitor (GCMonitor 1.2.6)
  
• HotRockets (HotRockets 1.0.4)
  
• Infernal Robotics Model Rework - Core Pack (IR-Model-Rework-Core v01b)
  
• Infernal Robotics Model Rework - Expansion Pack (IR-Model-Rework-Expansion v01b)
  
• Kerbal Alarm Clock (KerbalAlarmClock v3.4.0.0)
  
• Kerbal Attachment System (KAS 0.5.2)
  
• Kerbal Engineer Redux (KerbalEngineerRedux 1.0.17.0)
  
• Kerbal Flight Data (KerbalFlightData R19)
  
• Kerbal Inventory System (KIS 1.1.5)
  
• Kerbal Joint Reinforcement (KerbalJointReinforcement v3.1.4)
  
• Kerbal Konstructs (KerbalKonstructs 0.8.2)
  
• KerbinSide (KerbinSide 1.0.3)
  
• KerboKatz - SmallUtilities - DisableTempGagues (KerboKatzSmallUtilities-DisableTempGagues 1.0.0)
  
• KerboKatzUtilities (KerboKatzUtilities 1.2.10)
  
• kOS: Scriptable Autopilot System (kOS 0.17.3)
  
• LightsOut (LightsOut 0.1.4)
  
• Magic Smoke Industries Infernal Robotics (InfernalRobotics 0.21.3)
  
• MechJeb and Engineer for all! (MechJebForAll 1.2.0.0)
  
• Menu Stabilizer (MenuStabilizer 1)
  
• ModularFlightIntegrator (ModularFlightIntegrator 1.0.repackaged0)
  
• Module Manager (ModuleManager 2.6.6)
  
• ModuleRCSFX (ModuleRCSFX v4.1)
  
• Precise Node (PreciseNode 1.1.3)
  
• RasterPropMonitor (RasterPropMonitor v0.20.0)
  
• RasterPropMonitor Core (RasterPropMonitor-Core v0.20.0)
  
• RCS Build Aid (RCSBuildAid 0.7.2)
  
• SCANsat (SCANsat v12.1)
  
• SETI-CommunityTechTree (SETI-CommunityTechTree 0.9.0)
  
• SETI-Contracts (SETI-Contracts 0.9.2.1)
  
• SETI-Greenhouse (SETI-Greenhouse 0.9.2)
  
• SmokeScreen - Extended FX Plugin (SmokeScreen 2.6.4)
  
• Stock Bug Fix Modules (StockBugFixModules v1.0.4a.1)
  
• Stock Plus (StockPlus v1.0.4a.1)
  
• Toolbar (Toolbar 1.7.9)
  
• Transfer Window Planner (TransferWindowPlanner v1.3.0.1)
  
• TweakScale - Rescale Everything! (TweakScale v2.2.1)
  
• USI Kolonization Systems (MKS/OKS) (UKS 0.31.4)
  
• USI Life Support (USI-LS 0.1.5)
  
• USI Survival Pack (USI-SRV 0.3.1)
  
• USI Tools (USITools 0.4.1)
  

What you will most probably need to do is to install only B9PW only, after clean instance of KSP and add mods that you use one by one, check SPH scene if "J" key works until you find conflicting mod.

Once conflicting mod is discovered it will be easier to find solution one way or another, but without effort from user side it is hard to expect from developers to discover and solve that bug.

[Litar]

So i got it working, which is weird, as the only mod that i have uninstalled is Adjustable Landing Gear (according to your list, it shouldn't create any problems).

[kcs123]

I have used adjustable landing gear and B9PW combo as either of two become available to public. Never have issue with those mods conflicting each other.

Both mode was having their own set of bugs/issues that was solved over time, but never seen anyone complaining for unresponsive J key.

As I said, I also searching for stable set of mods that will work with each other without issues, but didn't come across with bug you are describing.

[AntiMatter001]

Bug(?)

my control surfaces don't work... now reading back a few pages it seems it should work off the bat so i'm gonna try a reinstall.

my debug says "error can't find module lifting suface"

might be that help?

Edited July 6, 2015 by AntiMatter001

[abrr2000]

editing the parts is working fine for me. but nothing will attach to the wings. which pretty much means I can't build anything meaningful.

[V8jester]

editing the parts is working fine for me. but nothing will attach to the wings. which pretty much means I can't build anything meaningful.

Are you using all moving control surfaces? nothing will attach to those, but plenty will attach to the wings, see

[abrr2000]

boy do I feel stupid. thanks for the help.

[V8jester]

boy do I feel stupid. thanks for the help.

Don't feel stupid for clicking on one of two identical icons Besides we are all here to help...... Unless anyone starts asking about "when is an update coming"....... Those guys, we put seperatrons under there desk chairs