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

[RavenEchoseven]

I do apologize if I'm missing any information ahead of time. I'm new to posting here (obviously) but here goes:

 

So I have been having the malfunctioning "J" key issue and an issue with the mirrored wings having non-mirrored texture (i.e. the black ablative on top of one wing and the stockish white/grey skin on the top of the other). Interestingly, it appears to be flipping the part I'm moving (the ablative default is on top of the part I move). As for the "J" key, it simple does nothing at all. I can move the parts, attach them, and use the right-click menu.

 

As far as versioning goes, I was using the CKAN version but I removed it, deleted it, and used the manual install from the link @crzyrndm posted 2 May. I've tried to scour around and find some install process or file I've missed but I've had no luck.

 

I'm not sure what else might be required to help diagnose the issue. I do use other mods, but I find not issue in them. However, I will gladly provide a list if necessary. I can provide screenshots if required as well. I've seen mention of logs, but I'm not sure what logs would be required as it doesn't crash, it just malfunctions. If there are other logs please let me know where they are.

 

I appreciate any help. This mod is a fantastic one and a required one for me. I do appreciate ever so much all the work that has gone into it.

[Crzyrndm]

Scroll down a bit to find where to get logs. I also would like to see the ModuleManager.cache file

[Galenmacil]

An error seen in the log when loading the game:

[LOG 00:42:55.457] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'B9_Aerospace_ProceduralWings/Parts/Aero_Wing_Procedural/wing_procedural_typeA/B9_Aero_Wing_Procedural_TypeA'
[ERR 00:42:55.467] Cannot find a PartModule of typename 'ModuleCrossFeed'

[LOG 00:43:13.250] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'ProceduralDynamics/Parts/DYJproceduralwingB9/part/ProceduralwingBac9'
[ERR 00:43:13.255] Invalid boolean value! Field relativeThicknessScaling, value false; on object of type pWings.WingManipulator

[LOG 00:43:13.265] PartLoader: Part 'ProceduralDynamics/Parts/DYJproceduralwingB9/part/ProceduralwingBac9' has no database record. Creating.
[LOG 00:43:13.271] DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'ProceduralwingBac9'
[LOG 00:43:13.291] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'ProceduralDynamics/Parts/DYJproceduralwingSPP/part/ProceduralwingSPP'
[LOG 00:43:13.306] PartLoader: Part 'ProceduralDynamics/Parts/DYJproceduralwingSPP/part/ProceduralwingSPP' has no database record. Creating.
[LOG 00:43:13.312] DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'ProceduralwingSPP'
[LOG 00:43:13.332] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'ProceduralDynamics/Parts/procedural_ControlSurface_1/part/pCtrlSrf1'
[LOG 00:43:13.347] PartLoader: Part 'ProceduralDynamics/Parts/procedural_ControlSurface_1/part/pCtrlSrf1' has no database record. Creating.
[LOG 00:43:13.354] DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'pCtrlSrf1'
[LOG 00:43:13.372] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'ProceduralDynamics/Parts/procedural_ControlSurface_SH_4m/part/B9_Aero_Wing_ControlSurface_SH_4mProcedural'
[ERR 00:43:13.377] Invalid boolean value! Field relativeThicknessScaling, value false; on object of type pWings.WingManipulator

Edited May 12, 2016 by Galenmacil

[Crzyrndm]

All of which are just housekeeping warnings and will have no effect on your experience (I've just fixed them ready for next release)

Edited May 12, 2016 by Crzyrndm

[RavenEchoseven]

Ok, so here is the output_log in it's entirety:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/12vz0a3ei5vsysf/output_log.txt?dl=0

I didn't see a modulemanager.cache but I did see a modulemanager.configcache and below is that link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ggmi8mtkz0ahe6s/ModuleManager.ConfigCache?dl=0

If there is any more I can provide please let me know. I don't want to restart with a new install, but will if necessary. If it is some other factor involved I do apologize but appreciate the help nonetheless.

[Crzyrndm]

Can you please remove trajectories and get a log without that. It's spamming exceptions enough to make it difficult to find anything useful

[RavenEchoseven]

First, I must apologize. The output_log I linked last time was from the 32-bit client (which I don't use intentionally).

 

However, I did go ahead and take out trajectories and am linking the correct 64-bit log.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/12vz0a3ei5vsysf/output_log_051216.txt?dl=0

 

Thanks again.

[Ya_Boi_Assault]

Anyone else have some issues with the control surfaces not moving correctly but still provide proper control?  Here I'm pitching full down but only one half of my craft is doing the proper animation. 

[Plexi]

Hi!

I just installed this mod and modified one of my planes by replacing the stock wings with procedural ones. But i have some problems with the FAR aeordynamics.

This is my space shuttle with stock wings and some decent stats. Everything is fine and the plane is very well flyable.

This is the same plane with the b9 wings. The shape is nearly the same, maybe the elvons are a little bit smaller. The red Mw value can be solved by moving the hole wings back a little.

As you can see in the FAR stats of the modified plane it has significant less ref area and the aoa is really high compared to the stock one. This results in a hard to control flight. The pitching is very unstable and sensible.

Am I doing something wrong? The stock wings are overlapping near the wingtips. Is this resulting in the higher ref area?

Edited May 13, 2016 by Plexi

[Flashblade]

On 13.5.2016 at 4:33 AM, CaptainCreeper56 said:

Anyone else have some issues with the control surfaces not moving correctly but still provide proper control?  Here I'm pitching full down but only one half of my craft is doing the proper animation. 

Yes this is an old bug that has been fixed quite a while ago. Update you pwings, it should go away.

[Flashblade]

8 hours ago, Plexi said:

This is the same plane with the b9 wings. The shape is nearly the same, maybe the elvons are a little bit smaller. The red Mw value can be solved by moving the hole wings back a little.

No it isn't the same wings. I can clearly see that the control surfaces near the tailfins extend much further, than B9 wings do. The wingspan also seems to be a bit more on the stock wings. Of course inacurracies like this will result in a different reference area.

[Plexi]

4 hours ago, Flashblade said:

No it isn't the same wings. I can clearly see that the control surfaces near the tailfins extend much further, than B9 wings do. The wingspan also seems to be a bit more on the stock wings. Of course inacurracies like this will result in a different reference area.

The wing span is exactly the same. I build the new wings on top of the old ones and deleted the stock wings afterwards. Also the angle of the wing edges are the same except the windstreak. The procedural one shoud be a bit bigger.

I rebuild the elevons and made them bigger. Still only got one degree better aoa and 3m² more ref area. Even with the stock elevons the ref area is smaller and the aoa higher.

Can i modify a value in the config file to increase the ref area multiplier?

Edit:

I made a quick test. With a stock wing connector type b i got 16.9m². A procedural wing of the excect same size and similar edge shape get only 15.9m².

Edited May 14, 2016 by Plexi

[Crzyrndm]

1) My (admittedly very) quick test with two wing parts appears to indicate that ref area isn't accounting for overlapping wings at all.
2) Slight differences are to be expected and I'm not certain without taking more time to test how FAR treats the wing edges in that analysis. A 4x4 square board with no edges does come out at 16.0m² though

[Matuchkin]

I go on Bitbucket, and see a million files, including some uncertain "PSSM-01" thing. Which .zip do I download?

[xD-FireStriker]

hey @Crzyrndm are you maintaing this mod as well as the new Procedural Dynamics - Procedural Wing/

If so cool that would be a lot of hard work but anyway were is the new download link [page no or link i dont rly mind]

i can just see a lot of active on a old mod for a old version 

Thanks FireStriker

xD

 

[Crzyrndm]

https://github.com/Crzyrndm/B9-PWings-Fork/releases

[Van Disaster]

On 14/05/2016 at 0:12 PM, Crzyrndm said:

1) My (admittedly very) quick test with two wing parts appears to indicate that ref area isn't accounting for overlapping wings at all.
2) Slight differences are to be expected and I'm not certain without taking more time to test how FAR treats the wing edges in that analysis. A 4x4 square board with no edges does come out at 16.0m² though

It ( was using? ) uses the same algorithm as the original pWings, are they working the same? I can't say I've tried comparing in 1.1, I will do that sometime. I think most of the original plan for FAR was "wait until new FAR wing code" though

@Plexi: Ferram would tell you to go away & rebuild the stock wing without part clipping before raising a bug issue, might be worth trying to remove the overlapping parts. I don't think it'd account for 30+m^2 of reference area, but maybe it'd be a big chunk of it. Also, how far under the body does each wing go?

Edit: some ( a fairly significant amount ) of the "missing" area will be in the trailing edge you removed to fit the control surfaces.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Van Disaster

[xD-FireStriker]

On 5/18/2016 at 3:39 PM, Crzyrndm said:

https://github.com/Crzyrndm/B9-PWings-Fork/releases

thanks is far still required?

[Plexi]

On 18.5.2016 at 9:49 AM, Van Disaster said:

 

@Plexi: Ferram would tell you to go away & rebuild the stock wing without part clipping before raising a bug issue, might be worth trying to remove the overlapping parts. I don't think it'd account for 30+m^2 of reference area, but maybe it'd be a big chunk of it. Also, how far under the body does each wing go?

Edit: some ( a fairly significant amount ) of the "missing" area will be in the trailing edge you removed to fit the control surfaces.

The wings are flush with the body. Otherwise they whoud be visable inside the cargobay.

Adding trailing edges to these parts raised the ref area a couple of m², but still not enough

I think the edges between each of the stock wing parts result in a significant higher area.

[blowfish]

6 hours ago, xD-FireStriker said:

thanks is far still required?

It was never required.

[Crzyrndm]

6 hours ago, Plexi said:

The wings are flush with the body. Otherwise they whoud be visable inside the cargobay.

Adding trailing edges to these parts raised the ref area a couple of m², but still not enough

I think the edges between each of the stock wing parts result in a significant higher area.

Any chance you can actually verify the analysis numbers for AoA in actual flight. It's not wings clipping into the body, but wings clipping into each other that doesn't seem to be accounted for. I trust ferram's flight model more than the analysis tools where clipping is involved. (I would suggest using Pilot assistant or MJ to hold a set speed/altitude)

Edited May 19, 2016 by Crzyrndm

[xD-FireStriker]

9 hours ago, blowfish said:

It was never required.

Oh it said on the op that FAR is needed

On 12/26/2014 at 9:16 AM, bac9 said:

•  You must FAR 15.3.1 or later. Previous versions had a serious issue preventing proper voxelization of mirrored meshes.

I guess this was a post to say if you want to use far you need that version or above or it was recommendation lol xD 

thats nice i can now uninstall FAR, i wouldnt mind using it but i cant wrap my head around it lol

[blowfish]

1 minute ago, xD-FireStriker said:

I guess this was a post to say if you want to use far you need that version or above or it was recommendation lol xD 

Yeah, you're definitely not the first person to get confused by that.

[xD-FireStriker]

Just now, blowfish said:

Yeah, you're definitely not the first person to get confused by that.

thanks i like this mod more then the other one he maintains soz m8 this just has a better interface. keep up the good work its hard to keep 2 mods that are almost the same updated 

[Galenmacil]

Reporting an exception in the log file when detaching and reattaching a wing that contain fuel:  
 

Spoiler

[EXC 21:58:40.285] ArgumentOutOfRangeException: Argument is out of range.
Parameter name: index
    System.Collections.Generic.List`1[WingProcedural.WingTankConfiguration].get_Item (Int32 index)
    WingProcedural.WingProcedural.FuelVolumeChanged ()
    WingProcedural.WingProcedural.UpdateGeometry (Boolean updateAerodynamics)
    WingProcedural.WingProcedural.RefreshGeometry ()
    WingProcedural.WingProcedural.Setup ()
    WingProcedural.WingProcedural.Start ()