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

[Ichabod-Rain]

How do i install this?

[Agathorn]

How do i install this?

The same way you install every mod.

[Proot]

This is simply one of the new best things around. I love it. bac9 does it again!

Many, many thanks.

[Ichabod-Rain]

Well then it looks like I installed it right. However when i load up the game it stops loading as soon as it gets to the procedural parts file. I dont think i have any mods that would cause this, I have KW rocketry, B9, AIES and FAR installed anyone ever had problems with these?

[Horus]

@Ichabod-Rain:

I don't think it's this mod issue that you cannot load the game. I suppose (just a guess) that you might be switching the focus from the game when it's loading causing graphics card context losing that, in its' turn, causes malfunction when processing textures.

[steve_v]

One small issue I noticed: If you're building say, a shuttle, and save the craft reoriented to the vertical for import to the VAB & ET attachment, the wing textures switch to radial symmetry (i.e. flipped) on reloading it:

No big deal, but if you implement heat shielding based on surface texture things could get a mite interesting...

EDIT: No, scratch that, not only the textures but the whole sodding wing assembly moved.

This almost proved disasterous, destablilising re-entry and lifting the outer landing gear off the ground... still managed to land it though

I'll have to re-investigate this, to make sure it wasn't "damaged during assembly" in the VAB, so to speak.

EDIT2: Somebody find me that engineer!

The wing displacement was just a SNAFU on my part but the texture swapping is still happening, as soon as the vehicle is rotated in the VAB.

Edited January 12, 2015 by steve_v

[Ichabod-Rain]

Its a possibility, ill try deleting all my mods and reinstalling b9 first and then the others.

[bac9]

One small issue I noticed: If you're building say, a shuttle, and save the craft reoriented to the vertical for import to the VAB & ET attachment, the wing textures switch to radial symmetry (i.e. flipped) on reloading it:

http://s8.postimg.org/vuog4x2dh/screenshot271.png

No big deal, but if you implement heat shielding based on surface texture things could get a mite interesting...

EDIT: No, scratch that, not only the textures but the whole sodding wing assembly moved.

This almost proved disasterous, destablilising re-entry and lifting the outer landing gear off the ground... still managed to land it though

I'll have to re-investigate this, to make sure it wasn't "damaged during assembly" in the VAB, so to speak.

The mirroring used by this mod is performed on the KSP side and only works correctly with very specific combination of part orientation and config values. It only works as expected on non-vertical surfaces within SPH, everything else gets random rotations. Nothing I can do, lack of proper mirroring is an issue of stock KSP. All I can recommend is not to use VAB, never roll your craft within the editor and never pitch your craft within the editor by more than 80 degrees from the forward axis.

Edited January 12, 2015 by bac9

[Horus]

I could recommend to use EditorExtensions with VAB/SPH mode switch.

[steve_v]

The mirroring used by this mod is performed on the KSP side...

Yeah, thought you might say that. Symmetry in KSP is pretty ugly all round, I'll live with it.

On a different note, I'm still getting stalling of control surfaces @ 15° AOA when behind a procedural wing, any progress on that one?

I'm fine with designing around it, but it is somewhat annoying.

Edited January 12, 2015 by steve_v

[bac9]

On a different note, I'm still getting stalling of control surfaces @ 15° AOA when behind a procedural wing, any progress on that one?

I'm fine with designing around it, but it is somewhat annoying.

I have absolutely no idea about further possible causes for it beyond ones I have already taken care of. Ferram4 told me that an issue can be caused by per-part FAR module initialization being fired before geometry of surrounding wing parts takes shape, making occlusion checks performed there return erroneously negative results for parts that should actually be shielded. I have made this impossible by refactoring the way FAR modules are initialized - now that is performed only after every single part takes shape. Some people have reported it has improved improper stalling in their designs, so the solution was at least partially correct. What else is causing the issue in addition, I (and I suppose, ferram4) don't have a slightest idea.

Edited January 12, 2015 by bac9

[camlost]

Some people have reported it has improved improper stalling in their designs, so the solution was at least partially correct.

I don't think anybody in this thread reported 'improved' stalling.

I did have a *little* control surface stalling, but this was at around stall speed. I found that the shuttle I made flies flawlessly now.

This doesn't make any sense as stalling has nothing to do with speed. What he said is merely that he made a delta-wing glider, which doesn't use flaps anyway. The aerodynamics would be wrong nonetheless, if FAR wasn't able to solve the wing interaction.

[Horus]

I don't think anybody in this thread reported 'improved' stalling.

Well, at some iteration I said that wings became more stable. However, stalling still persists. Even standing still on the runway with flaps at about 15°+ shows "Minor Stalling". Same for the wing surface in flight - they tend to stall even on low speeds (round 100 m/s) and not really critical angles. But I didn't report it as I do not think my crafts are aerodynamically perfect, so I just wait a better report from someone more expert.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Horus

[falken]

I don't think anybody in this thread reported 'improved' stalling.

This doesn't make any sense as stalling has nothing to do with speed. What he said is merely that he made a delta-wing glider, which doesn't use flaps anyway. The aerodynamics would be wrong nonetheless, if FAR wasn't able to solve the wing interaction.

It has a body flap actually.

[Secuas]

These are loads better that proc wings. Thanks!

[Fizban]

Hello guys, i am thinking of deleting all my wings (because of ram issues) and installing one of the two mods,this one or proc dynamics one.Which one would you say is the most stable one at this point?(Better aerodynamics calculation, least problems while using etc)?

Also, does this have tech tree integration?(like bigger sizes in later nodes?)

thanks.

[bac9]

Hello guys, i am thinking of deleting all my wings (because of ram issues) and installing one of the two mods,this one or proc dynamics one.Which one would you say is the most stable one at this point?(Better aerodynamics calculation, least problems while using etc)?

Also, does this have tech tree integration?(like bigger sizes in later nodes?)

thanks.

1. pWings

2. No.

[Fizban]

1. pWings

2. No.

Thanks bac9.

Sorry if i offended you:S (Your short answer indicates so)

[Agathorn]

I was having a problem last night where the textures on the top and bottom of my wings were gone. They were just pure white and changing the material type did nothing. The leading and trailing edges looked fine though.

I didn't have a chance to look deeper into it but has anyone else seen this?

[bac9]

Version 0.14

https://bitbucket.org/bac9/b9_aerospace_plugins/downloads

Edited January 16, 2015 by bac9

[camlost]

Tested with the same craft as above, still having the same stalling effects.

[Horus]

Version 0.14

Thanks for your work & constant improvements. Will try the update today after work.

Also, hope that announced incoming with the next game release aerodynamics overhaul won't affect your mods badly. Hope is the only thing left here

> I was having a problem last night where the textures on the top and bottom of my wings were gone. They were just pure white and changing the material type did nothing. The leading and trailing edges looked fine though.

Only idea I have is that the texture was not loaded correctly because my PartModule encountered an error at some point. Might be a conflict with some mod, enable verbose logging and check the log available from the debug window for any errors.

I've faced similar issue earlier. For me it was somehow connected with KSPAPIExt.dll. I thought that a single instance for all mods using it will be good and removed all but one. I was wrong. Reverting it fixed the issue for me. Could suggest also just to re-install the latest version of the mod. Also, I'd suggest not to switch the focus from the application when loading it. Especially, when the application is in fullscreen mode. It doesn't like GPU context losing at all.

That's weird. I have only one idea left: maybe colliders I request are not created by Unity immediately and are postponed to the end of an update cycle or to the next update, which can make FAR occlusion checks called immediately after I construct geometry fail. I have added a coroutine delaying those calls by few update cycles, hopefully that will solve the issue. If not, well, something very strange is going on.

Again, I'm mostly sure that it can be my fault in providing "investigation" results. I'll provide a test craft file with the next testing if something will be wrong there.

[Azimech]

Just installed it and already loving it! I've got my new favorite toy for hull plating!

I have two small requests for the future. One would be a shiny metal texture, like the Atlas texture, visible in the screenshot.

The other one would be a GUI option for the removal of all lift, because wings as hull plating: FAR doesn't like that.

Thank you for your time!

[bac9]

Version 0.15

https://bitbucket.org/bac9/b9_aerospace_plugins/downloads

• Finally fixed the issue with incorrect wing interaction, parts should properly account for occlusion by surrounding parts from now on. Huge thanks should go to ferram4 for helping me to set up reflection of FAR wing interaction data.

[Horus]

Awesome news, bac9!!! Guys, you are definitely awesome! (I mean you and ferram4)

One request - is it possible to add Shape type parameter to control surface (B9 PCST) so they could look more like slats when used as the later(more rounded than spiky)?