VentZer0

^ I get the same error when trying to install the shaders, also on 2.79 (Steam) The creating of color palettes is also giving an error.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwXhQ9I28t2tNGFKSzZyV0tZQWc/view?usp=sharing I will release them in a proper mod, but first I will re do them and make a proper cockpit for it.

Thanks for the reply. I hope you will be able to figure out this problem. What I can tell you is that I made the leading edge into one piece which fixed the weird behaviour after reattaching on the first try. I then tested something different. I made the wing tip into a seperate wingtip piece, instead of attaching 0° deflection control surfaces at the outer end of the wing, so to replicate the wingshape of a SU27. This worked too. I get a lil bit of flutter but it is totally managable. Now if I put rails on the wingtip I still get fluttering while in high AOA. What is funny, the fluttering is not so great if I do not pull directly vertically. Basically, if you avoid Kerbins normal vector and start a cobra with a bit of roll angle it will not flutter when reaching 90° AOA. It really seems that the Nose is trying to avoid the normal vector of the surface. Without rails, it just pulls through it no problem. Heh, I did that already

My own. I made them myself. It is pretty easy to find actually. I got frustrated by all those answers aswell (find it yourself duh!). Tbh though it is really easy to find, if you know anything about github. I didnt at first but then figured it out

Okay, I remade the wings completely and I had the same problem as before, then I made the outer part of the leading edge flaps moving aswell. So the whole leading edge of the main wing is a control surface. This made it possible for a well behaved cobra to be executed again and even better I was able to reduce the deflection on the ailerons. 30° is way too high for a control surface to deflect. However as soon as I stick launch rails on the wing tips ... nose goes past 90° and it will flutter its wings that you recover into the horizontal with a 45 or 60° roll angle. It is weird. Those rails must distort the airflow so much ... I play a lot of DCS World, specifically the SU27 and I know how it behaves there in the cobra. The real plane doesn't do this. Btw this only happens in a vertical cobra. If I pull the bell maneuver (turn and pull a cobra sideways) the butt doesn't break out this crazy.

Will do. http://imgur.com/a/7UtoE Yes I do. I compared the two craft files in notepad++ and the only difference is that the craft file with the fixed flaps has the part {} section at the end of the file and the pos rot attach parameters are different. Everything else is the same.

So I am running 1.2.2 and use the dev build for FAR. I get a weird issue with my plane, a selfmade replica of an SU27, or rather the B9 procedural wings are weird in relation to flight behaviour under FAR. Here is a little video which shows what I mean: First part: Notice the gap between leading edge flaps and the main wing. I have no idea how this came to be, my guess is that it happended from an import from 1.1.3. Never the less, flight behaviour is great, I can pull cobras like nobodies business. The plane is well behaved in this deep stall territory. Second part: I reattach the wings to close this gap and fly again. Now everytime I pull to 90° the nose veers to the left and never goes straight up. Its hard to regain control. Third part: I reload the original model and attach wingtip launch rails to the side. Even though the CoL and Com are almost not even affected by this the handling is very different. Not even possible to reach 90° AOA anymore. And When I up the control deflection, again instable behaviour upon recovery from a cobra. You can see the lift vector preceeding around everytime when the instable behaviour is shown. I do not know if this is a FAR issue or something else. It is also not an import issue in of it self. I can modify my craft just fine. Only when I edit the leading edge flaps or add the wingtip rails will I get this deep stall instability.

Might be a bit late ... but please I hope you continue work on this. It is amazing! Would love to be able to walk around Kerbin in a Timber Wolf

I see. Yeah maybe this accounts for the fussiness I was seeing. Exactly that is the problem, that is why I wanted to edit the atmCurve to compensate for this behaviour. Shouldn't the drag be much higher this deep into the atmosphere? Together with the velCurve I've brought it down to about mach1.4 at sea level. So far so good. I am going to tinker a bit more with this, since I want to include this engine in a parts mod with my SU-27 parts. Why not make it correct-ish now I've already downloaded the latest version to see if there are any velCurves or atmCurves in there that resemble something remotely realistic to have a starting point. To my surprise there aren't any I will try AJE when I've tweaked this engine and then compare them.

Have you seen my second post after the first one got a response? I changed the curve to falloff between 0.2 and 0.1, and redid the test with this curve. In the initial post I tried between 0.2 and 0.3. I am testing which atm pressure corresponds to which altitude so that I can fit my atm pressure curve to my engine, basically control at which altitude it should cutoff. Currently I am tweaking the AL31 engine for my SU-27 replica craft. I want a fair approximation of the real world behaviour translated into Kerbins atmosphere - that is why I use FAR, so that it can perform like the real aircraft (with FAR I can do cobras without thrust vectoring yay \o/ ). FAR helps with the stock behaviour of engines which seems to be very weird. Wasn't able to break mach 1.2 at sea level in stock KSP. With FAR I have to tune down the engine pretty much or I go mach 2 at sea level.

I see. I think I might have jumped between the graphs in my calculator. What I meant was: The engine flamedout way later than thought. It should have cut off at 0.3atm but it did at 0.22atm. yes it is this one : "The curve is linear y=0 from x=0 to x=0.1, positive linear slope between 0.1 and 0.2, and is y=1 from x=0.2 til x=1. "

yes I do use that floatcurve editor http://imgur.com/a/rYCbY

I did that pressure test... yeah the pressure and scale height are in the same ball park. +- 200 or 500meters is the accuracy I get from the indicated pressure readings and calculating those into altitude. But the atmCurve says 0.10 and I find that my engine thrust goes to zero at 0.08atm. Engine cuts off at ~14000m (<= ~0.082) and full thrust is at anything below 10700m (>= ~0.15atm). I don't know is that normal behaviour? The curve is linear y=0 from x=0 to x=0.1, positive linear slope between 0.1 and 0.2, and is y=1 from x=0.2 til x=1. I wonder where this fussiness is coming from. Thought maybe FAR changed the atmosphere too.

I am on 1.2.2 and currently using the dev build and I was wondering in general, does FAR change the scale height of Kerbins atmosphere? I nocticed this while I was making atmCurves for my AL31 Jet Engine. I made the velCurve constant and only changed the atmCurve to drop linear between 0.4 and 0.3 atm. I had 0kN thrust at about 8.4km Altitude(MSL). 8.4km does not correspond with 0.3 atm pressure according to the scale height of 5.6km that Kerbin is supposed to be having. So yeah does FAR change the scale height of Kerbin or am I missing something else?

Doesn't matter I was fitting the engine to the plane performance. With stock engines I wasn't able to achieve 1400km/h at sea level, so I upped the thrust for the engine to achieve this speed. Upper in the Atmosphere I tweaked the atmCurve to reduce the Thrust at altitude so it doesn't go beyond mach 2 at 7000m. I am aware that the engine is not realistically running, however afterburining turbofans gain some thrust at speed again, because of the ram pressure effects at high speeds. Stats of the AL31 : weight 1.57tons, thrust 145kN (wet), max speed ~2500km/h in the SU27 (but that is airframe limited) my craft is very accurately modelled. In earlier version it could do cobras without thrust vectoring ;D Again now that I use FAR the curves can be reduced to realistic values. Somehow FAR got rid of this weird problem. I use the floatcurve editor already. The curve I had was having 10 times thrust at mach 1 to only achieve about 2 times the thrust at mach1. It is like there is something limiting the thrustcurve. I installed the dev build of FAR and revised my curves for the engine. To illustrate the problem: http://imgur.com/a/cIoLu