Drew Kerman

Ok, I took at stab at the straight wing from Coffee Industries. Here's what I ended up with: @PART[planeWingStraightN] { @module = Part @maximum_drag = 0 @minimum_drag = 0 @angularDrag = 0 @dragCoeff = 0 @deflectionLiftCoeff = 0 MODULE { name = FARControllableSurface MAC = 2.25 // Tip = 1.5m | Root = 3m e = 0.35 // Drag per lift, lower equals more drag MidChordSweep = 4.25 // Leading sweep 8.5* b_2 = 10 // Root to tip in meters TaperRatio = 0.5 // Ratio of tip chord to root chord nonSideAttach = 0 // 0 for canard-like / normal wing pieces, 1 for ctrlsurfaces attached to the back of other wing parts maxdeflect = 15 // Default maximum deflection value; only used by FARControlableSurface ctrlSurfFrac = 0.12 // Value from 0-1, percentage of the part that is a flap; only used by FARControlableSurface } } And here's how I did it: Using the measure guide, I was able to get the width of the wing (10m) and the root (3m). I used the polygon to get the tip by sizing it under the wing and measuring it (1.5m) and I also used the polygon to get the leading sweep by sizing it under the top of the root and the top of the tip and then getting the diagonal to give me the triangle for which I plugged in the sides to get the angles, including the angle of the sweep (8.5*). Then I used the Area measurement Blender gave to divide the control surface/wing surface to get the ctrlSurfFrac (0.12). Then I used the equations on Taverius' wiki guide to get the rest. The only thing I didn't really know what to do with was e. A larger wing should produce more lift but also more drag right? No idea really what this should be. Once you all who know better help me get this worked out, I will update the wiki with better Blender instructions.

thanks. People aren't kidding when they say Blender's interface is insanely hard to grok, if great once you get to know it. I just figured out how to get the bloody addon installed

most excellent. I will get right on with installing the tools so I'm ready when you have time to work up the tutorial. Thanks!!

while we're adding things to the list of features... how about an altitude alarm? Good for elliptical orbits where you're going after lo/hi science above a planet and want to accelerate to them. Hrm... not much else tho. Maybe not worth it

(Off the top of my head) Open the cfg file, there should be window position values. Reset them to 0

I've been spending a little time looking into working up FAR cfgs for these wings but haven't had much success yet figuring out how to calculate most of the values. If anyone can point me towards some good resource it would be appreciated. I already posted in the FAR thread but no help there yet...

Well again, I respectfully suggest if this is intended use then AJE should also move the part to a level of the tech tree where this kind of power is available. It should also use the description field to let ppl know about the right amount of power usage. Seriously, how are we supposed to build anything in the VAB/SPH with these engines if we don't have the proper idea of how they actually perform??

Wing tanks with FAR is a thing, I've read. I have a wing tank aircraft right now, haven't had time to fully test but seems okay so far

I'm looking to get the Coffee Industries wings to work with FAR. I've checked out the .cfg sample in the ReadMe but still not sure how to figure out some of the values. I'm guessing some of it needs to be done in a modeler so I can see what length things are better? For example "distance from wing root to tip; semi-span" would be in meters? I checked out the equation for MAC and it is math beyond me :/ Not sure I'm up to this but willing to try and learn...

the cfg for the KAX electric props results in an absurd amount of EC usage. Here I have 4 engines at full throttle asking for 804/s EC! And once again this goes completely against what the stats window in the SPH shows - 15/s of charge per engine. If this is intended then might as well stick this higher up in the tech tree where people will have beamed power or something 0_o

is there still no way to disable the MM backup?

RT2 works perfectly fine. Use this hotfix for 0.23.5. If you can compile source, you can get a fix for the m/s burn problem, along with the rest of the fixes from the previous hotfix link. Or you can just be sure not to use HotRockets and the m/s burn will work fine for most engines. And then there's a new MET graphic.

output_log.txt file. Post it here after a crash

yea the m/s burn was bugged with 0.23.5, it's been a known issue but you're the first to actually look at why. Makes sense, I think ModuleEngineFX is a base-level change to the game by Squad for 0.23.5 - nothing to do with HotRockets except that mod properly updated to account for the change. Soooo, you going to keep this to yourself or release your hotfixed version so I (and others) can shower you with rep?

The following mission report comes from the public relations account of the Kerbal Space Agency, detailing the twentieth mission - With the successful placement of ComSat III, the other two ComSats require servicing. Before sending another kerbal into space, the engineering team wants to test a re-designed radial chute - the type of chute that failed on re-entry and killed Cmdr Jeb. If successful, this will open more design options for future kerbed missions. For more reports on the status of the KSA between missions, tune in to @KSA_MissionCtrl. Previous Mission Reports Mission010: Kerbals. In. SPAAAAAAAAACE! Mission011: Testing 1... Mission012: Testing 1...2... Mission013: Testing 1...2...3... Mission014: In Case of Emergency... Mission015: The Rogue Flight of Kerbin VI Mission016: Saving ComSat I Mission017: Check Yo Staging Mission018: Friction: 1, KSA: 0 Mission019: ComSat III Placement Find out what happens next - follow @KSA_MissionCtrl!

interesting. At first I thought this was trying to replace the already-functional HUD used by Vessel Orbital Information Display but then I realized this was more tailored for aircraft/spaceplanes than spacecraft (via rockets).

the KSA would like to put an order in for that command pod. We'll have our kerbs contact your kerbs

Fair enough, but I just want you to know that's not really helpful for people in the SPH/VAB looking at the stats window and trying to decide which engine to use. Not all of us like to just slap on a part and see what happens. I personally prefer the added challenge of trying to design things right withing the SPH/VAB. This isn't always possible due to various game limitations, like the stats window not being able to show real stats, but still - you can at least use the description field to help differentiate the otherwise-identical-looking (and thus confusing) parts.

Not actually. Craft just consume life support resources (food, water, oxygen) - I had this same misconception myself. I hear the ECLSS life support mod did some EC loss for inactive vessels but hasn't really been well maintained lately

Yes, it's the Advanced Jet Engine mod. Not sure why ISP would be different - I mean the ISP of the stock engine (pic 1) is the same as the AJE one (pic 2) - at least as shown in the stats window. Good point, the mod does add an AJEModule to the stock JetEngine part when it changes it to the F100 turbofan. I will look into using that for pricing changes. Here is the module: MODULE { name = AJEModule IspMultiplier=1 defaultentype = 3 defineenparm= true acore=4.3 byprat=0.36 tinlt=1000 prat2=1 eta2=1 tfan=1600 prat13=1.6 eta13=1 tcomp=1800 prat3=20 eta3=0.95 tt4=2921 prat4=1 eta4=0.984 eta5=0.982 fhv=18600 tt7=6000 eta7=0.92 abflag=1 }

arrrrrrgh. Want the annoying forum read bug fixed!! Well I've dealt with it this long a few more days won't kill me. It is fixed right? Please tell me vBulletin fixed it...

Advanced Jet Engine really throws MCE out of whack I think somehow, not really sure why but the costing goes through the roof. I beleive I noted this before but if there was a response I apologize for not seeing it.

Sorry camlost, I still don't understand. How is the F404 less powerful when the stats show up exactly the same as the F101? When I mouse over them in the SPH the only things that change are the mass and descriptions. I'm guessing there's some back-end AJE coding at work to make the F404 less powerful, but it's not obvious at all when viewing the in-game stats.

hey guys, what's the difference between the F100 and the F404? The only stat that changes between them is 0.7t of mass. Is the F100 just a backwards-compatible part? And other than being lighter is there any other advantage to the F404?

Change it to "awarded ribbons text log" just to more specifically identify that it's the text at the bottom not the ribbon graphics themselves