JackCY

I find that I need to perform a sweep twice for the graph to stabilize, like first sweep is only a preview and after the second the graph doesn't change anymore. Weird, shouldn't it draw the same graph every time? Not only after 2nd time sweeping? I don't mean just the axis limits that can change but the lines drawn change shape. Especially when tuning flaps doing two sweeps to get the final graph. Not easy to replicate but it does happen not so rarely. And when it does happen it happens over and over again. Now I flew and am in editor, loaded a similar craft and it's gone, back to the other craft and still gone. It happened before a few times for sure. Sometimes even 3 sweeps are needed for the graph to not change anymore. 1st lines change, 2nd lines change, 3rd axis limits change. And in v0.14.3.1 the changes in wing interaction suddenly also mean that flaps and control surfaces setup on airplanes need to be redone again because while my planes were taking of easily by themselves using flaps and settings, suddenly they won't take off or even fly up at all with the same flaps etc. settings when using v0.14.3.1 instead of v0.14.3. :/ How should we adjust the flaps for v0.14.3.1??? They need a lot more angle? Also control surfaces seem to be less sensitive but I haven't confirmed it yet, only checked the flaps that are the most obvious to suddenly "not work" or not work as well. Not only that, the whole profile seems to have changed for the wings slightly, messing up practically all existing planes a little.

I find AVC useful, tells me when there is an update which for some mods can happen often and are useful. And can also take me to the download page quickly. Instead of having to search regularly and check all the installed mod web pages for updates *faint* Just what I've been looking for, thanks. Will try. --- Oh well, tried. Not compatible. Took off, that was it, ran out of fuel and I only climbed to 11km. Turned KIDS to Stock KSP = 1/1. Launched again and behold, my engines are at full throttle, spitting smoke and visually at full blast but have ZERO thrust and eat no fuel Something is wrong with between AJE and KIDS. A "Thrust varies with ISP" has to be checked in KIDS for jet engines to have any thrust when using AJE. Lets see how far it flies this time with 1/1 set in KIDS. No idea why the engines ate fuel as fast as there is a large hole shot in the fuel tank before when 0.55/0.55 was set in KIDS when using AJE. Again, 11km out of fuel. Really weird, might need some crazy high custom ISP preset in KIDS coz AJE changed the engine consumption a lot. Intake air demand always zero too.

Look at the yellow line in AoA graph, if it's going down way too much it might not even take off and will pitch down a lot. If it's about level but under zero, then it's fine, if it's above zero then it's going to pitch up by itself a little. If it's going up above zero too much, Kerbals are going to die. Change the speed, pitch, etc. to see how it behaves at different speeds and other settings. I find this really easy to correct and remember for future builds. On runway it shows as partsShielded: 1 when cargo is closed and 0 when open, there are 5 quadcores each with 4 modules. I suppose 1 = true, 0 = false. Dropping parts didn't change it, still 1 or 0. In editor it shows partsShielded: 25. The number of parts. Parts shows as isShielded: True. Attached to the front of cargo, mounted by the joints, no surface mounting. I found even 0.5 to not have enough strength for my hard flying. I guess 0.7 should be fine but I'm not interested in changing stats of every darn wing I add on a plane, too time consuming. If it could be predefined, cool. I've made a tiny glider with 0.1s but it's no fun to fly really. Unless mods and folding it in a cargo bay and dropping it out up high to glide. Used an ion engine on it but it doesn't get far and 0.1 can rip it apart on hard maneuvers. And even a 1 strength I just torn apart doing a turn at slow speed, too many Gs I bet I tend to max out the G meter. Kerbals seem resistant to G forces. OKAY, scratch the last part, I've just killed both of my crew members due to G force damage while the plane survived my low attitude turn

Verified, just came to report the same, updated my KSP-AVC and it started to report that. Updated KIDS from github instead of kerbalstuff but same thing. The version file says 0.25 but it must be checking what it was compiled for I suppose and that could be 0.242.

Cool thanks. I find setting it lower than 1 results in ripping the wings apart, I fly hard Plus setting it all the time for every wing added and the balance CoM it changes and all, ugh such pain. I don't have an issue to select any value, it sure is sensitive but it's just about mouse control and sensitivity. And it doesn't really matter if it's 0.39 or 0.41 the difference is tiny. It's only OCD to have it all on 0.4 spot on

Is it possible that after a back flip a plane will be in large scale stall even when the AoA is zeroed for a reasonable time (few seconds, 5-10s no problem)? It flies I can climb and control ok but it feels like there is stall drag applied to it and it never gets out of large scale stall unless I do some other hard maneuvering/flips etc. through some more stalls, side slips and large AoAs, and it only ends up in some other kind of stall or slide slip or again in large scale stall, while the plane is easily controllable and flies where intended but seems to have stall drag applied. Made such a test plane. The flight status in the screens is missing because it was blinking large scale stall in yellow text. If you want to look at it, let me know I'll upload the craft file somewhere. No tweaks were done to wings or control surfaces they are default, it has no flaps, no spoilers. Even if I point it at prograde for a while which means it starts dropping and going down, it never recovers and the AoA is very close to zero, don't need SAS to keep it stable and on prograde. Now minor stalling with only one wing, again unrecoverable, this time the drag is on one wing so it's not actually very flyable. I know the plane sucks, it's a test plane but still, shouldn't it go to Nominal when AoA is very close to zero? It's like the status gets stuck.

thumbs up on the stall visualization

I had to reduce to around 7 on my test cargo plane. I can do more when the plane is heavier. But none so far seem to be above 10. Just tried 0.24, fixed FAR there as latest MM didn't work or something with 0.24 but gave me no warning, replaced it with older MM. A plane built in 0.24, looks fine, balance is easier, no need to reduce control surfaces, they were the default 15 or 20, no stalling, single engine pulls like mad since the weight is only 6t with fuel. Now building the same plane in 0.25 I had to do minor changes to wing type and placement to get the CoL more rear as the "10x higher" masses of wings were messing with CoM and the plane turned into a lazy 10-12t beast due to the wing weights Hacking it down to fly without fuel using infinite fuel I got closer to original weight and plane stats, but still somewhere around 8t. Plane was too sensitive to control, had to reduce all control surfaces to 10 and it still liked to go into minor stalling. 0.24 is so much easier to build and fly. 0.25 the new wings and such can be a pain. The new parts, not only wings are unbalanced. Squad messed it up.

1) Do you have enough lift for the weight of the craft? 2) Is your CoL too far back behind CoM? More maneuverable will be unstable and with the SAS, MJ, FAR assistants you won't stabilize it, it's gonna be a pain to fly. It would be light, with CoL very close to CoM and decent lift and control surfaces. Apart from weight it's easy to do in KSP. 180 turn 3 minutes? I can take off the runway and turn around 180 to fly the other way before the runway ends. You must be doing something wrong or are trying to fast turn a whale. This is a so far not ending issue with Squad's miserable texture loading, we don't need 64bit if Squad KSP would not use 10 more memory than other games because they load uncompressed textures to RAM, instead of loading textures straight to VRAM when and only when they are needed and in a compressed state. My KSP runs something like 2GB+ RAM but only 600MB or so VRAM, it's silly. Complain to Squad, the 64bit version is even worse from what everyone says, for me even the 32bit version tends to close randomly sometimes without any error and I doubt it's hitting 3GB limit or something since I don't have that many new parts in it, could be bugs in some of the .25 mod releases. 0.24 didn't do it. It does the opposite for me, stock SAS is the only thing that can handle my planes so far. FAR assistants are a deadly try quite often as they tend to oscillate craft out of control or do not have enough steering power to correct. Sure there is always some overshooting with anything sometimes but it's not that bad. My cargo plane (with no cargo loaded) I can fly even at 4x acceleration without it veering off somewhere. Try lowering the control surfaces power, that should help in general whether flying by hand or having it hold course via SAS.

I do click it I've made minor changes to the plane and now it flies almost perfect with stock SAS, no need for FAR helpers or anything, not even DCA or AoA. The plane is small and the control surfaces were strong, so strong that FAR helpers were oscillating when trying to correct the plane and when "k" changed they don't they lost all steering ability altogether. I've lowered the power of control surfaces and now it flies fine. Both slow speed <0.5 and mach 4. Yes but why make any corrections if the velocity vector is tiny? It must have a value something like direction, don't care about that one for this but also speed at which it is moving in that direction, now if that speed is tiny do not try to correct the steering. Should remove oscillations when landed. Yeah, they dampen yaw, pitch, one does hold roll to 0 and the rest limits steering. Guess I will have to look elsewhere for a hold pitch. Not a different window but a smarter way the values are remembered is all as described in previous post. Store one extra variable of what was the previous type of sweep done, store 6 values total and a few if/else, done. Could be, it's 10-20t and FAR says reference area 35m2 if that means wing area. At current 11t and 35m2 that puts it to 315kg/m2 a little over Eurofighter Typhoon's 313kg/m2. At 20t that would be 571kg/m2 which is less than A380 with around 663kg/m2. F22 has 376kg/m2. -- I've made a different plane that is similar to the 0.24 example planes but it does not take off very well. Has wings placed up top with a large area. It's much heavier since it has many fuel tanks. Flies ok but is slow despite having higher TWR, the wings must give it quite some drag.

Where can I find the devbuild? Or do I have to compile myself from latest source? I will try some more but so far I think reducing the power my me control surfaces would work better than guessing random numbers. Often I get oscillation when I use anything else but stock SAS, I do turn off SAS when trying the FAR helpers, it seemed to me they fight each other otherwise. So far I had to resort to use stock SAS for stabilization of roll/pitch and couple it with DCA while changing the Scaling Velocity mid flight to get proper control force. The Scaling Altitude didn't seem to have any effect at all on the Control Factor, trying it again, it does have an effect but the number put there are different by thousands of times to have any effect on the control factor. Right now I got on runway and the plane oscillates, opened FAR and the helpers are turned on, stock SAS is off, MJ is not present on this craft. It does this even when flying most of the time. The AoA limiter, I have it set to 1 degree but it will happily do 10-15 degree anyway. Changed helpers to 0.01 from default 0.1 but they still oscillate the same way as before when landed. Even when flying the FAR helpers like to oscillate no matter what and usually do overshoot instead of lower the input a little they like to shoot all the way to the other side so instead of going less up it turns it all the way to going down for example and then back up and down and up again ... And when I manage to get rid of oscillation from the helpers it also turns out that their power is negligible and I might just turn them off as it has the same effect. Caused me many stalls when trying the helpers, the dampening instead of reducing oscillations introduces them even when I lower the forces ten times. Tried a leveler now, instead of turning the short way around, it turned the long way, another large stall as it rotated out of control. Glad I took my cargo version and not the heavy passenger version of the plane. This one is much more recoverable. The AoA limiter so I set it to 5 but it happily keeps going 10-15 AoA and if I increase the force it will oscillate. It helps but not very much, have it at 5 degrees and k=0.05 to get 15 degree turn at this moment of my flight. But some other time in the flight I might have to reset this again so it corrects AoA desirably. That is not very practical as all I do is change values in helpers AoA and DCA instead of flying and before any important steering I have to reset the helpers so I can steer well and am not limited too much or too little. When I want to recover, turn off all FAR helpers, hit stock SAS ON and keep it moving usually down or to the direction closest of prograde if it can move close to it that easily. I think bill and jeb must have thrown out in the cockpit by now because that was so far at least 6 spinning stalls. 10t plane, doing 1-2 mach at 10-20km. It's quite a challenge to make the helpers work well and set them up for one plane. None will hold altitude though. Have to use stock SAS or MJ for that. If I use stock SAS and couple them with the helpers, they don't have enough power or get overridden by SAS. Guess my plane could be a bad design or 0.25 is harder flying than 0.24. Just flew FAR Jet Liner and that's a piece of cake even landing on first try, no stalls, impossible to stall even without helpers, nothing really needed apart from something to keep height locked. All the example planes in 0.24 seem to have very different graph and most use wings up above to keep CoL above CoM, usually heavy with little amount of control surfaces. With no apparent stall curve in the graph and with Cm always in graph shooting up which I cannot achieve in 0.25. Maybe having a huge tail wing helps? A simple, small example craft would be great to have. Don't need zillions of them like there were in 0.24. A basic one, just one is enough so we can see ok these is what is stable with FAR and it looks like this and that in the graph. I bet my plane is too short and since it has all lift at the middle it makes it easy to stall compared to planes that have front and rear wings more similar in lift. Let me try again. My bad, it had me confused. The CoL marker/indicator for me updates fine and graph seems to update OK without the Update CoL. I don't mind the button, keep it, I just couldn't find explanation while in game in the help for what it does and it wrongly seemed to have helped to update before doing a sweep. I'll illustrate on my silly Kerbal carrier that I use for testing purposes: I would say it remembers 4 values: Lower, Upper, Num Pts (precision), Mach/AoA So I do a sweep for AoA with values: 0, 25, 50, 0.2, the default ones I think. Then I do a sweep for Mach but the values used are again 0, 25, 50, 0.2, which is not very useful so I change them to: 0, 5, 50, 15 and sweep Mach again. "Now I have made changes to the plane." And proceed to do AoA sweep, click and the values used are not 0, 25, 50, 0.2 as I used for AoA before but it uses the new modified values I have used for Mach sweep the 0, 5, 50, 15 so I get again a not very useful graph and have to change the values again and resweep once more, every time I do different type of sweep. It would be useful if it remembered the values for the type of sweep it is doing. It should not be hard to detect what values to use: Previous sweep/next sweep/values to use: none/AoA/default useful values for AoA or remembered from previous AoA sweep if possible none/Mach/default useful values for Mach or remembered from previous Mach sweep if possible AoA/AoA/those entered in the text fields AoA/Mach/those remembered from last Mach sweep or default if no previous Mach sweep was done Mach/Mach/those entered in the text fields Mach/AoA/those remembered from last AoA sweep or default if no previous AoA sweep was done It would then remember 4 values for each type, 8 values total. Precision is not important so it could as well be 3 and 6. I see, I might check 0.24 then and see what is there. Thanks.

In RL, haha. There are tons of details in most scenery, buildings, fields, forests, hills, different spots and places. But there are no such details in KSP. There are deserts, mountains, grass and that's it, they are big and not details. They took the details away from Kerbin's surface. I would appreciate more variety in surfaces even if it is only a texture or normal map. While it may look better when you EVA on Kerbin, it looks worse when flying. While yes it can happen in RL as well, it is rare, maybe when you fly over a flat desert or ocean or salt lake but rarely a field or grass is so big to lose perception of height.

Hi, moved onto 0.25 now but when I have all graphic settings on max the texture of grass on Kerbin around KSC complex is monolithic, like it's some small texture repeated million times and there is no perception of depth which makes it hard to tell where the ground is for landings. 0.24: 0.25: It's like the texture tiles in 0.25 are rendered much smaller than they were in 0.24. You can see the same shading is there but the surface in 0.25 appears washed out as a result of some changes related to surface textures. In 0.25 the texture is rendered too small, so when walking it probably looks ok. But when one is flying there is no depth perception and it's just one monolithic green color. This happens on stock KSP. Never mind the FAR, no texture mods/plugins present when taking the screenshots. It's a fresh install. Already tried changing settings to minimum and back and resolution too, it didn't help a bit. Is it a bug or is it intentional? Is the only way to get better textures with decent depth perception by using texture mods?

That's for stock KSP fakeaerodynamics right? Not usable with FAR. CoL is in front of CoM and the whole balance relies on SAS.

Bad CoM from the get go, wheels need repositioning otherwise plane sits on it's engines on runway, doesn't fly very well with FAR. Too little fuel barely gets anywhere on Kerbin. Bars on wings and cockpit, dunno why. Usable with stock KSP and cheats, otherwise not really.