• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About innociv

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. Yeah it wasn't the save that was broken. It turns out that adding Kramax Auto Pilot broke the wings, for some reason. Removing that mod folder has them working again. Guess I'll have to wait for a proper update of both.
  2. The 1.3 one does NOT, in fact, work for 1.4 The basics work, but restricting the range for ailerons and other important features just don't work. Also, saved craft doesn't load the procedural bits and they can't be selected. Also... I really think pwings is just not as good as b9s.
  3. The stock aero may not be made to "simulate every issue", but this is really quite a major issue to have engines be draggy even when creating high pressure behind them, and to be able to alleviate that drag with clipping nose cones and such. :| And it should be pretty straight forward to fix, so why not...? Why all the resistance to fix something so basic as this? I'm not asking for real time computation fluid dynamics. I'm just asking for engines producing thrust to not produce so much drag.
  4. That's... not contradicting the issue I'm pointing out here at all. It's just backing up what I said.
  5. Ehh... either way the aero overlay is bugged, even if you consider the engines to have extra thrust to overcome their improper aerodynamics modeling. If it worked correctly, people wouldn't stick nosecones and stuff on the back of RAPIERS. They also wouldn't need to overly crowd engines in a small space, and other things.
  6. The low pressure area behind the blunt rear of a shell is representative of why the blunt rear of engines in KSP create a lot of drag compared to a backwards nose cone. But when the engine is turned on and producing thrust that affect doesn't exist, except in KSP it continues to exist, and that's exactly why I made my thread as it's essentially a bug in the aero modeling that I'd very much like to see fixed. It would seem pretty straight forward to fix, no...? Just make them more aerodynamic like nose cones when producing thrust. Or actually model thrust to be negative drag on that localized area which would mean the aero overlay wouldn't be showing drag there, no?
  7. Actually it's that there is a high pressure area behind it. Rocketeer said what I said earlier. "Thrust" is that high pressure behind the engine pushing it forward. This is the opposite of drag, yet the game models drag purely based on the shape and doesn't account for that high pressure. It's a bug in the game, really. One that I would think would be pretty easily fixable without having to put backwards nosecones on your RAPIERs to min/max.
  8. An engine that's turned on or off seems to make the same amount of drag according to the aero overlay. That shouldn't happen. And it's why people put nose cones on the backs of RAPIERs. Couldn't thrusting parts be made to have lower drag the more thrust there is? I mean, in fact, basically how they work is by creating negative drag pushing them forward.
  9. It's definitely a problem with OPT. Adjustable Landing Gear work fine with everything else.
  10. Why not just use IR for docking ports and VTOL? It's way better than specific parts
  11. Yeah, I've also been using FAR and things love to jitter around and explode in cases where they wouldn't with other parts. I hope the update isn't too far away and fixes that stuff.
  12. Nvm I got it @PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:AFTER[TweakScale] { %MODULE[TweakScale] { name = TweakScale type = stack defaultScale = 2.5 } }
  13. I often have a bunch of problems with OPT parts or things attached to them being really jittery and ripping themselves apart, and not even going down straight on the runway even though they're perfectly symmetrical. Is there a fix for that?