innociv

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.

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.

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.

That's... not contradicting the issue I'm pointing out here at all. It's just backing up what I said.

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.

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?

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.

I didn't say anything to the contrary to that.

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.

It's definitely a problem with OPT. Adjustable Landing Gear work fine with everything else.

The VTOL engine mounts on IR work wonderfully.

Why not just use IR for docking ports and VTOL? It's way better than specific parts

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.

Nvm I got it @PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:AFTER[TweakScale] { %MODULE[TweakScale] { name = TweakScale type = stack defaultScale = 2.5 } }

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?

Is there a way to add some sort of default to every part that'll basically work?

I would really like it if there was an alternate cargo bay that opened from both the top and the bottom. It'd be nice for VOTL, other variable geometry stuff, and simply to have more flexibility. It'd also be nice to have rear cargo bays (that could also be used for nose) that open out to the sides with no ramp. Amazing work so far.

It's pointless to use rapiers or turbojets with the turboramjet, currently. The turboramjet is better than them both, just add in a rocket for out of atmosphere. You can get to Mach 7.5 easily with the turboramjet in FAR at least. That easily gets you out of the atmosphere and you just need a rocket from there.

It'd be possible to make an SSTO that would get to LKO with thousands of dV to spare if the scramjet just provided far less stationary thrust. Could still do a turbojet or 2, plus 1scramjet, plus an LV-N or 2. Or make it require some extra 2ton part similar to a precooler that gives the scramjet more thrust when stationary after nerfing it, can work too. Right now you can pretty much leave Kerbin entirely with the scramjet alone. http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/630854724290007916/3E220CCC0088EAEFF0BEFCB6119E5B14B50B8B9A/ This was my first experiment with them and could do a lot better. That's with no rocket at all, just 2 scramjets. Not saying make them useless, as I agree with you (in 1.0+ it's near impossible to get a SSTO to LKO with some decent dV left over), but they take out any challenge at all right now. As far as the 3.5m cargo bays, there's Tweakscale for that. I like the geometry of the current bays. In general I like parts that match up with stock ones.

Yeah, I'm not saying it should be the stats of 2 turbojets or something. I don't like that pretty much the only way to make a SSTO in 1.0+ is to use rapiers. I miss being able to use turbojets+LV-N... Having the scramjet be optimal at mach2.5-mach6 but have less thrust than a single turbojet under mach2.5 would be a good way to balance it. Right now it's not only better than 2 turbojets at mach0, but it's even more better at mach3+, which is just not good.

Yes, that's fine. No one says you can't "cheat". But I feel like parts packs like these should be relatively balanced around stock to start with, and not require editing the other way around to make them fair.

Hollow or not, it needs a stronger structure to support what is attached to it, what it's carrying, etc. I think I'll go in an edit some balance changes when I get around to it. There's also a lot of bugs with parts that clip wanting to jitter around. Very cool looking and useful parts, but I hope that stuff is fixed soon.

These parts seem way too OP. The Aerospike is massive, yet only 3.5 tons. Many large parts weigh too little. The most massive plane parts hardly weigh anything. The Scramjets seem the most OP of all. They can provide like 1,500kN of thrust for those tiny little 2.5ton things. In FAR, at least. Stock parts definitely lack a scram jet and such, and it's nice to have something better than the turbofan, and better than rapier without having to run on ox, but it's too good. It gives like double the thrust that it should.

There's still this arbitrary restriction that comes into play where you CAN put very large single wings on small craft but not large ones. Even small RC planes/drones have wing flex. With 16m as the max, well what I said still stands, just replace 20m long craft with 10m long one. Well my craft IS hundreds of parts, and the number of wings contributes to that. I need to reduce them whereever I can. FAR also seems buggy when it comes to connecting one wing directly in front of the other, so I wanted to avoid that by having one long wing going along the side. My wings are shaped a bit like the SR-72, and in order to do that with P-Wings which forces the root length to match the tip length that a wing is attached to, I had to arrange 4 sets of wings in line. With yours, if it let me make them long enough, I could have avoided that and hopefully FAR would have calculated things better as a result. If you can't detect the size of what the wing root is attached to, I just don't think it's reasonable to assume the fuselage is no bigger than aMk3 part and to restrict the size to what's appropriate for a Mk3 size craft. :/ I also think you're going to have problems with restricting offset based off width. What if someone has a large swept and thick wing, and they're trying to add an additional wing behind it that makes a thin trailing edge at a different angle? By looking at it, you can see that the wings are intersecting together and they intend for this to be one wing, but the game doesn't see it that way since the root is attached to the fuselage and not the trailing edge of the other wing. KSP lets you do some messed up things. Some people abuse these and some don't. You really can't program such a simple fix for this that doesn't interfere with reasonable things. You just have to let people "cheat" if they want, while those that don't want to cheat will govern themselves and make realistic crafts regardless of what the game allows.

It takes more than a single wing to make an aircraft, generally.