Van Disaster

Hmm, well I restarted when 0.20 arrived because I didn't have all the mods updated to carry my old game on, and luckily only got as far as mapping a couple of planets. I'll carry on attempting to build launchers+landers for space jeeps.

That's fine, it's if the CoT is off from CoM ( and CoDrag, albeit that's guesswork ) that you start getting horrible issues. I don't see what all that dihedral is doing though.

Did you check both engines and nosecones are actually in the action group to switch mode? it doesn't save across edits using symmetry.

TAC fuel balancer is an essential part of all my spaceplanes. I tend to drain the front tanks on the way up to cover transonic issues where I don't have enough front lift, then balance them all until I want to re-enter - maybe pump a bit around if I'm having issues transferring to orbit, sometimes the plane goes a bit odd when I finish my AP burn. At re-entry I usually pump one of the front tanks as full as it can go until I'm back in normal atmospheric flight, and then balance them again. Being able to pump fuel about is wonderful.

I did movable wings ( well, wingtips ) with Damned Robotics a while back and it did work as it was meant to, to shift the CoL a little, so I suspect we just need a better hinge part. Wings attached to DR hinges are not terribly stable. For supersonic craft especially you really want the CoL ball inside the CoM ball in the SPH, and preferably at the balance point of the tanks, although all you really need is enough tankage either side so you can pump fuel around a little to trim for various parts of a mission ( mainly referring to spaceplanes at this point ). Don't forget once you go supersonic the CoL is going to move backwards. I like this: And for spaceplanes I don't think I've ever got better than this: -- With vectored thrust a lot of crazy things are possible.

I like it! better than the one I threw together a while back: It is stupidly manoeverable though ( check the G-meter, it can easily peg it to the top ) and tons of fun to throw around.

40m/s is about 90mph, which seems awfully slow for huge jets I have had one that would land at about 45m/s but it had gigantic flaps & was built for STOL. Usually my spaceplanes land at around 85-90m/s ( around 200mph, 170ish knots ) which you might think is fast, but seems about right for a heavy aircraft I think. They don't bounce & take off again and nor do they run out of runway, so that's fine for me. The delta notches might be stealth-related - the Eurofighter has straight trailing edges.

What will make people feel old is realising the 13 year olds were born after the turn of the millenium. You may think the 90s seem recent ( me too, but that's mostly because ther wasn't anything to remember about the 2000s ) and then you realise that - and Doom is 20 years old this year. I can't remember Apollo moon missions, I can just remember Apollo-Soyuz & Skylab ( anyone else remember the panic about Skylab coming down again? ) and the optimism about space in the 70s - where's my Space 1999 moonbase! I grew up with games & computers, I'll be playing games when I die too. And I still play FPS as well.

I usually do something like this: * climb 15-20 degrees until about 8-9km * depending on TWR either level off or pitch down to about 8 deg until transonic issues are past - may even need a shallow dive, just don't let it go too low again or you'll start hitting thick air & lose speed. * Climb at usually 10-12 deg or so until around 18km * Nose down to about 5 deg & let it climb to 21-22km while it's building speed. * If I timed it right I'll have hit 1.6-1.7km/s at about the time FAR is telling me I'm out of air, so I switch engine mode & pitch up to 10deg again. My planes are usually heavy so I can't really go much steeper. * Won't take long to hit AP, at that point I leave it pitched up so I'm gaining a little lift from what's left of the atmosphere to counter any drag-related speed loss. It should only need 1-200ms of extra dV at AP to circularise. If you've got enough TWR to climb out of atmo at 45 degrees I suspect you can probably climb off the deck to 18km at 45 degrees also, which gets a lot of issues over and done with quickly. Certainly if I can climb from the runway at over 25 degrees I'll go straight to 18km before levelling off. I've used a jet fuel droptank once I think, otherwise I haven't bothered with pure jet tanks.

I have one using the larger S2 cargo parts also. It's awfully sluggish with the latest FAR, but it eventually gets to orbit; adding more wing area often helps. And if you're having re-entry issues, have a couple of fuel tanks at the extremities of the plane & use TAC fuel balancer to shift some fuel around - having some far forwards for re-entry might help. A passenger shuttle should be ok with a single Sabre M, if you're using the S2 parts still. I tend to use the Firesplitter Mk1 passenger fuselage, you can get up with a single Sabre S then. I use SmartASS also, although even with tuning MJ's PID controller a bit it's still pretty rough for atmospheric flight. Edit: just took it up for a test flight. The wing seems ok, the tail is not sufficient though - had dutch roll issues at high altitude, and then it pitched up and attempted to backflip when I turned the rockets off after transition, although that might be a fuel balance issue also. Still, had enough ballistic energy that I could correct it in time. I'll try re-entry, that should be amusing.... definitely don't think that little V-tail is sufficient. Edit 2: re-entry and landing were fine - the extra drag from the latest FAR actually helps a lot with re-entry.

Skyhook: usually means the nose is too draggy which makes the rocket unstable if it isn't pointing straight up it's direction vector; drag will be making it turn more. If putting fins at the base of the rocket doesn't work then you'll have to start turning higher where there's less atmosphere ( and consequently less drag ), or reduce the launch TWR a bit so you're not going so fast initially, or pilot very very carefully. Ferram mentioned an issue with the current KW Rocketry set where the rocket parts aren't draggy enough, so the fairings move the CoD way up.

Did it ever make it to a public release? I wouldn't mind going and fiddling if you can remember which one it was. Was that the cushioning or the vortex breakup or both? seems wierd there was *no* noticeable effect.

@Delta Force: your CoL is a bit too far back, once you go supersonic it'll go even further back - and I would hazard a guess that your CoT is above your CoM, which is going to pitch down. One mod I've found almost essential is TAC Fuel Balancer - and obviously split your plane's tanks up so you can shift fuel around. IIRC winglets help reduce wingtip vortex drag, which I don't think is modelled here. Are you any nearer ground effect, Ferram?

Are you not just looking at the jet ISP? the rocket mode is 375 in vacuum, 330 at sea level ( from the cfg ). There's no reason not to use them on any spaceplane large enough to need a small one though, and that's pretty much anything bigger than a personal shuttle.

Hmm, the drag changes might explain why my rockets have been tumbling on their usual ascent profiles too, I tend to use the KW extended fairings by default & the CoD is going to be way up in the nose - which is ok until you start going sideways. Other than use a straighter profile which is what I've resorted to, I'm not sure what else to do about that. I doubt going slower is really going to help that much, and it'd take fins the size of wings to provide a balancing moment. This is where having 70km of atmosphere hurts, not enough time to fly an ideal path. Most definitely need a blended wing large fuselage now. Something that looks like a giant Manta Ray perhaps.

This might explain why my Mk4 designs won't even leave the runway now. How much of the actual shape does it look at? if, say, the connector front piece for that fuselage set was less flat surface with sharp angles and more curves would it really matter? Spaceplane wings: I've found normal looking swept wings seem to work best, although in the past deltas have also worked. Having a large span is helpful in the transition area on the way up.

Or it will overwrite FAR, being that TV PP is presumably loaded after. All the parts are FAR compatible anyway though, you just might find anything using FAR jets suddenly feels asthmatic.

Ok, as detailed in this post using the ExsurgentEngineering bundled with Deadly Reentry has fixed all issues. Note you don't need DR itself, just the EE dll.

Well, I was thinking if you could have slices of cylinders you could basically have a procedural fuselage, too.

I can see why - it means he never has to edit stock cfgs and we don't run the risk of half a dozen mods installing the same cfgs. Of course now one mod can break another in different ways, and I don't know what would happen if two mods tried editing the same section of cfg now, but it is a sensible idea.

SABRE S works ok, M model not. I don't appear to be able to edit any stock control surfaces either ( after reinstalling the stock cfgs, yes ) - the FAR-enabled ones from other places are still working fine. Note the CoL marker too, that ought to be inside the CoM but I presume the SPH is using the default aero for the canards & tail & messing it up. Oddly the plane flies just fine! Edit: having checked other threads I suspect it's modulemanager itself having problems with the B9 engines, that's been reported before. I would guess it may not be loading Squad part edits or even FAR ones, given they're probably loaded later.

I've only tested it briefly, but it looks like FAR and the SABRE M aren't getting on. SABRE S works ok, I've just orbited one. The engine is generating thrust in the info panel, just doesn't actually do anything with it.

"Unload parts that aren't in my SoI" would be a good start... a garbage collection poll once a second wouldn't hurt performance.

Autochon: I must admit I'm terrible at using the data, I only generally go check when something is really wrong. I will note your tail surface's "neutral" position appears not to be end on to the airflow though, I can't see from that angle if that is going to result in any pitch-up force or no but it does kinda look like it might.

3.3.4 from Spaceport works with 20.2, 3.3.1 linked in the first post doesn't appear to.