Search the Community

Good day! We are looking for the best aerodynamic model, in passing figuring out the properties and characteristics of certain parts in KSP 1.2.1. Finding the golden mean between minimalistic craft and one large fairing is a very important aspect of the game. At this time, I've written a series of video experiments for you to see firsthand the effectiveness of different models. These five KSPeriments relate to Kerbin. How to make the perfect craft? Let's find out! I'm going to regularly update this thread with new videos. But, sure, you can always see new experiments there: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTc4sm01Q9olAZW008Kn5i63YrURAoCzB This is my KSPeriments playlist. Feel free to comment and ask anything. English is not my native language, but I'm sure I can explain all that's required. Thanks for watching! :3

KSP Version: 1.3.1.1891 (Windows 7 x64), fresh install, fresh sandbox savegame. I keep this particular KSP install for such testing only. Mods / Add-Ons: All Stock Description: if there is a long enough part inside a cargohold that consists of two shorter ones, then drag is applied to the payload. (I think its because the game thinks that payload part is clipping through the cargobay. Although visually it is only clipping through its front or its back as it is longer than the cargobay.) I also think the problem is known. But I'm not sure. Also I'd like to know if it's gonna be fixed or not. The reason I'm reporting this is because there are many modded parts that are longer than the longest cargobay available. Fuel tanks for example. It also limits how one should attach their payload inside cargobays. UPD: not every part bugs. Incomplete list of parts which I've tested (yes = causes the bug): - FL-T800 Fuel Tank: yes - Modular Girder Segment XL: no - M-Beam 200 I-Beam: no - Mk1 Cockpit: yes - Orange Tank: yes - RT-10 Hammer Solid Fuel Booster: yes (omg i've ignited it inside my cargobay.. omg.. oh nevermind it didnt explode) As a lil' bonus I've also tested the situation when a small part is placed between two cargobays. It didn't bug at all (tested with 2x FL-T200 Fuel Tank). Steps to Replicate: 1) Create a plane with two connected short cargobays so they make a longer one together. 2) Put a long enough part inside - its length must be longer than one of the short cargobays. Example: two connected Mk3 Cargo Bays CRG-50 and an Orange Tank inside. 3) Attach additional parts like a Cockpit, landing gears and an engine (if the payload isnt a fuel tank - then attach a fuel tank too of course). 4) Launch the craft. 5) Make aero forces visible in parts' gui menu through the debug menu. 6) Open the payload right-click menu. 7) Accelerate and watch its drag. Result: The payload's drag isn't zero although it must be as it is fully enclosed. Fixes/Workarounds: - attach the payload differently (if there are multiple crafts or parts as a payload); - use different nodes; - use the largest cargobay available; - don't put larger parts inside Other Notes/Pictures/Log Files: Both Mk3 and Mk2 cargobays have this problem. I believe its an internal technical logic problem, not a bug. Its just how the game calculates drag. But still it is a problem. Craft files: Mk2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kk4h6y8h4alamx0/Bugged Mk2.craft?dl=0 Mk3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fe4zaluf436nniq/Bugged Mk3.craft?dl=0 Screenshots (the right part-menu reflects the payload on both screenshots): Thank you Squad for making one of the best games! No sarcasm involved. Bugs happen. (I believe there is no need to include logfiles. Will attach if Im wrong.)

An audible sonic boom when a part surpasses the sound barrier would be a nice touch. It would add a bit more realism and satisfaction.

My spaceplane somehow has more drag acting on the nose during re-entry than on the delta wing and tail, causing it to be unstable and flip to retrograde no matter what I do. Why is the drag so mismatched? The center of lift is well behind the center of mass.

This rocket has been having stability problems on its 2nd stage. I have checked everything that normally makes rockets unstable. The center of mass is way above the center of lift, I checked for clipping parts, I strutted everything together. It hasn't helped. Through making the winglets into an entire wing, I managed to make the 1st stage only just stable, however no matter what I've done, the 2nd stage is still unstable. I've moved the wing as far down as possible, but it still flips. I have no idea why, and would like some help. I don't know how to upload the craft file, so I cant do that, but I will if i figure out how to. Thanks for any help.

So, I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed this, but ladders have a ridiculous amount of drag. I've had them create as much drag as a Big-S Shuttle Wing on some occasions. Now, is there any nice way to make drag cubes check for other drag cubes existing in the same space, or would this be an absolute nightmare for anyone to code? I don't know a thing about modding on KSP, so I am posting this as a request, but if anyone knows some of the basics on how to do this, I'd be willing to try my hand at it.

I suspect that this one should be reported already, but I'd report this issue nevertheless. After 'Revert to Launch', payload in cargo bay gets draggy(Large reaction wheel in this case). It does not happen when the cargo bay is not the root part of the craft. Here's the screenshots to confirm this issue. Before the 'Revert to Launch': After the 'Revert to Launch': Here's the craft file: http://pastebin.com/YkVZPzCA I'm using latest version of 1.2.2, with V.O.I.D and Editor Extension Redux installed. I think this should happen in stock, though.

I was playing around with a simple plane with infinite fuel enabled, in order to test the effects of dihedral and high vs low wing, but I was getting some extraordinarily weird results. I was expecting the high wing dihedral arrangement to counteract sideslip disturbances and make the plane not tend to bank into level turns, but that wasn't what was happening at all. This was my test craft: It is, as far as I can tell, completely symmetrical around the longitudinal axis. Reaction wheels were disabled and I was flying without SAS. Ignore the radial parachutes on the bottom, I was trying to balance out the high wings to neutralize torque from the engine thrust axis being off center mass, but they have no effect on the test and I just removed them. After taking off and trimming pitch neutral, I was getting a very noticeable and annoying roll tendency to the left, and I just couldn't figure out why. I could trim it out, sure, but where was it coming from? On my actual planes I was planning to fly with SAS on (for autotrim, mostly) and I find that making the plane as stable as possible without SAS on helps a lot with making it fly well. After investigating if there was asymmetric drag or lift going on somewhere and scratching my head for a bit I discovered this little bit of weirdness: if the wings are set to autostrut to heaviest part (the engine), the plane consistently rolls to the left. If they are set to autostrut to the root or grandparent part (the cockpit in both cases), the roll tendency is much less pronounced but still there. With autostruts disabled, the wing configuration does what I expected, and the plane is quite well-behaved in level turns - just bank it over 20-30° in either direction and it will quickly stabilize in a clean turn with no sideslip by itself with no input other than the pitch trim, and it has a weak tendency to bank out of the turn and return to wings level regardless of turn direction. Rigid attachment of the wings seems to have a similar effect of making the plane tend towards to rolling left, but the effect is quite weak and it could easily be a mistake on my part (my testing methodology is hardly all that scientific and the testing environment isn't exactly controlled). What is going on here? Why does this happen? Surely autostruts don't actually have drag (even if they did, I don't think that would cause this). I've seen some discussion of some old symmetry joint rigidity bug that could have similar effects but I couldn't find it on the bug tracker. Here is the craft file for the test aircraft (with autostruts and rigid attachment off) in case you want to play around with it yourself. To reproduce my test conditions, take off (it is pretty nose heavy at low speed but you have more than enough pitch authority to counteract that) and get into stable level flight, without SAS, with nose pointed at horizon. Adjust pitch trim so that the plane maintains level flight. I did my tests at quite low AoA - around half a degree. Bank the aircraft left or right and observe how it behaves in a turn. Now, while you're in such a turn, autostrut the wings to the heaviest part and observe the roll tendency. It's more noticeable in a right hand turn because then the high-wing dihedral tendency to return to wings level combines with the tendency to roll to the left. It is also more noticeable at higher speeds.

I can't find any aerodynamic cones that are suitable for the front of a mk2 or mk3 spaceplane... what do people do? Always use a mk2 or mk3 cockpit? ah, there are fuel converters to std cone shapes... just need to flip them round. Ignore me!

The wiki suggests that the fancier nose cones are a waste of cash and mass: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Advanced_Nose_Cone_-_Type_A http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Advanced_Nose_Cone_-_Type_B "The Advanced Nose Cone - Type A is a part introduced in version 1.0. It is an aerodynamic nose cone. It has a drag coefficient of .1 and a mass of .075, .045 more than then Aerodynamic Nose Cone part which is considerably less expensive and has the same drag coefficient making it a purely aesthetic part." "The Advanced Nose Cone - Type B is a part introduced in version 1.0. It has a drag coefficient of .1 and a mass of .075, .045 more than then "Aerodynamic Nose Cone" part which is considerably less expensive and has the same drag coefficient, additionally its slanted shape provides no lift." Is this really the case? I'd have hoped that the parts would have some small reduction in drag coefficient to make them worthwhile? It's far from scientific, but I've noticed that swapping basic nose cones with the Type A have increased the solid booster stage of my launch from 65k to 66k. It could just be that the craft is slightly more stable on the way up.

Okay, this is a rather technical question that is probably best answered by a Squad programmer, but if anyone else knows feel free to chime in. I have been thinking a lot about aerodynamics lately, and in particular the vortices that form in the wake of atmospheric compression. Obviously these are essential for lift, but controlling them is essential for managing drag. I wanted to know how closely the Kerbal Space Program aerodynamic physics engine models these vorticies. For example, are there advantages to putting small strakes to break up airflow before it builds to a larger vortex behind the craft? Will long swept wings generate smaller vorticies than short square ones? Is there any lift advantage for adding bulkier perturbations in the topography of the airframe on top of it compared to on the bottom? I know the answers to these as concerns of real-engineering, but I want to know how closely they apply in KSP, since they would impact my design choices.

Hello! I was designing a new prop. plane, which included a structural component(small cubic one) to hold a engine. So it files, but there seems to be one problem: speed. (It can't beat 50~60m/s ) I know that proplanes can't have very fast speed. The problem is, there is similar proplane I made which is much more faster. this one seems to be slower even with bigger thrust. The only differences I saw was: 1. The slower one used structural component to hold engines. 2. The slower one has bigger wings for prop. engine, which might have bigger drag. 3. The slower one has shorter cone, which would be more draggy. So how can I reduce drag in this situation? Are there some great techniques to reduce drag? If there is, please let me know and it'll be greatly appreciated! + Also I'd like to know which structural part with node attachment? This is necessary to offset parts far enough.

What are the aerodynamic properties of this part? Does the big flat part cause drag if you put engines on it? Or does it count as a smooth mk3-to-3x1.25m adapter?

Here's what I'm thinking: If realistic water buoyancy can be implemented, why not ground effect? It would open up a whole new avenue of designs, like ground effect vehicles. It would also make takeoff and landing in spaceplanes and aircraft easier, as the amount of lift is increased as you approach the ground. However, that could be balanced out by reducing the effectiveness of control surfaces. It should also be easy to implement as the effect kicks in at or below the length of an aircraft's wingspan; This data is easily obtained, as it is already in the engineer's report. Please feel free to give your thoughts, whether for or against this. Thanks!

Hi KSP! I wanted to say that the aerodynamics are quite advanced, very beautifully and awesomely made! but I can't support it none the less. for two reasons: 1. "Monoplanes produce more lift than for example triplanes, having less wing bodies. that is because triplanes have wings that are so close together that their aerodynamics mix (don't have enough space)" (That is what they thought me on school) So the problem here is: In Kerbal Space Program you can cheat by putting wing(s) in each other and producing more lift, for example. You see that often in large or unrealistic crafts. If this isn't the case anymore (in 1.2) I will be very happy! And I wonder if I ask something very complicated. But for me it ruined my motivation to make aircrafts in KSP. 2. There are no proceduraly generated wings, if not using mods. This limits imagination and options drastically. PS. I really love KSP! I want to thank everyone very much for making such an awesome game!! PPS. You could check the "Gabe Flags" I made ...

So, is this some kind of exploit? I've seen it many times, not just on this. People always seem to put the tiny nose cone on their Rapiers, and I don't get why. I thought that either: a) they'd blow up from heat exhaust or... b) they'd block the thrust of the craft. Is it just aesthetics, or is it an actual exploit or what? Whatever it is, if it isn't aesthetics, then I have no idea what it is for.

Even with supersonic shaped aircrafts with low profile wings, the parts constantly vibrate/shiver/shake/clip even after landing. Is there any way to turn off supersonic effects completely?

I recently updated from KSP 1.0.2 to 1.1.3 and notice a significant difference as to how the game handles aerodynamics. Are there settings changes which would return the game to stock aerodynamics ala 1.0.2? Thank you for any assistance!

So I made a plane and I pointed some wing parts downward and upwards and the CoL pointed a bit backwards, what are the effects?

I hope I'm in the right place to post this, but I've noticed a major increase in the applied drag after the recent update. I did some testing in the current 1.1.2, 1.1.1 and 1.1 versions of the game and noticed that 1.1 had significantly less drag applied than subsequent ones. According to what I could conclude, 1.1.2 applies almost 20% more drag, which is never mentioned in any of the release notes. (1.1.2 just introduced some optimization). This practically grounded 90% of my spaceplanes, so I'm curious if anyone else noticed this? Here are some screenshots with flight data GUI for both 1.1 and 1.1.2. (notice that 1.0.5 aero was more similar to 1.1). Flight stats in 1.1 And the same situation in 1.1.2

I was wondering if it might be an idea to add a wind tunnel to the KSP? Aerodynamics testing is pretty important, but it'd be nice if we didn't have to resort to the debug menu. Tier 1: You only see how much lift something generates. Positive or negative Tier 2: You get the torque overlay. Tier 3: You get the drag overlay. An ideas? Lift is already visible in the SPH and VAB, but I think not the exact amount? Taking a build to the wind tunnel could give you more info on the amount and surface areas, so it wouldn't be completely useless.

1. the physics bug that due to bending moments, causes all aircraft to slowly roll left or right in flight no matter how much yaw and roll stability is built in. 2. the lack of suitabile autopilot which would make 1) more bearable. So , you have to manually correct every heading deviation all the way to orbit. 3. poor support for joysticks that makes hanflying handflying* needlessly difficult. 4. excess drag from fuel ducts and struts. Exacerbated by the fact that wing parts don't cross feed fuel 5. .... and the way rocket engines don't have a "drain evenly from every tank" mode the way that jet engines do. So your CG gets messed up by rocket motors draining from the front tanks first.

I have recently been trying to create some mods in my spare time, and my friend told me I should make a foldable wing. I've followed the normal steps to create a regular object but I'm having trouble with the model. I created the model in Blender, exported it into Unity, exported it into the .mu and .mbm. After doing this I copied the config file of the Delta wing but encountered an issue. A regular config file has the mesh defined in the PART module, but the wings have a separate module called MODEL. I'm assuming this is the aerodynamic model for the wing, but I can't find anything anywhere about how to create a custom model for this. Any help would be appreciated. Also, I'm in 1.1.2

I want to create space plane and make Val to fly it, but first i want test design i plane to add flea engine to kick it up above magic 70 km

This save is technically modded, however none of these mods are being used/should affect the aerodynamics I'm building a new shuttle, the Large Unmanned Cargo Kraft, or LUCK. Its gone well for the most part, for instance it looks fantastic, however there is a problem with the aerodynamics. I cant quite tell if its just (somehow) more stable in reverse, if its something to do with the Cargo Ramp up front, or if maybe the control surfaces are acting wired. I've been testing in Hack Grav for the "Glide Tests". It flys normally, until I turn a bit too far in any direction, at which point it flips so that the rear is facing forward. When i attempt to correct, it just ends up spinning. Here's are some reference images: http://imgur.com/a/Bq1GK Any and all help will be appreciated, so thanks in advance