Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'col'.

• Search By Tags

Type tags separated by commas.

Forums

• General
• Announcements
• Welcome Aboard
• Kerbal Space Program 2
• KSP2 Dev Updates
• KSP2 Discussion
• KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
• Challenges & Mission Ideas
• The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
• Mission Reports
• KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
• Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
• KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
• KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
• KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
• Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
• KSP2 Mod Discussions
• KSP2 Mod Releases
• KSP2 Mod Development
• Kerbal Space Program 1
• KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
• KSP1 Discussion
• KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
• KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
• KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
• KSP1 Mission Reports
• KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
• KSP1 Mods
• KSP1 Expansions
• Community
• Science & Spaceflight
• Kerbal Network
• The Lounge
• KSP Fan Works
• International
• International
• KerbalEDU
• KerbalEDU
• KerbalEDU Website

Found 8 results

1. centre of mass and centre of lift behaviour with far

So firstly the centre of lift it is slightly slow to refresh I'm guessing this is far doing calculations. My main question, I am building a plane using realism overhaul and realistic progression, with FAR. I would like to my centre of lift to be above my centre of mass to utilise the pendulum affect to stabilize my craft. My com is slightly below my col, When I raise the Wings to the top of my craft the com moves with the col. Granted the Wings have some weight I'm using procedural parts. So I emptied the Wings fuel tanks and lowered the mass strength muilplier %. Thinking this would change only the mass and not the lift, but the com and col both move down. Why does col change when only changing weight of parts? Is it something to do with FAR indicator being centre of pressure not centre of lift?
2. Is it bad for CoM=CoL on my spaceplane?

TL;DR: is this generally considered a "don't do this" type of thing for spaceplanes, or just a tradeoff? Hi, I've been refining a Mk3 "do-everything" spaceplane for a while now (all science, ISRU, amphibious, etc.) and I'm wondering if I'm making a mistake with the balance. The default CoM is very stable and just a tiny tiny bit forward of the CoL, but I understand that although these being very close makes the plane more maneuverable, it also makes it more vulnerable to loss of control. My question is: is this generally considered a "don't do this" type of thing for spaceplanes, or just a tradeoff? —Liftoff/landing: CoM and CoL being on top of each other is good here, right? —Ascent: CoM being somewhat ahead of CoL makes the plane more stable. But if it seems pretty controllable then is there a reason to worry? —Reentry: CoM being somewhat ahead of CoL makes the plane recover from aggressive reentry profiles. Is it reasonable to say "I expect to have some fuel left to create this condition for reentry" or is that considered a bad design? (It needs 10% fuel to ensure recovery from radial out position) Basically, I like the idea of maximum agility (for a Mk3 spaceplane) but I don't want to overlook a fatal flaw.
3. Any mod for seeing CoM and CoL inflight?

Hi, i think this would be an invaluable tool for all of us, if we could see real time inflight CoM and CoL, is it possible?
4. [1.2] CorrectCoL v1.4.4 - stock aerodynamics design aid

Download and source (MIT license): https://github.com/Boris-Barboris/CorrectCoL/releases https://spacedock.info/mod/789/CorrectCoL Stockalike CoL indicator for stock Aerodynamics, accounts not only for ILiftProviders. Please, don't try it with FAR (mod disables itself if FAR is found). Simple static stability analysis: Most graphs are torque-AoA relations: green graph - current fuel levels. yellow graph - emptyed fuel tanks. Exceptions: blue graph - pitch L/D ratio (wet). blue vertical line - level flight AoA (wet). aoa range - AoA and sideslip range to plot, degrees. aoa marks - horizontal axis marks step, degrees. aoa compress - zero for 1:1 AoA axis, positive for quadratic compression. Helps to focus on important stuff near zero AoA while not loosing large-AoA behaviour. speed - speed towards root part nose direction, m/s. Enter negative values to analyze retrograde stability. altitude - meters above sea level. Four simplistic and quite stupid trait labels, may sometimes fool you. Be careful with launch clamps, they are accounted for too. Also, move your craft by the root part a little after loading to ensure correct results for graph (strange API stuff).
5. COL in SPH Glitching Out

So I've been making an F-35 Replica(that looks really horrible) and i wanted to see if it would fly. I checked the COL and COM and the COL was all the way on the floor. (I tried to test fly it but it didn't take off and flipped out) Picture: http://imgur.com/a/eBbtV EDIT: It''s a little hard to see. The COL is below the plane on the floor.
6. CoM and CoL in flight

A simple debug feature (much like how f12 shows drag/lift) that would display the CoL, CoM, and CoT while in flight. This would help with spaceplanes because you could adjust fuel levels to balance it out or watch how it moves in flight.
7. Building a shuttle - CoM/CoL weirdness

Something I've never really accomplished is building a reliable shuttle, so I set out to do just that. I've already done some test flights, but it's far from stable. The issues stem from the orbiter's aerodynamics which I can't figure out. The vehicle is completely stock except for the docking assembly in the forward bay, but here is the craft file with the assembly removed (it brings the CoM just in front of the aft docking port): https://www.dropbox.com/s/xyv532298gm371q/Shuttle%20Orbiter.craft?dl=0. I can't figure out why the centre of mass is so far back and why the centre of lift is upside down. I've double checked to make sure the wings are the right way up. The centre of thrust shown here is with the main engines disabled. In-orbit stability is another issue considering the two OMS engines aren't perfectly aligned unless I tilt them up to an awkward angle. Also, sometimes the CoL will act up and just appear as a dot in the middle of the tail without a vector:
8. Is it me, or should the CoL be higher, given my designs?

http://imgur.com/a/IbZwo I'm running FAR and B9's Procedural Parts fork (and a whole bunch of other mods), and I'm trying to stabilize my plane's design by raising the CoL a bit over the CoM. But even with designs like these, the CoL doesn't seem to want to budge in the up/down direction. It does seem to behave properly from nose to tail, though... Anyone have any ideas here? EDIT: The answer is yes, CoL should be higher. I removed FAR to see if it would make a difference and it very much did: http://imgur.com/UkC4iDB So the question now is why is it doing this and how can I fix it? I've tried removing the B9 procedural parts fork, and that didn't fix it, so I guess I'm in for a lot of troubleshooting now... but any insight to shorten this process would be much appreciated! EDIT 2: So I've removed any mods I haven't deemed absolutely necessary (ie, removing them won't break my save) and I'm left with the following: Blizzy's Toolbar Module Manager FAR & the Modular Flight Integrator & RealChuteLite, which came packaged with it RemoteTech SCANSat The LargeCrewedLab and mk3CockpitShuttle from KerbalSpaceCommand (see CKAN) Contract Configurator Anomaly Surveyor and RemoteTech Contract Packs Kerbal Inventory System However, I'm also being told by the fine folks on Reddit that this behaviour may be more feature than bug. So maybe all this has been an exercise in futility.
×
×
• Create New...