Let us dicuss nosecones.

[Awass]

As I'm sure you are all aware, nosecones increase drag. Maybe this has been discussed to death before, but I just want to know if their are plans for changing the aerodynamics model or something to fix this in the immediate future.

[Tremzack]

Yes It is planned to totally re-do the aerodynamic model, most likely at the same time they redo space planes. It is posted on the wiki planned section. Case Closed

[Captain Sierra]

If you don't feel like waiting on Romfarer to add his mod into the stock game (which I doubt they will do, FAR is VERY realistic and that can actually take the fun out of it as plane design becomes very different and in some cases, much harder.), you could go download Ferram Aerospace Research. Be warned, the realism level of FAR (as said by an avid flight sim pilot) is VERY good and can change the dynamics of your design by a lot.

[OrbitusII]

Romfarer did Lazors... Ferram did FAR (Ferram Aerospace Research).

They do plan on redoing the aerodynamic system, but that's pretty far (badum-tish) into the future.

[MUSTANG]

How does drag work exactly, anyway? Does adding parts that add drag effect the whole ship, or is it more localized? What would happen if you simply gave the nose comes negative drag values, so as to reduce drag for the whole craft?

[OtherDalfite]

How does drag work exactly, anyway? Does adding parts that add drag effect the whole ship, or is it more localized? What would happen if you simply gave the nose comes negative drag values, so as to reduce drag for the whole craft?

Pretty sure the whole craft just has a tacked on drag amount and just calculates with that. Don't bother with FAR really, because you can have a plate of panels and if you fill it with nosecones, it works flawlessly. I really hope squad fixes aerodynamics soon, I'm sick of having to design planes so insanely unrealistic just to get them off the ground.

[Richy teh space man]

Adding most parts atm adds drag to the ship, therefore adding nosecones just make things worse.

Also, negative drag means the nose cones would fly into space at high speed iirc.

[NeoMorph]

Actually the staff has said they are not going to redo the physics... they are actually going to ADD the physics (because it sure as hell ain't there at the moment heh).

In the meantime, you don't have FAR to go for a phyx.

[Supernovy]

From what I can tell, KSP drag is directly proportional to mass, which means the acceleration due to drag that you feel is directly proportional to the average drag coefficient (the mass weighted average).

Adding a part of the same drag coefficient as a ship to it does not affect its aerodynamic properties at all, no matter where it is placed or what mass it is. This also means that the centre of drag will always be on the centre of mass, unless parts of differing drag coefficient are added. In this case, you can get torque due to the drag and mass centres not being aligned. The more massive the different-drag part is, and the further away from the current centre of drag it is, the more torque it will cause.

Solid rocket boosters are 0.3 drag, greater than the 0.2 that most parts have. This means that if you put boosters at the bottom of the ship, they will aerodynamically stabilise it. Parachutes have something like 0.22 drag when undeployed, and the torque this causes can easily be seen during re-entry with a pod.

Most nosecones are 0.3 drag, so will pull the centre of drag toward them. this will have a stabilising effect if used on lower stage boosters, but will increase the overall drag. The aeroplane nosecone is different, it has 0.1 drag, so will lower overall drag and push the centre of drag away from it, so will stabilise if put on the front of a craft.

The Cupola pod has 0.4 drag and a mass of 4.5 tonnes, meaning it will increase the overall drag a lot and will cause a very strong torque in atmosphere.

At least, that's what I think happens.

[MarkusA380]

I think nosecones are not fully implemented yet. Think of the fact KSP is an Alpha!

[Captain Sierra]

Right now.

dead weight

In the future.

streamlining efficiency.

And I know FAR does a good job with nose cones. I have seen linear staged rockets (think Saturn V) that can make orbit with ~3300 dV under FAR.

[Tom K.]

If you don't feel like waiting on Romfarer to add his mod into the stock game (which I doubt they will do, FAR is VERY realistic and that can actually take the fun out of it as plane design becomes very different and in some cases, much harder.), you could go download Ferram Aerospace Research. Be warned, the realism level of FAR (as said by an avid flight sim pilot) is VERY good and can change the dynamics of your design by a lot.

I think it will completly increase the fun in plane-designs cause if you know how to build a space-plane it will actually fly. It's very frustrating knowing you have the perfect design but the current aerodynamics-model doesn't support it.

[Autochton]

For my own part, I can't abide the look of stock atmospheric vehicles as it stands now. Planes invariably become wide, squat, ugly monstrosities with absurd amounts of intakes in weird spots (backwards, sideways, control surfaces clipped into them, whatnot). Rockets become these wide, stubby ungainly things that look vaguely like oil drums welded together, not something that flies to space.

I'll take my nice, sleek, fast-looking, aerodynamically sensemaking FAR designs, thanks.

[karolus10]

They look nice, nuff said.

[arq]

The reason that aircraft in KSP become wide, fat, and ugly is because of the aerodynamic model. Real-world planes can do a much better job of distributing fuel near the CoM (usually in the wings). The problem with long planes in KSP (and especially SSTOs with all those heavy rockets and rocket fuel) is that the CoM moves so dramatically in long craft that stabilizing them on re-entry is very difficult.

Also, the only parts in KSP that have any semblance of directional drag are wings. If you dropped a giant rod from space, it sure as heck wouldn't come down sideways. In KSP this translates into requiring special attention to your CoD, as others have mentioned. In real life, aircraft do a much better job of pointing prograde. This is especially true in pitch, because of the wings and horiz stabilizer, though yaw is less so (hence the IRL tendency of a large vert stabilizer with a strong rudder - take a look at a B-17 sometime). In KSP, planes (especially heavy ones) can be turned retrograde just by pitching too fast. They are much less responsive to changes in attitude. In my brief foray into FAR, that was the part I enjoyed the most - rockets and planes flying in-line with the oncoming air (which makes planes much more responsive and maneuverable).

[Awass]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone. You have more than answered my question.

[cesarcurado]

I think they plan on fixing that.

Anyway, I always add nosecones, because looks...

[Tiron]

From what I can tell, KSP drag is directly proportional to mass, which means the acceleration due to drag that you feel is directly proportional to the average drag coefficient (the mass weighted average).

Adding a part of the same drag coefficient as a ship to it does not affect its aerodynamic properties at all, no matter where it is placed or what mass it is. This also means that the centre of drag will always be on the centre of mass, unless parts of differing drag coefficient are added. In this case, you can get torque due to the drag and mass centres not being aligned. The more massive the different-drag part is, and the further away from the current centre of drag it is, the more torque it will cause.

My understanding is that the drag is calculated by a method involving the mass of the part and the 'drag' stat of the part being multiplied. ANY Extra mass increases the overall amount of drag. What you're describing is partially true, but only as regards the Center of Drag.

One of the more bizarre effects of this is that an atmospheric craft's drag drops as it burns off fuel. My modified Ravenspear Mk3 for example gains several hundred M/S and several kilometers maximum altitude as the fuel burns off. In stock, anyway.

The key thing is that all parts have their full drag all the time: there's no 'shielding' effect. In reality, nosecones and fairings DO actually reduce the total vacuum Delta-V of the craft because of the extra weight. They're used because they more than make up for it in reduced drag losses and preventing damage to the payload on the way up.

One particularly notable example of this was NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory Satellite. It was launched on a Taurus-XL 3110 from Vandenberg on Feb. 9, 2009. The payload fairing failed to separate when it was supposed to, and the extra weight caused the craft to have insufficient Delta-V to make orbit. It crashed into the ocean near Antarctica.

If you add nosecones, adapters, or any other such 'aerodynamic' part, you're just reducing the Delta-V of your craft by adding weight AND drag.

Unless you use FAR, in which case you BETTER use those aerodynamic parts if you know what's good for you!

[Motokid600]

Why not just set mass/drag to zero? Weightless cosmetics