iamzac

This bug also affects me, as I posted earlier, but Ferram said he can't reproduce it.

I meant that when the ship is first loaded in 0.14.3.1 the COL is in the same position as in 0.14.3 (and I notice no errors in the log), and after that it changes (and errors appear in the log that seem to come from that change in the code, but I can't know if they are causing the problem or not). I didn't mean that the COL was loaded from somewhere. Edit: If anyone read my previous edits to this post ignore them, they where wrong.

I did further tests, I downloaded the older 0.14.3 version and there this bug doesn't exist and the COL is like it is with 0.14.3.1 at the first load, so the bug appeared between 0.14.3 and 0.14.3.1 . I also tested the latest dev version with the "let's try this" change and the bug is still there. I also found that I don't need to reinstall FAR to reproduce this bug, everytime I start KSP the COL changes if I follow this simple steps: load the ship (I get the COL from 0.14.3), exit SPH, and return to SPH (I get a new COL that is closer to the front). Edit: After having a quick look at the output log errors and the github changes maybe this might be the problem: [spoiler=] - Collider[] colliders = p.GetPartColliders(); + FARPartModule farModule = p.GetComponent<FARPartModule>(); + + Collider[] colliders; + + if ((object)farModule != null) + colliders = farModule.PartColliders; + else + colliders = new Collider[1] { p.collider }; Since I have no experience with the FAR code this sugestion might be completely nonsense.

To be sure that no other mods i have are causing this problems I tested again like this: Step 1: Removed all the mods including FAR, loaded a stock ship in the SPH and took a screenshot: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bhvqdsfbsohr2v1/no_far.png?dl=0 Step 2: Added only FAR 0.14.3.1 as it was downloaded, with no customizations, clean install, loaded the same ship and made another screenshot: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rclx24i4ch353z8/far_firstload.png?dl=0 Step 3: Exit SPH, then return to SPH and made another screenshot, now the COL has moved: https://www.dropbox.com/s/eiuegpwhrtgsmlm/far_secondload.png?dl=0 Here is the KSP_Data\output_log.txt.

I found a bug that I think it's recently introduced, probably in 0.14.3.1 or maybe in the last dev versions before 0.14.3: If I modify general settings for FAR in the menu from the space center window the COL of all my ships is modified, in my case it moves forward and it remains there even if I change the settings back. I noticed before 0.14.3.1 that my COL moved forward while using a recent dev version but I assumed that this might have been an intentional modification but today I installed 0.14.3.1 then I checked my ships and the COL was again as before, more to the rear, then I changed some settings and it moved again forward, I changed the settings back and it was still forward. I don't know which of the two COL positions is the right one and which is the buggy one... Update: I did additional tests and this is NOT related to changing settings as I thought the first time: when you first load a ship after installing a new FAR it shows the COL closer to the rear, if I load it again later without changing anything it shows the COL closer to the front.

FAR already does some rebalances for jet engines, modifying not only thrust but also the velocity curve for some of them, what I was suggesting is that it should also do the rebalances that are available in the Kerbal Isp Difficulty Scaler as "FAR to Stock KSP, Atmosphere only" to complete somehow the partial basic rebalancing of the jet engines. And also undo all or some of the rebalancing for helicopter rotors and VTOL engines because like I said I don't think that the effect it has on them is in line with the reason it was done for all the other engines, as they are a special kind of engines that are not affected very much by FAR (or not at all when only hovering).

Reducing the thrust of air breathing engines at half is very good at balancing the performance planes and spaceplanes vs the stock aerodynamics where the drag is much higher but there are two problems with this: 1) You should not reduce the thrust of hellicopter rotors and VTOL engines by 50% since they gain nothing from FAR during low speed hovering and become almost useless after such a large thrust reduction. Maybe reduce their thrust with a lower value like 10% or 20% so they will not be too fast when not hovering but not 50%. They can be excluded easy from the general filter because they usually have the words rotor, helicoper or vtol in their name or description. 2)Rockets are still overpowered vs. the stock game and it feels a bit like cheating if you are playing with FAR without RSS. The simplest way to fix this would be to reduce the atmospheric ISP for all rockets, this way they will work the same in space or on planets with no atmosphere where FAR doesn't change anything but where you use FAR you will need more fuel which will balance the lower drag. Especially going to EVE for a return mission with FAR feels cheaty because you can get a huge reduction in the required dV if using FAR to launch a rocket from there.

OK then, I hope you will not change it again. Actually it is a bit better now since I can have my COM and DCOM closer. The tail is not that large, look at the tail on the Antonov An-225, it's even bigger compared to the main wings. By the way, since I am talking about heavy stuff: the B9 landing gear behaves like it's made from rubber on large and heavy crafts no matter how many struts I use and I have to use the small gear bay which looks ridiculous. They can be used on heavy crafts only if you are extremely careful and gentle and I like landing in mountains sometimes Also, bigger (taller) landing gear would be very useful for large crafts... maybe something with 4 wheels... or maybe just an upscaled version of the existing ones.

After seeing this I checked my cargo plane which uses the HW21 wing to see if everything is ok and it's not: As you can see the COL moved enough to unbalance the plane. Before starting to redesign it again (I just finished redesigning it after moving from B9 4 to B9 5) I want to ask: Is this how the COL for HW21 will remain or is this a bug in B9 or FAR ?

Just wanted to mention since B9 is already made mainly for FAR, the turbojet in FAR is actually weaker than your SABRE, maximum thrust is 110 at 900 m/s and zero at 1800 m/s. And in case you didn't already knew that I hope you will not nerf the SABRE since they are already realistic, they should be able to reach around Mach 5.5. And about the Scimitar sounding a bit too good to be true... well, if SABRE will become real one day then Scimitar will work too since it's actually a simpler technology, SABRE minus the rocket mode. Also the Scimitar is designed for a longer life than SABRE so maybe it's not necessarily a simpler technology... In KSP we have to look a bit further in time because if we would be 100% realistic we would have no spaceplanes and kerbals would only be able to visit Mun I hope you will add a Scimitar engine since the stock turbojet doesn't look that pretty when paired with B9 components and using my own custom version of scimitar I showed earlier feels kind of cheaty somehow, I don't know why I prefer not to use custom components modified or made by me.

I "made" a test version of the Scimitar engine for the B9 mod team to use it as a starting point in case they wish to do so. Since I have no idea how to do 3d modelling for KSP I took your model.mu from the B9 4.0 SABRE S engine (since it is more similar to the Scimitar because of it's slightly funnel shape), put it over the new one and made the following modifications to the B9 5.2.1 SABRE S part.cfg: Changed name and description, removed all the Rocket Mode parts, decreased mass from 1.5 to 1.4, decreased cost from 3750 to 3500, increased thrust from 215 to 220. Everything else is the same and I tested it and it works. Here is the link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gw2xctyw7z78m2a/Engine_Scimitar_updated.zip?dl=0 (edited, in the first upload I had accidentally deleted the alternator) This is 100% B9 material, I only modified the cfg.

The Scimitar engine can achieve the stock turbojet performance and it's no more or less "magical unicorn-pixiedust-and-friendship" than the SABRE engine included in the B9. Personally I am using it to replicate a hypersonic plane similar to the proposed Lapcat plane from the link I have included. I think it's perfectly balanced compared to the SABRE S engine from the point of view of thrust and weight. The only unreal thing is the name and the design but maybe you could make a B9 one. It would basically be a slightly lighter SABRE-S, with the same thrust and velocity curve and a slightly funnel shape. Maybe you could reuse the old SABRE model which was already slightly funnel shaped and put a modified texture... like the jagged texture around the F119 nozzle... or we can use the existing stock turbofan and imagine it's an scimitar engine Anyway, it would be nice to mention in the original post you modify the stock engines and also write how to undo this modification by deleting the MM file, otherwise people will find out their stock planes don't work no more and have no idea why, as not everyone reads the changelogs.

There is a simpler way to deal with the overpowered stock turbojet: just consider it to be a Scimitar engine which can do sustained cruise speed of mach 5 and could theoretically go to mach 5.5 You already have SABRE engines, Scimitar are (will be) the same thing, only without the rocket mode and with longer operational life. They are basically a turbojet + ramjet in one.

@sal_vager: thanks for your help, turning down render quality in wine does eliminate shadow flickering but also removes the shadows completely... anyway the main reason for testing with wine was to see if I can get better performance but it's the same so it doesn't matter. As for the problem with keyboard events: I tested further and it happens in both 32 and 64 bits versions and also happens with Kerbal Alarm Clock so it's not a bug related to MechJeb. Under wine the problem doesn't happen. Every time I type something into a Kerbal Alarm Clock or MechJeb window this triggers action groups and other events (for example space would trigger stage separation) which shouldn't happen if the window has focus. So this is a problem with event bubbling: in the Linux version the windows don't stop events to propagate to their parents when they are focused. Any idea how to fix this?

When I type something into a Mechjeb window, using the 64 bit KSP version under the latest Lubuntu, action groups are activated. I tried the windows version with wine and there this doesn't happen but I have another problem: the shadows are flickering. Does anyone have any idea how to fix these problems?

Interesting information, although I was already convinced that rockets are better for heavy payloads, I was only wondering about spaceplanes vs air launches since both use the same idea: launching like a plane using jet engines but one takes those engines into space while the other leaves them.

Which of these two solutions do you think is the most economical for sending small to medium payloads to the low earth orbit? I think that in the near future air launching seems a better solution because: -You don't have to carry jet engines, big wings and other stuff you need for low altitude flying into space -Can be done (and it is already done) with current technology. There are no spaceplanes yet, Skylon will probably be the first one -The technology is much simpler and probably cheaper -The mothership can be used for other tasks such as general cargo carrying, testing new plane designs, ... With supersonic launchers this system will become more efficient. But a (hyper)supersonic mothership would be more expensive and it will be harder to use for general cargo carrying because of the price so this would be a step between current solutions and future spaceplanes. In the future, as newer technologies are developed such as lighter and stronger materials and reliable hybrid engines like SABRE SSTO spaceplanes will probably be the best solution. And for heavy payloads rockets remain the only solution. Here is an interesting article about air launching. An article about Soar, a supersonic launcher, which will launch 6,120 kg (13,500 pounds) to LEO.In KSP it is difficult to simulate proper air launches because after a certain distance one of the two ships will be deleted. Here are some of my models to air launch in KSP.

@DivisionByZero: Thanks a lot, your guide was very helpful, it turns out it was a dynamic stability issue which I could solve very quickly with the help of the simulation. I still don't understand exactly what was happening but now it's fine, and after I finish reading the wiki maybe I will have an idea about what was happening. This will be very very useful in future designs. I was going to recommend for this to be linked from the first page but I see that it already is a link to the wiki but I didn't saw it before... Do you know what phi (Φ) is in lateral simulation? I think that it might be some lateral (angular?) speed but I am not sure.

Thank you for a great plugin that allows building of more realistic planes! I had some problems with FAR which I mostly solved but I still don't understand why they happen. In short: My planes have a tendency to pitch up and flip (leading to disintegration) in some conditions even though the COL is behind COM and the AOA is small. Long description: First I built this blackbird replica: http://i.imgur.com/gZ5G6G5.png which worked fine with no problems. Then I wanted to build a spaceplane version so I added oxidizer, replaced the engines with rapiers and other small modifications. According to SPH the COM moved back a little but was still in front of COL. I had no problems taking off and flying at subsonic speed but every time it reached Mach 1 it exploded. It didn't matter the height, the thrust, the angle. To better see the problem I accelerated very slowly at higher altitudes to see the problem happen more slowly and what I saw was that when reaching Mach 1 it suddenly displayed large scale stall and there was a sudden pitch up which was the one causing the high dynamic pressure to disintegrate the plane. I didn't understand why this was happening because the COL was already behind the COM, the angle of attack was small, I wasn't even touching the controls and at transonic and supersonic speeds the COL should move to the back and the nose should have a tendency to pitch down not up... but anyway the logical action was to try to move COL more back so I did and now my spaceplane version looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/BltpfiX.png and can go past Mach 1 without exploding. I no longer have pictures with the exploding version but if needed I can modify it and take some. Question 1: But I still don't understand: why was this happening in the first place? After solving this problem I encountered another problem which I have with all my spaceplanes and FAR, including this model for example: http://i.imgur.com/2yvoOgN.png At heights above 20.000 meters and speeds above Mach 4 my spaceplanes have the tendency to suddenly pitch up, usually when I try to pitch down and then flip and of course explode. The solution I have found to this problem is to try to enter 20.000 almost perfectly level and then let the pitch increase and not correct it more than once and just go to rocket mode and space as quickly as possible in order not to flip, but this means that I loose deltav because I don't gather all the horizontal speed that I could get from air breathing mode. Question 2: So why does this happen and how can I solve this? The slow constant pitching up happens in both stock aerodynamics and with FAR always so I am not asking about that (although I am not sure why that happens either) the problem is the sudden pitch up even though AOA is small, and the COL is way behing COM and I don't pitch too fast. The COL is so behind COM that I have some trouble when landing because then I no longer have problems with the plane pitching up, at low speeds and altitudes it behaves normally, which means that it will keep trying to go nose down so I have to keep pitching up so landing is a bit ugly. I tried moving fuel to the front continuously while moving up to move the COM even further in front but it still happens. If I enable all the FAR stability helping tools it's even worse: it's almost guaranteed that when I will try to pitch down it will suddenly flip up. I designed an experimental spaceplane with the engines in front so that the COM will be close to the front of the plane and the center of thrust be also ahead thinking that as an arrow is stable because the COM is in front and when my planes flip the have a tendency to go with their rear forward maybe this will help but it didn't, still the same flip. I don't have screenshots but I can take some and upload if necessary (it looks ugly). This eight engine stock cargo design : http://i.imgur.com/6pza3pG.png which also has the COM in front seems to work fine but I didn't test it enough, I only used it once and I might have not stayed enough gathering horizontal speed to check if this problems was still happening. But this shouldn't be the problem because high speed planes like SR-71 and XB-70 usually have the COM close to the rear. This problem also happens during reentry so when I return I have to point the nose prograde until I reach bellow 15.000 m and bellow Mach 4 and only then I can begin to safely and slowly pitch up, but I would like to reenter space shuttle style, pitched up but like I said that is impossible even if I move all my fuel in front. I was also thinking that maybe the fact that Blackbird has forward chines that cat like canards and XB-70 also has canards maybe I should add some canards too but not only it would ruin the look but like I showed already other spaceplanes I built have canards and still have this problems and the spaceshuttle doesn't have canards and can reenter at high pitch angle. Sorry for such a lengthy post...