Taverius

SCDV Vonnegut Bar any new applicable parts that'll be the example cargo SSTO in 2-6. Obviously without the satellite, I built a random pseudo-satellite out of KSPX parts to have an upper limit on the mass I wanted to be able to cart to LKO. You don't have a heck of a lot of fuel left over, but I was able to get to a circular 96k orbit, drop it and deorbit. You can even cart a little more up there, if you really really need to. Someone asked for a hypersonic cargo plane example ... I'll see about that, but really you could just replace the engines on the Strugatsky for turbojets and there you have it. And yes, it does look very similar like the Bradbury ... with the wing parts in the pack there's only really so many basic layouts that work in the kind of constraints I design with when making example crafts.

Its the hack the intake module uses to provide airflow on the runway when youre not moving. It always adds 100m/s to its speed (configurable in cfg), and the speed can never go below 100m/s. This also means they work backwards, btw, while making no extra 'intake' drag.

Drag-and-drop on the mac replaces the folder. You have to copy-and-paste, drag-and-drop on mac with mods like this which overwites the cfgs for stock parts will cause your OS to delete the folder with the models & textures, which is why it hangs. Checked the craft. The wings are fine, you simply don't have a large enough vertical stabilizer. You're getting away with it using delta-shape wings, but swept wings don't behave like delta wings.

That's ac14's original naming scheme for NTBI sloped wings: '<semi-span>x<length> wing' has a swept trailing edge, '<semi-span>x<length> wing2' has a straight trailing edge.

I'll chime in to say that the B9 and TV pack have appropriate node sizes for all included parts. I even added a few spaceplane part cfgs for stock parts to TV just for the purpose of giving it the right node size. Actually, ferram, what does FAR think of size 3 & 4 nodes? Can you take a look at the B9 pack and tell me? The game won't take 2.5 as a node size so I had to round as appropriate based on my understanding of it.

Just to be clear, we've gotten the 2-6 HW21 wings to the point where they don't rip off in warp anymore, late last night. However KSP still makes them move back about a meter when you come out of warp, so it has a tendency to explode engines/intakes embedded in the wing, because the connection fails. The HW21 wings have 21 meters of semi-span, or a total of 42 meters of wingspan minimum ... that's roughly 5 times the wingspan of the stock swept wing, ~20 times the lift & proportionately as much mass. Its uncomfortably close to the limit of what KSP can functionally support as a single surface-attached part

Yes and has been for a while. Its in the readme, although the thread had an outdated description about a separate directory for FAR config files. Since ferram4 implemented overriding of the winglet module, the config files have been merged as of 1.3.3. For firespitter you need to go into the configuration files and uncomment the FAR blocks for the wings. You will also have to manually add the FAR Control System module to the cockpits. I've had a chat about it with Snjo and the next version will likely have a merged config like B9 and TV. It doesn't know about drag when FAR is on, that confuses it, plus the control delay FAR introduces to simulate fly-by-wire makes it worse. Generally I've found it better to avoid using mechjeb guidance below 30k. I've talked to r4m0n about adding a function to FAR that MJ2 can detect and read part drag from without having the modules depend on each other, but I simply haven't had time to work on it at all, and that would only help with the ascent ap, the landing ap, and the aerobrake prediction. Spaceplanes will be an issue for a while, as MJ doesn't do any prediction on the effects of stock winglets undergoing control input, and it certainly does not know about stalls. ferram4 will have to answer some of this. Things shielded by fairings have the 'is shielded' or something = true in the right-click menu for the part while launched. Base parts are automatically converted to FAR drag model if the control pod has the far control system module in its .cfg. Wings need the wing module manually added currently with the correct dimensions and such. Engines and intakes don't need anything. Yes ascent is significantly more efficient, or rather, the stock model has way too much drag.

The CoL of the wings changes too much between stock and FAR for it to be possible to make a craft that works in both, unless you're happy with something that works badly in both. The craft are for stock. If you use FAR (I do) we assume you're capable of moving the wings until the craft reaches the stability you prefer. Thanks for the .craft. I will take a look, but its an engine issue, and there's generally not a whole lot we can do. The heavier and larger the part the more it moves on warp-out. HL, S2W and the wings are very much heavier and larger than stock, and what you're seeing here is a KSP issue with how velocity is applied to parts when coming back to 1x speed. We've minimized it as much as possible and the HW21 in particular will improve somewhat in 2-6, but we can't solve the problem. You can also see this happen with the stock landing gear, the effect is just magnified on the larger parts in the mod.

I'm sorry you hit that problem, but yeah, its not wise to to remove the stock parts ... if you're using a mode like mine that overwrites default configs, its good practice to keep a copy of the vanilla parts folder.

Hopefully this week? It depends on how much free time bac9 gets to finish the models he wants in 2-6

Just do the full/empty and use the Tac Fuel Balancer mod from spaceport.

Please post .crafts when you report bugs, guys & gals, or its impossible for us to check the issue and see if we actually resolve it.

Any and all mods will need significant updates to work with .20, but there's no point discussing it now, as we don't even know what will make it in.

@smunisto: The Cones have slightly larger area, but the intake vector in the model which defines the direction in which they get peak airflow points down slightly, like the cone. The IntakeAir numbers youre citing are the size of the 'tank', which as little to do with actual performance, by the way. Due to an oversight by the KSP devs, the area numbers for intakes are so small they all show as either a string of 0s ending in a 1, or as 0. You have to look at the .cfg to get the real story. Unfortunately there is no other way to differentiate the intakes right now in KSP, so yeah the choice is generally simple. In your case, since you're travelling at 10 AoA most of the time, the cone would be better. If I were you though I would tilt the main wing up 5 degrees with shift-QWEASD - this is called angle of incidence, or rigging angle, or a number of other things in different countries because when you get 3 engineers in a room you'll get 3 incompatible opinions. Like its done in the D-175 B9 example craft. That would put your craft's AoA at 5, which is far more manageable. If you already did that and still carrying on at 10deg AoA, you need more wing As for the ramjet, you're exactly right. They let you travel fast for not a lot of engine if you're high up, since they use a relatively air-poor mixture, but the TWR is too low to be worthwile as an intermediate stage in SSTOs. Incidentally if you learn how to transition properly you don't need more ramjets than turbojets, the same number or less (4x small = 1x medium) can easily sustain a craft up high if you can get it to the point where it actually creates more thrust than the intakes create drag Edit: 1.3.3 is out. See changelog, and be sure to fully remove previous versions before upgrading.

Be careful with that. We fixed a bug that was reported with the intake vectors pointing in the wrong direction, but there's another issue with heavy intakes, the drag made by the intake, which is a function of area and speed, is multiplied by the mass of the part by the drag model. Even in FAR, as it can't override PartModule drag. In 2-6 thanks to ferram4 pointing out and some little-used parameters of the intake module I was able to give the S2W intake the same drag as the equivalent area of stock intakes, but if you fill up the part with fuel, it is likely (untested) that the total mass will be used rather than the dry mass, and with the appropriate amount of fuel that means the intake will have 4-5x as much drag as it should have moving forward. Believe me, I tested such values while figuring out the fix and it is a noticeable hit on your airspeed. You misunderstand. What we want to do is have the cone and rings in the intake move forward and back a little with airspeed up to the engine's max speed - which is currently ~ mach 5.4, btw - but it will only 'close' visually when you toggle the intake closed. On a side note, these will be the first intakes in game (that I know of) where the drag decreasing when the intake isn't drawing air is appropriate ...

Thanks for this! We just found it and fixed it, they were indeed pointing up. Will be fixed in 2-6, along with a fix for the extra drag from the mass.

@ferram4: Not sure if it's been pointed out before, but in 0.9.1 when resuming a craft the flaps are always down 2 notches, regardless of where they were at when you left the game. I've got an SSTO in orbit and every time I load the game and go back to it the flaps are down even though I pull them up every time.

Thanks to the magic of PartModules, we can

Airscoop Hyratel, the only one that still has a cfg file in the package. Updated post for clarity anyway

No, separate bug, but might be related to the changes made to fix the first one, we will investigate.

@ferram4: I was using static analysis earlier, on a craft where cM never crosses the axis downwards when fuel is empty. I tried setting flaps to full and while that changed the cD and cL, cM was unchanged, which I'm pretty sure is a bug? P.S. The only thing you're changing for the airscoop intake is giving it custom cm/cl/cd curves, I don't think its a critical part so you might want to get rid of it so you have one less cfg to manage.

The EAS-5 are from my mod, the black retexture is from Tiberion's NovaPunch. Please try it in 2-5, some of the configs did not have the updated connection strenghts due an overwrite error when packaging 2-4. In any case, when assembling HL please remove the side HLX to check that the center section is indeed attached together, as sometimes back sections added after the sides like to attach to one of the sides instead. Another thing to note on heavy aircraft is to not attach the main landing gear to the fuselage. Using HL you can attach them to the side HLX, otherwise to the wings or anyway with one part in between the two, otherwise the impact of the craft getting dropped onto the runway gets passed straight to the fuselage and tends to snap it. Finally, please be sure to post the craft ... tuning connection strenghts is hard, as the actual strength is weighted by the mass of the part. For now I've done a global value, soon I will update with pre-weighted connection strenghts but to tune its important to have problem cases P.S. the only sane way I've found to have a craft be stable throughout its fuel envelope and with cargo present or not is to distribute the fuel on either side of the cargo bay and arrange the plane so that the CoM is in the middle of the cargo bay. They are functionally identical. This also means that you should only really have 1 or the other, as the ASAS is old code and cannot be toggled or attached to action groups.

You mean S2W? S2 has 2m, 2-crew and 6m, 6-crew cabins. I've played with and modified it a little ... I suggest you take a look at the static analysis pane with the fuel toggle on empty. You might like it. Or not. Depending on how much you like backflips

This is more appropriate to the FAR thread but generally a good idea is to turn control surfaces on rockets down to 2-3 degrees. Its also generally better (in FAR) not to have winglets on rockets unless you absolutely need them for stability.