blowfish

I think that would require new code to make work properly. Maybe something to consider in the future but not right now. Making the precooler a good heat sync/radiator might be an idea though. I'm not adding any new parts to the pack. I think bac9 is busy enough trying to update the Mk2 parts I know there are mods out there that include scramjets, but I don't think it will happen any time soon here. Sorry...

Shouldn't they close when you deactivate the engine?

One of the other things I'm doing is increasing the heat tolerance of the intakes (mainly via thermal mass modifiers). My recollection is that intakes are usually the first thing to overhead, followed by engines (governed by machHeatLimit and machHeatMultiplier, which I will be tweaking). This will hopefully allow faster flight a bit lower in the atmosphere.

Known issue, probably a quirk of stock tweakables.

Actually, you're right. At sea level and mach 1, the Turbojet should produce about 432 kN, with the RAPIER producing 364 kN (about 20% more for the turbojet). The density falloff is about the same in the lower atmosphere so just scale those numbers...

The turbojet and RAPIER have about the same thrust at Mach 1 EDIT: not quite: The turbojet has about 20% more thrust at Mach 1. The RAPIER has lower static thrust, but it grows much faster and only starts to fall off at higher mach numbers.

So my previous plan for sorting out the engine thrust curves fell through, and I'm open to input as far as what the final curves should be. For reference, here are the stock curves My current thinking is this: I'm hesitant to give any more high altitude (low density) thrust than the stock engines, because it encourages air-hogging. I might have considered even suppressing the B9 curves at high altitude relative to stock, but the new aero heating system probably makes that unreasonable. The SABRE should follow the RAPIER's mach curve at low mach numbers (I might give a bit of a bonus at the sound barrier). Thrust growth will continue to about mach 5-5.5 or so and then fall off sharply. In exchange for better thrust growth, Isp, and slightly better static thrust, the SABRE will be more expensive and heavier than the RAPIER. Subsonic engines will gradually loose thrust with mach before hitting zero just above Mach 1. They will have very good Isp. The B9 turbojet will have its mach curve slightly below that of the stock turbojet before falling off between Mach 3 and 4. Isp will be better than the stock turbojet, with somewhat less static thrust. The F119 will gain thrust slightly slower than the B9 turbojet and then fall off between Mach 2.5 and 3. Max static thrust will match the IRL F119 (160 kN) and Isp will be between the stock basic jet and B9 turbojet.

For reference, here are the stock velCurves and atmCurves:

Your control surface setup is correct. Figure out what the flight condition is when you loose control (mach and altitude). Calculate stability derivatives, and chances are you will see some red. Most likely dynamic pressure is just dropping to the point where your stabilizing surfaces are no longer effective. If this is the case, there are a couple of things you can do: 1) Maintain higher dynamic pressure. This means flying lower, which means more heat. You might be able to mitigate that by replacing the intake at the front with a nose cone and placing several structural intakes on the top of the fuselage - intakes are usually the first things to overheat. 2) Increase your vertical stabilization - replace your three vertical stabilizing surfaces with a single large one, as far back as you can put it. The ones at the ends of the wings probably aren't doing you much good anyway - they're too close to the CoM.

Please follow the link and learn what you need to do in order for others to be able to help you.

You can post bug reports here, but make sure you're thorough about it (as with anywhere). Provide full, reliable reproduction steps. If it requires a certain craft, make sure that craft has no mods (or as few mods as possible at the very least). And probably post your output_log.txt just for good measure.

The plane is a bit short on pitch authority, I guess that's the problem. It does not have canards, and I can't really add them because the wings are as far back as they can go, as the screenshots show. I replaced the AV-T1 Winglets at the tail with AV-R8 Winglets for more control surface, and added vertical AV-T1's on the wingtips to add vertical stabilizer so I could rotate the AV-R8's flatter: http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/47631932794791465/6B3E7978C05C522629D01A47558A2386AE34D0B1/ http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/47631932794804160/249DFF68A8CE265FFFDE6DF270685C70F396A76B/ Mach 7, as you suggested: http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/47631932794839234/00066D34F0C33D674C0CDDFDB84753F48EF60C04/ This didn't help the area ruling though, it went from 1.04 to 1.58 m sq. Will that make a big difference? the turbo has a lot of thrust between mach 0.7 - mach 2, so it might be well worth the drag. Okay, let's see if we can sort this out. One of the first things I notice is that your CoM is shifting very far back as the tanks drain. I'm not sure there's much to be done about it given the design, but this will make the craft much less stable when it is empty (i.e. on re-entry), and AFAIK FAR uses the wet configuration to calculate everything (there used to be a toggle for this but I guess it went away). The control surfaces on the main wings are quite small (probably why you don't have that much pitch authority). Do you have any bigger ones unlocked at this point in the game? +10 isn't very much on the pitching surfaces. I usually go with +/- 100. Hope some of that helps...

Use static analysis rather than CoL (which is virtually meaningless in FAR). Sweep AoA at a few different mach values, the largest you need should be about mach 7 (Kerbin re-entry). Make sure the Cm line is sloping down or at least flat at all mach numbers, otherwise you will flip. Give canards negative and elevators positive AoA deflection - that will help with stability a lot.

No one will be able to help you unless you show us your output_log.txt. Please see the stickied how to get help thread in the modded install support forum if you don't know how to do this.

I think it's fine to leave it as an optional but recommended dependency. The question mark is undesirable but not awful, and there's nothing else that would directly benefit from it.

With the new voxelization it doesn't need to identify cargo bays specifically. If parts inside are having aero forces applied to them then something isn't voxelizing properly.

Other minor point: It depends mostly on temperature rather than pressure.

The intakes all need rebalancing anyway. I've got nominally fixed values sitting on my computer at home, will commit when I get back.

Just a note BahamutoD - bac9 is in the process of moving the B9 Mk2 parts over to the new stock cross section as well as redoing the textures to fit a bit more with stock. So there's no point in having two separate shapes anymore, and I'm not sure if the texture styles are different enough to make a difference. You can see WIP shots here.

You're fine to modify things on the first page of the main menu settings - but maybe stay away from the other pages.

The exploding is likely due to a typo in maxTemp. I'll look into the other issues. About the gimbal - you did install Klockheed Martian from the repository, right?

Yes, we have an officially sanctioned unofficial port in progress, which is not done but being actively worked on.

Not with stock aerodynamics. You can get procedural fairings though, and there are a few KW texture packs around for that too.

Is there something wrong with a drone core + tail section as a nose?

SolverEngines doesn't do anything by itself. Rather, it provides an API for other plugins to use custom calculations for engine thrust and fuel consumption. This is mainly targeted at realism mods (AJE and RealFuels) but really can be used anywhere the stock engine calculations are deemed insufficient. For instance, if you wanted to vary Isp with throttle, you couldn't do that in stock so you'd need a custom calculation.