Gfurst

Given the Analog control update, I've taken its already fixed Please consider the issue with the Reaction wheels too, just to be clear what it is: If you disable the reaction wheels in the editor, when you launch the vessel they're already reset to be functional. Scenarios why you wouldn't want a functional reaction wheel: in planes, leaving all control to control surfaces, on power limited probes, leaving only aerodynamic fins to control until passing the atmosphere. And so on.

Thanks for thorough, explanation prog, I understand it better now, already patched

Increase the bank limit something like 45° to 60° is more sensible. As for the response rate, you have to tweak the PID stuff, lately its been really sluggish to start making turns, but tweaking this helps. Agree on this, also TAb is used for improved chase camera, keys are very confusing with KSP mods. but dont use the ~ key no, it causes trouble in non-american keyboards.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, I have Sounding rockets, but I don't regularly use it anymore. I did see your comment (I think, gonna check again), but it said that RT has a patch for SR to move the technology perk way back into the game start, but that doesn't explain why it isn't working. - - - Updated - - - ohh I see, checked your thread back there, it doesn't that it shows in the first node, still the technology perk is only given when reaching the unmanned tech... Thanks I'll try out the quick fix. - - - Updated - - - Plus, shouldn't the antenna be in the probe core afterall? And doesn't having an AFTER and then FINAL, make it redundant?

So reporting back on integrated antenna issue: I'm not getting range from the launchpad for any probe. The technology perk appeared in the start of the tech tree and not in the unmanned tech. (btw, isn't a little too far to render it useless?) Anything else I can do to help with? On another note, please switch off the F12 key, its a nono since its used for so many things (display aero forces, stock debug menu).

Hiall, how is TR working out so far? Is the legacyfemale option, just an option? and maybe revertible so we don't need to worry about screwing our save? Just asking.

Thanks guys, I think this week I'll give a shot at making the traditional TACLS with one resource only. Thanks Unanimous, added, I also got a bunch of fun fixes and balances for SR will release shortly. Btw, "@PART[sR_Wing01]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch] " is kinda redundant, FOR also creates a non-DLL, always validating the NEEDS. I did that too... Me: looks at your comment, likes but thinks hard, how will he farm science now? Added , its your fault if I can't progress properly now... I've been thinking, how can make a more organized release cycle, otherwise it would be a pain to cycle each file replacing its contents... Btw, check this out!

What is? Any news on Dynamic deflection working with FAR? Also: The module you're using for the saturable reaction wheels, can be disabled in the vehicle construction but is still on after you launch the craft, and can see how it may be a undesirable behavior. Still getting the hang with analog control, its cool and useful, but hard to master, I've noticed the trims control still work which is desirable too, but the W/S keys seems inverted. Thanks for the very useful utilities. Cheers

Isn't it only a turbo jet engine? I'm guessing that around 25km and above its too thin even for turbo jets... Anyway , in the thinner atmosphere you get less and lesser lift on your wings and control surfaces, eventually having to transition to RCS reaction wheels, but by then I'm sure the jet engine will burn out.

@NathanKell, nicely done, how the hell did you get that bonanza in KSP? And for everyone else, is there a nice working procedural wing mod yet?

So dreadfully I'm back with more tests, for the sake of science. This time I did some trickery with MM to get the right mass, the main issue was surely that the cockpit is pretty heavy. I taken to compare the Cessna 208 Caravan as its more popular and easier to find information on. The Cessna Caravan Wing Area: 25,95m² Empty Weight: 2550 Kg Cl and Cd: ?¿ Glide ratio: 1:14 Glide speed: 95 kias (48m/s) Stall speed clean: 63 kias (33m/s) Stall full flaps: 50 kias (26m/s) I still couldn't find the coefficients for lift and drag, but foun the glide ratio and speed, which we derive it from, also the airfoil profile 'NACA 23017.424'. References and additional info: http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2009/March/1/Turbine-Pilot-Cessna-Caravan-Sky-Truck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_208_Caravan http://m-selig.ae.illinois.edu/ads/aircraft.html =0.3&MNaca5DigitForm[posKey]=15_0&MNaca5DigitForm[thick]=17&MNaca5DigitForm[numPoints]=81&MNaca5DigitForm[cosSpace]=0&MNaca5DigitForm[cosSpace]=1&MNaca5DigitForm[closeTe]=0&yt0=Plot"]http://airfoiltools.com/airfoil/naca5digit?MNaca5DigitForm Area ref with only main wings place, which is the used as before. At first I tried the trickery to get the air intake to work as an engine. However it seems that the thrust pulling the plane was also pushing it . Stability data for the full craft, empty weight of 2534, main wing area of 25,3. This is indeed as close as I can get for comparison, reported stable minimum speed 51m/s. The wings mass have been strongly tuned down to accommodate the weight requirements. It smoothly rolls out at 45m/s, but thats mainly because of wrong incidence angle for the tail elevator. I'm also using EAS, as it must be indicating relative wing speed to the longitudinal axis, right? Time for level flights, assistant to hold on altitude and heading. From the first picture throttling off, from 141,9m/s to 61,9m/s takes 1:10 minutes. Then I just try to maintain level to horizon to figure my glide ratio. 60 m/s but starts getting speed. Now for the stall test, it happened around the 30m/s and took a bigger plunge this time, so its nearly ok. Now of powered level flight, minimum speed I could achieve, 65m/s clean and 45m/s flaps, a bit too high as this should be closer to a stall. Now for another landing, not much scientific but fun. Came in on more or less expect glide scope but still took to long to slow down and flare, all powered off. My second attempt at landing with lower speed, coming from a much lower glide scope now. Ended up under estimating and plunged to a crash XD. Conclusions Lift to drag ratio seems close enough, speeds are lower, but considering that the plane in comparison has much efficient airfoil and FAR considers a symmetrical airfoil, it makes sense and is expected behavior. Still it seems to glide a bit much, maybe the symmetrical airfoil should have a bit lower L/D ratio. Considering the L/D ratio is ok, both coefficients could have a small tune up, eg, this will allow for the same gliding but more longitudinal braking, it would also make stalls more aggressive. Another strong possibility is that surface drag is a bit week. Since the biggest symptom is the relative longitudinal speed gaining and not losing. maybe some test with objects without wings. Finally, now I hope I've made some useful comparison. Let me know what you think.

Actually it is expected, CKAN doesn't remove files that it didn't install, eg the config file, and it shouldn't. Edit: opsy didn't read magico post above

You just demonstrated another one of my points, look how low you came to the runway, you're technically level with it way before touch down.... If you're flying the downslope... yeah that's perfectly normal to maintain speed, one thing you're forgetting.... all airplanes in your airport are coming for a much steeper glide-scope, still holding up on that throttle until the last second, if you throttle off you immediately go into glide attitude or quickly lose speed being level. What I've demonstrated was being level (aka not loosing height) and taking a long time to lose off speed. And as mentioned, KSP is denser than anything, so we need to account for what looks reasonable in real life is fact very different in KSP. As a side question, does tweak scale works properly with FAR now? Even wings can have their property scale up/down? Might make building the plane better.

I think you misunderstood me, the only original issue I had was that planes tend to glide way more than its expected, with power off its very hard to lose speed. As Mipe mentioned, I might be thrown off by the KSP ratio, where as there seemed to be a lot of wing for the plane, but the KSP parts are incomparably too heavy for them. I wasn't complaining for not getting enough lift at all, its quite the opposite, I'm complaining is quite hard to get the plane to slow down instead... Now given, propeller planes suffer indeed from heavy drag when tuned down, but mostly sure all planes will almost immediately lose speed and altitude when powered off. The level demonstrations were more to show just how long it took to lose speed without loosing altitude, the minimum speed in the last one were just for the fun of it. Now I'm aware if I want lower speed I need to account for the heavy weight of KSP parts. Still, I'll try to look for something good to compare and then try to test it. Specific data like that is quite hard to find.

What the hell do you want? The lift/drag coefficient for the DHC-6, you could look into this, but I doubt even them engineers would know that. The Cd and Cl for my plane are right there in picture. 9.69 and 0.331 And as you've said, it doesn't matter because you know what airfoil You're using. And I don't think the AoA is wrong at all, that seems quite right to me. What I'm trying to compare between two is more less size of the wing to the plane ratio, as pretty much nothing else is comparable. In any case, even with the bigger weight and smaller wings my plane glides a lot... And I'm sorry about this, I thought to read it somewhere, but misunderstood. I'm just demonstrating that powered off, so it doesn't conflict, its evident specially in the landings. I don't know what the problem actually is, as I've said I don't know how to diagnose this, I'm just showing its symptom....

@Ferram So ok, I've taken some pictures to compare, added some test and took a bonus flight. I'm going to compare it with the de Havilland DHC-6, as it is more or less the closest I could find, and I've searched a lot, If anyone can find a better comparison please do. The Dehavilland weights at about 4 tons, while mine is 6, referenced wing area seems to be 35,7m²(the ref area in the pic above if I'm not mistaken) while the DHC is 39 m². Engines are not comparable, so lets consider powerless flight. The DHC stalls at 58 knots (really low) while in my previous test I was stalling around 45m/s or around 90 knots. So yes, being a heavier aircraft mine shouldn't glide nearly as much, at the same it should handle better at lower speed, and with somewhat smaller wing ratio (basically 3 length x 1 wide) more drag. A note on the AoA sweep graphs, you can notice stall angle should be around 15°, thats a bit low but still there should be a bit a more aggressive drop in lift and increase in drag. Additionally I've did some more level flight tests, strapped on another flap to fill the gap and get the slowest speeds I could, moved engines as forward as I could since they're the heavier part still. Minimum speed to maintain level flight: ~50m/s - 97knots with flaps full, ~62m/s - 120knots with flaps up. Surely that is way too high for the design. As you can see I've used Pilot assistant to maintain nearly perfect levelness. This becomes really evident when going for a landing, notice how I came powered off and much lower than a normal approach would be. The result is that I've ended over shooting the runway even nearly level with it... As an side note, I gave the conventional landing gear (or tail-dragger) a try again, this time was successful But still same result, needed to come in lower and slower, which is even more important with the tail-wheel stuff. So my conclusions: Yep, there is definitely a need to look better at this, maybe a tune up of global modifier, if there is such thing for FAR. Maybe the wings configs are being too generous. Maybe a touch up on the drag coefficient for wings, maybe a touch down on the lift coefficient. Maybe you're not accounting for surface drag as enough. By the way, I've read above that all given wings have a small AoA by default, you should most definitely not do this, leave a small lift for either the airfoil shape or for the user to setup it manually. As it is in most cases, planes have to be nosed up relative to the air flow to keep enough lift. Seems that people have been getting hyper-sonic quite easily, and so it may suggest indeed a balance issue. It is hard to diagnose alone on real world physics, as that is surely very hard to simulate in a game. Let me know what you think about it. And about others too, please if anyone knows is experienced in aircraft performances as such, input in.

Using the stock method of fairing build, but instead for empty structural elements or fuel tanks... Yes I like this concept. Anyway, KSP should have been built up from scratch with the procedural design.

Thaaankksss!!!!

Yup, but if you you're thinking of sounding rockets they're are supposed to pierce to air like, are you using the original or my configs? In stock they had quite an ceiling limit due to the fact that drag was being properly calculated, eg, the nosecone wasn't helping at all. Maybe the fins could do with a little nerf for their appropriated sizes, and please post those over on my thread too, I want to add them.

Apart from the warning "caution too low, caution too low" I don't see much use for it, and tell me terrain ladings as that is a really bad idea. But sound interesting though, don't let it go down the ocean XD.

Seriously, no one is going to comment on this instead of arguing over stock or FAR? Ferram please tell me it was at least useful....

Behold yourselves, as an image barrage is about to come on my experiments... These are my tests about Air performance and drag on sub-sonic speeds, for balance purposes, if there is any needed, in nuFAR. The resulting design, came pretty close to what I expected, most parts are stock, with the exception of the air intake, jet engine and fuel tank (all MKS), which are based under the wing for balance purposes, and are reasonably close to stock. All control surfaces are properly assigned, only a bit changed to control deflection. Reaction wheel is disabled, and I also have to note this: people, if you need SAS to fly your craft than its not balanced... A side note, originally I wanted to do it with a conventional landing gear, but it was ridiculously hard to take off and land, due to drifting to the sides, lowering the wings, which inevitably led to crashes. Any tips how to do it? This was actually the last of several tries. Oh and sorry for grammar mistakes, maybe missing words, I'm quite sleepy... With the tricicle configuration, the aircraft is pretty easy to handle, with a minor drift, it quickly gets up to speed, rolling out at around 60m/s My first test is of course the highest speed, the craft quickly catches up to trans-sonic where the increase drag holds it back, between full-throttle and 2/3 makes little difference. As its expect for this design, it really shouldn't go trans-sonic, in that matter (and as I've mentioned before) FAR is pretty much spot on. Though reducing throttle after that I can barely notice a reduction in speed, the last image I'm still going 0.76 mach for my next test. Which is no other than the stall test, basically cutting off throttle and pulling up until you get a stall. Notice that it takes about 33s to actually experience the stall and still only for a moment a full stall of the wings. Minimum speed was around 45m/s, roughly 87kt, which is quite high for the high for the design. Overall it was quite easy to recuperate, and I've feel it didn't quite add the drag needed to make for a flat fall. Anyway this design is very stall resistant, so that may account to it. Next fun test is the side slip, simply pulling the rudder and controlling your roll to maintain direction. Pilots do this to lose altitude fast while not gaining to much speed. Didn't go under 99m/s but still lost a lot of altitude, mission accomplished. The next is also a very important test, holding back on the throttle while maintaining level flight. First I drift from a higher speed to see how much time it took to lose speed while being level, from 180m/s to 60m/s it took a whole 2m and 30s. And thats what feels a bit off about the whole thing, I hope the pictures, and information about lift, drag, angle of attack and how they're scaling in different speed should help figuring it out. Next I throttled just a bit to actually see how much speed is minimum to maintain level flight, for this case around 60~66m/s(128kt). Done a flip around for a bit more fun, the plane holds quite well, and aimed for landing. Had to throttle down quite a bit for the final approach, and simply wasn't losing speed, until flaps down, and they do seem to help a lot. Finally coming down to a landing, which incidentally happened to be one of my bests in KSP (apart from being slightly drifted), hold it there just enough and came to a touch down around 60m/s(116kt). Very fun indeed, but still too fast considering the design, aspect ratio for the plane. And this was basically the minimum speed I was able to get without loosing control of the plane, making lading in un-even terrain very hard. Conclusion: FAR is still great fun, the voxel system seems amazing and will do wonders for rockets, wings are still the same though, I think this is what brought back the feeling I had in 0.25 of a lack on drag. I'm not sure and I'll leave to the experts, but I do indeed feel that drag (maybe specifically for wings) doesn't scale properly with speed and AoA as lift does, maybe its only in that sub-sonic area. I hope this helps, Cheers.

No, this actually happened to me too, no FAR issue, I think it is a issue with the model used, it just a clone of the chute on the longitudinal axis. It doesn't affect gameplay at all though. By the way, could you post on my thread the patch for SR fins, so I can add them too.

Are you sure you didn't accidentally press meta +wasd key? This is the trim key and leave one of the rotations continually on.

Nope, just to be clear its with the stock stayputnik and modular rocket systems probe( which also has a proper compatibility in its part cfg). Since I've installed in my career I'm sure I've activated the probe perk in the first node of the research tech, I'll have to look better to be sure, report later.