Val

You'll hear from my lawyers

Damn, that brought the feels right back *wipes tear away*

Very well put. I was going to argue something similar: Fuel Cells are the best for showing the impact of this issue, because they don't produce exhaust plumes or other graphical effects, that can disguise the cause of framerate drops and stutters.

Added craft link to the video I posted, with my interpretation of the badge craft.

Yes, the rules changed for air breathers + RAPIER closed cycle in 1.0.5. They now respect crossfeed settings. Normal rocket engines work exactly as before. They need fuel lines for fuel that is not in the same stack.

I forgot to mention, my example above assumes there's only an engine on the center stage. If there's also engines on the asparagus stages, then the rotation will be smaller. I also didn't consider the ice skater effect of the fuel being moved in towards the center. I'm not able to research it properly right now, but I think it can be considered like this: Simultaneously as the fuel movement above, the fuel mass of the second pair of asparagus stages is being moved from r=2 to r=1. This will lower the moment of inertia for the rest of rocket from 300 to (100 + 2 x 25) x 12 = 150 Halving the moment of inertia means the angular velocity has to double to keep angular momentum constant. Which I guess means the rotation could get as big as 120o in my example. And I'm unsure about the effect of the spent fuel. If that needs to be subtracted from the moment of inertia then it drops to 100 and the angular velocity is triple the first estimate, potentially increasing the angle to 180o

The way I see it, you move an amount fuel a certain number of degrees around the center of the rocket. The rotation created by this can never be greater than the angle the fuel is moved and will in practice always be smaller. How big that angle is depends on the ratio of moment of inertia between the fuel moved and the rest of the rocket. I calculated an arbitrary example using the geometry of my illustration above. I set k for the center stage as 1 and the aspargus tanks to 2. I set the mass of the center stage to 100 and each of the 4 aspargus tanks to 25. The mass of 2 aspargus tanks is moved: 2 x 25 x 22 = 200 inertial moment Inertial moment for the remaining rocket: 100 x 12 + 2 x 25 x 22 = 300 That gives a ratio of 200/300 = 2/3 The fuels angle of movement is 90o which means the rocket rotates 2/3rds that in the opposite direction: 60o Note: There are several things the above doesn't take into account, like liquid fuel in the centerstage wouldn't rotate with the rest of the rocket like a solid, which the above assumes. TL;DR In summary. Aspargus staging creates a small jolt when fuel starts flowing, which starts a rotation, and another opposite jolt that stops the rotation, when the fuel stops flowing. There's no net force while the fuel is flowing, unless the rate of flow changes. The size of the rotation will never exceed the angle that the fuel is moved around the center axis. Edit: As far as I can tell the above is not affected by the fact the the moved fuel is also spent and removed from the rocket.

You're over thinking it. It's just the normal way where the decoupler stays with the Rocket and not count as part of the payload.

Great job, @Nefrums I like that nosecone you created. Genius!

Like @Wanderfound and @Snark mentions there are different ways to solve the ground handling issues you are experiencing. I will shamelessly plug my own A-1 Pioneer which looks to have a similar mission profile and tech requirements. You can study it with regards to CoM, CoL and landing gear positions compared to your own. Link includes flight instructions and videos.

Wing panels in Stock KSP are treated as individual unconnected aerodynamic entities. KSP doesn't care if it's a biplane, monoplane, delta or forward swept wings. Makes no difference to how a craft flies. All that really matters is CoL as @Evanitis mentions. I have a craft with very similar mission profile as the one you have built. You're welcome to study it. Link includes launch profile description.

You have to right click the Command Chair when you are standing near it. It does not work the same as pods with a hatch, where you get a [ B ] Board prompt.

Happy New Year, Everyone

I use Part Angle Display. You can change snap angles with it.

So many creative entries. Nice Here's mine: 9.25 t Crewed Spaceplane for launch and reentry. Command Chair Mun Lander in Cargo Bay. Craft: SSTO J-2 Muna Mk.1

I generally have 1-2° less or no incidence on canards/elevators, but not always. I've never noticed any bad stall behaviors. But you are right that it complicates construction. My ascent profiles are much more aggresive than yours. Generally they go something like this. 450 m/s at sea level. 8-900 m/s at 5 km. 11-1200 m/s at 10 km. 14-1600 m/s at 22 km. The steepest part is between 10 and 20 km where pitch will be 8 to 15° depending on thermal tolerance. Steepest with low tolerance. I'm very strict about avoiding low thermal tolerance parts and stuff that could create drag and putting it in bays, but I also want my designs to look plausible and cool. That complicates construction, too. And that's what I love about this game.

Small update: I tried using the EmptyShader.shader from v0.02182 with a v0.0215 install, and that made the black dots disappear when using -force-d3d11.

Your awesome looking design inspired me to make something similar. I've never managed to make a VTOL capable SSTO spaceplane before. So I shamelessly stole some design features from your Gallifrey and applied them to my own SSTO Z-2 High-Five. The result was the SSTO I-2 Galiano.

The EVE Shadows work in v0.0215 as far as I can tell. Replacing the EmptyShader.shader in v0.02182 with the version from v0.0215 did have a small effect, but did not fix it. I do see some small artefacts with v0.0215 There's a thin line where the shadows aren't applied. Black dots with -force-d3d11, that are not there with -force-opengl. All of the above is with default configs for everything.

This happens to me, too. As far as I can tell it is EVE cloud shadows, as it only happens when I'm below clouds. It It started with version v0.0216. It does not happen in v0.0215. It is still in v0.02182 using both -force-opengl and -force-d3d11 on a GTX 980.

They also "nerfed" rocket engines by giving them less ISP and thrust at sea-level. So while the dV needed to get to orbit has dropped, the amount of fuel you need hasn't changed much.

3. Insert picture first, double click it, and there's a field to insert an URL

Great stuff @Starhawk, except this part. Angle of Incidence doesn't affect drag of the wing. It changes drag off the fuselage. @Shaun Wings and Fuselages create no lift and little drag when they have no Angle of Attack. Wings create lots of lift and a little drag when they have small Angle of Attack. Fuselages creates lots of drag and a little lift, if it has small Angle of Attack. This is why you give wings Angle of Incidence, so the wing can have Angle of Attack without the fuselage having it. Thus avoiding lots of drag from the fuselage.

I agree heartily!

@PieFlava Did you flip them around before attaching them? Or did you attach and then rotate them with the gizmo? It might make a difference.