kcs123

I always used RCS build aid from stock tool bar, and other mods on Blizzy's tool bar when available, so didn't really notice this. On side note, several other mods use settings for toolbar usage "hidden" in stock game difficulty/advanced menu. Some of those are only available at specifig game scene, like KSC, SPH/VAB, map, in flight, etc. Just something you need to be aware of when you search for some settings.

Hang mous over underscored(with dots) acronims to find out. In this case, it is pointing to first post of this thread. Sometimes is just easier to post link for relevant part: User Patches: Tweakscale Compatibility RPM Compatibility AJE Compatibility F-16 Cockpit RPM Remotetech Config Community Tech Tree

Any movable control surface would be good enough for craft control trough atmosphere. You can get away with engines that have enough gimbal angle for control. Very early in career you can use basic fins set up in slight angle, to spin rocket in flight and making it more stable. Don't expect to establish full orbit, but it will be good for first hops out of atmosphere and transmiting some science data like temperature or preassure.

That is not something any mod developer can tell. CKAN developers are responsible for this and it depends how much time is passed from last check of CKAN robot script that cares about automatization. It usualy takes few hours up to one day.

Like Galacticvoyager mentioned, most probably Yemo will give you permission permission for it especialy if you ask nicely. Might be good idea to send him PM in hope that he will receive e-mail notification, so sooner you can get proper answer. For now, I can only point you out to Yemo's patreon page and Q/A on that page: Q: The license of the major modules of SETI is ARR, why is that the case and what happens when you lose interest in KSP? A: The reason for the AAR license is some bad experiences while modding for another game. That other game started independent and community friendly, so people started modding it. Unfortunately the dev/publisher turned greedy and started actively scamming customers. Some modders did not want to support a scamming dev/publisher and "pulled" their mods. As usual, some fanboys without morals sprung up and took over the mods not licensed ARR, rendering the protest largely useless. The tale ends with only one winner, (the dev/publisher who turned greedy) and many losers (customers, modders, fanboys who later complained about a toxic community and dwindling forum activity...). Q: So what happens when you lose interest in KSP? A: As I felt a moral obligation to protest against a dev/publisher starting to scam customers, I feel a moral obligation to all contributors (those contributing code, textures, dollars, ideas, etc.) to not let a mod die for egoistic reasons as long as that does not support greed by proxy. Thus if I leave for good, I will hand the project over to someone else and/or remove the ARR license. ------------- If you don't get answer from Yemo until you start creating youtoube videos and deceide to go with your own modification of SETI regardless, at least you can do to mention Yemo and his effort and time put in SETI somewhere in youtoube video. Links to original pages in video description will be nice too. It is common practice to keep goodwill in moders community. Regardless of my own opinion and opinion from other users that you probably get permission, you have to be prepared to take down videos and other materials if author does not give you permission for whatever reason.

I forgot that TCA use engine thrust limitation on part right click menu instead of main throttle. Because of that simple MM patch might not be enough to add TCA module on Airplane Plus engine parts. Time to learn a bit more about PIDs and kOS for VTOL/Helicopter craft builders. I will try to update my old scripts to use advantage of new GUI and be more user friendly for users who are new to any kind of coding stuff. Meanwhile, old kOS script is still available along with other craft files made for KSP 1.0.5. Nothing fancy, it just set main throttle trough PID to hover on zero vertical velocity or at certain altitude. You still need some skill to create stable craft and have to steer it in desired direction. But it is good start until something better become available.

No. It is due to recent changes in MM plugin. Check out following post and few other posts after linked ones for answer:

I was not active at the time when that discussion was actual on forum, so I missed details about it. But, what I know is that data for PW is calculated in different way than it is for stock a like wing parts. For stock wings it is enough to provide data in MM patch like it is described at FAR github page. It might involve importing to blender to get more accurate data for it. PW use plugin to provide those data to FAR each time you change shape, length or width of wing. I can only assume that equation involved in this provide similar but not exactly same results. Info about it is buried somewhere in PW code, I bumped by accident on it while looking for something else on github page and there was recent change on that part of code in pull request. People involved in development of PW can tell more about it. So, some differences from stock part can be expected, but is difference is really that much ? If you use PW on both sides of craft there will be no asymmetry in lift. There was issues in the past with PW symmetry, IIRC it happened along with KSP update to higher version, but that was solved long time ago. There was bug with wrong flap deflection on symmetry PW part too, but it is also solved, there is no longer issue with it in KSP 1.3.1 and latest available PW version on github. Way too litle info is provided to tell exactly is it PW bug involved or not, I will not say exclusively that there is no any, but I can tell why I think that is not. While screenshot tells that there is asymmetry in lift, it does not tell good enough how much asymmetry is in wing weight for one side or another. It is hard to tell with eyeball and fuel tank as middle part is quite heavy compared to wing parts to figure out weight difference. On first sight I was thinking that PW is on left side, not on right side, but regardless, you need to have symmetric weight as much as possible to exclude it as possible reason of instability. For more accurate data use only lightweight as possible "hull" part, make it as root part of craft, something like I-beam, truss part or hollow Mk1 struct part. Less weight as possible for that central part would give more accurate data. Then attach wings on such part and adjust weight so both sides weight the same. Put that aside or create subassembly of it. After that create craft using such adjusted parts when you are sure that there is no weight asymmetry involved. Another thing to consider is to get at least one structural part more on hull behind main wings, to make whole craft more sideslip/yaw stable. You need to test such things on stable craft designs in first place, to be able to tell if bug is involved or not. For now, based only on provided picture I can only speculate and tell that craft on picture is yaw instable and when you try to compensate yaw you usualy get "parasite" roll involved too and vice versa. AngrybobH, what part of my previous post you found to be "hostile" ? I readed and looked on provided pictures before posting. I provided link for better details how dihedral and anhedral wing angles influence craft behaviour. If you readed it, you should know what is off on your craft designs. This craft: It have too much dihedral angle that push craft in roll to one side or another to establish equilibrium, it often require only small input from pilot to disturbe it. Usually it would put one wing side to be aligned to horizont or close to it, while other would be up in air. Example of dihedral overkill. Following craft: It is hard to tell for me only based on this picture is it exactly same or not as picture from flight. On above picture it looks like outher wing part is cranked, but look can be deceiving dut to change in shape at same time. It does not look same as craft on following picture, but it can be due to camera angle, it is hard to tell. I assumed that you eyeballed real craft designs for aestetic purposes and you think that it is "right" thing to do. It is not always a case, you need to understand why some real life crafts looks like they looks in the first place and reasons behind it before you start to copy such designs. For example, SR-71 have anhedral or "inwards" angle on vertical tail surfaces not due to better aerodynamic stability, but to help with radar "stealth" performance by deflecting incoming radar beams upwards as much as possible instead to reflect it to beam source. It does not help to stability at all. A lot of other fighter planes you mentioned have anhedral tails on purpose to make it more maneuverable and that is often not on the same road as stable craft designs. Some of planes could not be controlable without help of fly by wire systems. To improve craft on above picture you can do following things: get rid of most vertical surfaces you have put there for aestetic reasons, especially those on bottom part of craft. Those only reduce tail clearance when comes to takeoff/landings. Put light dihedral angle on main wing, 1-3 degree should be enough put small vertical surfaces on wing tips strictly perpendicular to whole craft hull, not with wing. In comparison to main wing you should have 91-93 degree, but 90 degree in comparison to hull leave only vertical tail surfaces that are above engine, you dont need ones in the middle at all, but make those above engines approximately 1.5 - 2X larger than those ion the middle currently are Those are only design flaws I was able to detect from provided pictures. And I don't even consider myself as expert, there are much smarter people than me around KSP forums that can you tell more about it. I wrote this in more details to help you. Would you listen provided tips or not is up to you, but It is not intended to be hostile by any means to you or any other user. Just pointing out design flaws that were obvious to me on the first sight.

I have to admit that last time I used TCA with rotors was with KAX mod, not Airplane Plus mod, so it might be a case of missing TCA module in config file or something. Have to poke @allista about it, it might tell more about it what is required and what not for TCA to recognize engine part and add proper MM patch in config file for it. I don't know if that have to be done from TCA or Airplane Plus side or something else. Airplane Plus is more/less "new" mod, so it might be missing MM patches or something. Once it was done it should work without much issues as any other VTOL craft.

It is. Just like any other mod. However, be aware that TCA balance out multiple available thrusts, so you will get much better result with crafts that have more than one vertical rotor. TCA does not care if it is piston engine, engine with propeler, jet engine or rocket engine, it only care about engine orientation and direction of thrust that some engine provide. Also, be aware that TCA have much better results with engine that have higher response on throttle input that those that have slower response.

No need to use RCS on craft, but mod can be used for main engine alignment too, not only for RCS translations and rotations. It is of great help trough SPH/VAB craft design.

Use RCS Build aid mod to help you balance CoT and COM: But other than that, pay attention to vertical velocity. Try to not cross more than +/- 10 m/s as more than that can make your craft aerodinamicaly unstable and make it flip, despite having CoT and CoM balanced. You can use TCA mod to help you with hovering and any other VTOL issues. While it is great mod, I prefer to create custom kOS script to help with adjusting throttle, while other controls are free and used as usual.

Only "issue" with PW is their weight. People does not pay attention to it and because of it whole craft does not behave the same as craft with same wing area and same shape, but made with stock parts. As for roll/yaw issue for shown crafts, it is due to craft designs. You got some strange dihedral and anhedral angles on wings and control surfaces and too small vertical surfaces to help you to overcome any possible issues. My best guess is that you created it like this more for aestetic purposes than for any other functionality reason. Too much of dihedral angle can be overkill and tend to alway roll your plane on one side or other to establish equilibrium on roll axis. How much of dihedral angle is enough and what is too much depends from craft to craft, depending on craft weight, location of COM, wing surface etc. @tetryds, or some other moderator, can you move all of our posts to FAR craft repository thread ? There is no reason to clutter this threads with any further posts here, because there is not bug involved here, just craft design flaws.

More likely design issue than any bug with PW or FAR. Hint: check stability derivates at altitude and speed when you experience unstability with craft. Default speed at sea level is good to reveal takeoff/landing issues, but might not show issues at supersonic/hypersonic velocity and higher altitude.

B9PW works just fine. Can't tell much about procedural parts, but if coliders are set properly it should work fine too. Easy to see if you turn on voxelization in SPH on craft that have procedural parts.

Some similar thing as previous one, probably easy to create, but interesting stuff is around minute 2:00 where robot try to climb over various obstacles.

IIRC those are used by Interstellar Extended or some similar mod with "future" tehnology. Can't tell much about it, I didn't used it much and support of other mods was changed a lot from one KSP version to other, some mods were never updated, some become too complicated to track etc.

We don't need proof that is being worked on, just released compatible mod . Just kidding, keep working on it whenever you got time and whenever it provide some joy when you create it as well as other enjoy playing it.

With procedural wings might be possible to create triangular parts you looking for. Other than that B9 Aerospace have surface attached fuel junctions, it is not triangular, but half ciliner part with curved ending. Sorry, can't recall exact name of part.

This part cause issue with latest verion of MM. You need to delete " :FOR[InterstellarFuelSwitch]" piece from that line of code. @blowfish explained that issue in SETI thread. It looks to me that it is very same issue.

IIRC some of old parts cause such issues. Devs can't do much about it because original model files were not available. You might have better luck with new IR reworked pack from Zodiusinfuser.

This is due to latest changes in MM. Few posts above: So, you either need to edit mentioned files for yourself or revert back to previous version of MM. At least until Y3mo find some time for proper update.

I added few more screenshots in same album with opened right click menu on wheels in SPH and same to show stress level on take off. Front wheel have default spring/dumper settings while rear wheels have only slightly higher spring settings from default value. Aircraft seems to behave properly once started to move in desired direction on take off and landing, strange drift happens only when standing still on runway. I will try to use lower springs to see if that would make any difference. Have yet to try with heavier plane, this one is lightweight as possible for required contracts. With heavier engine and fuel tank I would probably end up much closer to 15t aircraft. That's 5t of load per wheel, but rear wheels in 3 cycle combination always take more load than front wheel, so 8t to 10t of load for LY-10 is reasonable, especialy when you are not able to create aircraft for very gentle touchdowns.

It is quite possible that it might be stock bug, I didn't played much with stock game to be able to notice and confirm. Here is link to picture galery that describe issue. Don't know if album will apear properly, here is first picture from album: I reproduced problem, to get some screenshots, but can't tell reliable reproducing steps yet. EDIT: It is a bit of ugly plane, but I don't have much parts unlocked and design payed off itself for scientist contract and tourist high G tour.

After some more testing it seems to be random occasion. However, I noticed strange things with wheel coliders. When driffting occur, wheels are slightly above ground, barely noticable, only few pixels. On other occasions when drifting is not happened, wheels touching ground or they were sligtly "sinked" into terrain, just few pixels, also barely noticable. I can only tell difference by shadow on craft/wheels. I will try to figure out reliable reproducing steps and some screenshots. It is not easy to figure out true reason behind it when things happens on random occasions.