kcs123

After installing stock patches, previously "good" plane made with stock LY-10 wheels started drifting while just standing still on runway. 4t weight aircraft with 3 x LY-10 wheels. Just launched craft on runway and turned brakes ON without SAS or anything else. I probably would not even notice this if I didn't started to mess around with kOS scripts to create GUI. Script didn't touched craft controls yet, neither stock SAS could influence anything. I will try to provide some screenshots if there is need for it later on.

3 posts above yours.

You are already doing a lot for KSP community, so some oversights here and there would be certainly forgiven form community. Both, players and other moders. Good to know what is source of issue, so anyone can revert back to older MM release or modify config files by himself. I didn't found any serious issues, but noticed some small glitch with SETI parts (SRB-RT3, LFO 0.625m "Pomeranian") - there is missing FX effects. Engines still provide proper thrust and work as intended, but no visual feedback that engine is turned on and throttled up. I assume it might be due to forcing DX11 on whole game. There is most relevant parts from log with info about not being able to load some textures. Some comes from B9 parts, some from other mods. I didn't found anything for SETI parts, but didn't inspecting anything to deep detail what might cause issues. Didn't noticed any glitches with B9 parts but haven't tried many of them yet.

I think that something is lost trough translation from english to other languages. MOD function gives expected result as all other programing language like you described - reminder of integer division. Nothing should be changed in that behaviour, but I'm not sure how to describe it better in documentation, english is not my native language to be able to propose anything better.

Agree. I speculated that value on right click menu in SPH/VAB for load might be in tons, but wasn't sure. Having measure unit displayed in right click info menu would be nice. Not absolutely necessary for beta testing, but something to consider when time comes to polish out everything for final release. Percentage of max load for current active load is reasonable choice, it provide good feedback when you try to troubleshoot what went wrong with craft and why those wheels keeps falling apart. Thanks for clarification. I agree that values from previous post are higher than it is designed for stock game or for weight of some real life craft if you aim for realistic behaviour. However, in career game you are limited with part numbers, especialy early in career. While I'm able to build lightweight aircraft, some more weight is still necessary when you build something that need to carry some science equipment or extra fuel to reach other half of planet. In sandbox game there is not much issue because if one set of wheels are not enough you can easy add one extra pair to distribute weight over more wheels. In career game, when comes to planes, LY-01 and YL-05 are usualy avoided until better wheels become available, it just don't feel right from gamebalance / progress perspective. 5-8 t is good enough for craft on grounds, but due to mentioned limitations, what kind of parts you have unlocked number and size limits in SPH/runway it is not always possible to create craft capable for gentle touchdowns, therefore come suggestion for increased weight limits. Mid to late game playtrough it is much less of issue, you are usualy rich enough, have unlocked better parts and bought Lvl 2 or 3 buildings for SPH/VAB and runway/launchpad, whatever someone prefere more.

IR wheels are broken for some time due to KSP wheel code changes in latest KSP version. It is possible to create custom suspension, however, you must not place stock wheels next to any IR part due to autostrut from wheels that could not be disabled. You need to place wheels in apropriate manner to avoid autostruting on IR parts. Autostrut visualisation from debug menu can help a lot with your designs. Instead of using powered IR part, I have used free moving IR parts to create Rocker Bogie Rover on this picture: I no longer have better pictures, but above rover is on the edge of slope change. It is capable to climb on hills up to 70 slope degree. EDIT: You can find more info trough imgur albums in this post: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/98186-kcs-spaceplanes-craft-repository/&page=2&tab=comments#comment-2897642

Is anywhere beta test version to download ? I just recently started my KSP 1.3.1. career after long time being on hiatus regarding KSP playing. Might going to try it and give some feedback. As general rule, what should be apropriate for stock wheels to be able to handle: LY-01 and LY-05 unretractable stock wheels - should be able to support crafs up to 10-15 t LY-10 small retractable landing gear - for crafts up to 20-25 t - not much more from LY-01, but their advantage is to be retractable to reduce drag LY-35 medium retractable landing gear - for crafts up to 45-60 t LY-60 large retractable landing gear - for crafts up to 150-200 t LY-99 extra large retractable landing gear - for crafts up to 200-300 t Values are mostly from personal experience/needs trough career with consideration what kind of planes I'm able to create with various SPH/runway levels. I mostly end up with crafts that are heavier than stock wheels are intended to support. More gamebalance needs than that real life counterparts wheels are designed for. Might be also good to hide/rewrite stock variable values, instead of "Stress tolerance" to use "Load" like the rest of Kerbal foundries wheels. Or vice versa, for your wheels to use "Stress tolerance" instead of "Load". Also measurment unit for it would be good. Currently it is unknown is it tons, kilograms or newton unit used for "Stress tolerance" and "Load". I assume that is load per wheel axle or something, but measurment unit is unknown what it is. Have yet to inspect config files for wheels, what variables are used in it.

Need others to confirm it, but IIRC, all contracts that use some waypoint location on the ground can cause issue for the reason you already mentioned. Celestial body names and their size/location in the game world.

Sounds like you need Hangar mod from Allista:

You also need module manager plugin or MM in short. In essence MM is plugin that allows mods from different authors to exist side by side without steping on each other toe. Meaning, that there is no need to overwrite exact same files, each mod can have it's own files and folders, but MM is necessary to read each folder and apply changes in game memory so all mods can take effect in game.

You might have even better luck with TCA mod for helicopters and other VTOLs. Personaly I like to mess around with kOS scripts. My own kOS scripts are not even close to features that AA, TCA or pilot assistant provide, but it provides some fun while developing it and always learn some tiny piece of something new whenever is need to upgrade of existing scripts.

Siemens page is a good start to get more info about modern electric engines. I know that I readed somewhere on theirs page a more detailed datasheet about engine in the past, but they rearanged web page and I can't find it right now. I will try to search for some info, but provided link should get you a good estimated guess about size and performance. (it is written somewhere in wall of text). EDIT: Found some better info: https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2016/corporate/2016-12-innovation/inno2016-aerobatic-airplane-e.pdf It is electric motor SP260D. I'm pretty sure that they have more than one model. It can probably be used with different propeler sizes and number of blades.

Most probably is, but I didn't inspected config files to pinpoint you to exact line in config file. My "educated" guess would be to try with wing base weight. FAR probably read that and use additional multiplier in weight/strength slider. Weight in PW is probably based on density or area, perhaps it weight more than it should with comparison to stock parts. Maybe it is done for a reason to balance out other benefits of PW and have better heat resistance. It is meant to be used for space craft after all.

have you checked weight of whole craft with and without B9PW ? You need to adjust rear wheel position because COM and COL were shifted in comparison to stock wings.

Some other things were not mentioned previously, while it fine to use kWh for battery as power source, there is missing info of peek power that some power source can give. It is not same if battery or other power source of 10 kWh provide 10kW trough one hour or 1kW trough 10 hours. In real life it is usualy max current on battery declaration that gives you info what is max battery power. For power source like solar panel or RTG there should be info about peek power. Items that use electricity or load should also need info about power that is needed each second for normal operation. All that if it is necessary to avoid more complex system that include voltages and amperes.

Welcome to forums. Info about it is buried on previous page: Never enough of reposting of same post.

^^ This. Keep in mind that hollow intake have much less overall cross section compared to full closed part of the same size. Voxeliation is based on coliders from each part, so cross section area should be accurate as much as game engine allow to be. On side note, neither game provide data how air is tuneled trough other parts from intake neither FAR calculate it. Don't know if it is even worth to calculate it if you put in consideration how much it influence drag force, compared to other factors on craft.

@Yemo is still more/less active in development, probably still have copy of it somewhere, but it is hard to expect for any modder to provide support for such old KSP version. I don't recall of old links for BTSM, probably it was before setting up github account for mod development. BTSM was broken down to several separate mods, regarding balancing, tech tree progress and so on for easier maintenance. Due to all changes made in KSP I doubt that BTSM would be possible to recreate in exactly same manner as it was before.

Have to remind yourself here how Joule is represented as measure unit. Ws is just one of possible representation of it. But, since it actualy very small amount of energy, more apropriate unit should be kWh. As for usage in form of electricity, no special need to overcomplicate things with voltages and ampers, as power consumed from power source (battery/solar panels) can be presented in various ways if you know resistance of load attached to power source. If we mark resistance as R, voltage as U current as I and power as P most of you know from school how it is calculated: P = U * I R = U / I Therefore P = I2 * R or P = U2 / R Therefore, for game usage should be enough to have Power in watts or kilowatts for both, power sources and power consumers. Depending for how long it is plugged in, it will consume as much kWh stored energy from batteries. Solar panel could be rated in kilowats for maximum exposure of 100% to sunlight and for how long it get light it would fill energy in batteries. Curently, in game we have confusing numbers, some fictional EC/min in one item and EC/s on other item. If one of KSP goals is to be educative game, kW and kWh are more apropriate units to be used for electricity parts, especialy as it follow to good degree International System of Units and SI derived units. Batteries in real life is more complicated, for example as stored energy in battery depleats voltage drops, but even nearly empty battery can have significantly high voltage, but as soon as you plug in something on such battery, it no longer can provide enough current and because of that not enough power that some load attached needs. That is whole another topic for itself that is not easy to explain in few sentances. Using SI units instead of fictional "EC" would lead to easier balancing of all items in game.

Yep, this is same mod in it's essence, although it changed name from 2015 and old KSP version. Tech tree is a bit different too, some changes with mods that were supported/balanced, but provide very similar experience as old named "Better than starting maned" mod.

I usually go with SETI tech tree, but I wanted to try this one for a long time too. I just tried it after long time being on hiatus regarding KSP play and found some things that might be off. It could be that I used too hard aproach or too less mods for this tech tree. I used stock game hard settings, but with enabled quick save and reverting flight, just in case if I wake up kraken with something. Anyhow, in my opinion HG-5 Antenna is too high in tech tree, it should be available one node earlier in "Basic Long Range Antennas" at least. Otherwise, playing with only KSC as ground station could be next to impossible. Playing game without additional ground stations is pretty much next to impossible. You need to unlock several tech nodes that is only feasible if you go in space early and you can't do that without early low tech relay antenna. Next, SEP-MT3 Surface MAgnetometer (comes with KIS, I belive) is useless without SEP Central Station Transmission that is available only in one tech node higher. Both should be available at same time. CX-4181 kOS CPU comes in more expencive "4 Bit Computers" node while being heavier and with less HDD capacity than CompoMax Radial Tubeless kOS CPU. It should be other way around. You still lack several other nodes for using CompoMax on very small probes very early on, it should be more inline with advanced probes capable more than just general stabilization. CX-4181 is more apropriate for early in game usage where you need to fight with much more weight, dragier parts and limited storage space for advanced scripts. Still can be usefull early on to establish first primitive communication network if HG-5 antenna is also available earlier. Later on, that part becomes quickly obsolete. B9 Procedural Wings/control surfaces. It make no sense to have in separate nodes control surfaces and main wing element. If it is consideration science cost of those parts for being unlocked, more apropriate node is "Aerospace Composites". Cost to unlock both is just slightly higher, but without need to unlock other nodes that would give parts you never need to use. B9 Aerospace mod also have Mk1 parts that are all over the different places, for examople MK1b Fuselage (2m) comes along with MK2 parts. Still need to go deeper in game to suggest what nodes would be more apropriate for B9 parts. Those parts have big advantage ove stock parts for being able to switch resources, meshes, textures quickly, without re-ataching parts on craft, but should not be way too far in tech tree compared to similar stock parts. I hope that I will be able to play KSP more to get much better impression and also being able to give bettter opinion on other stuff. Hope that you don't mind some criticism on ETT and give yourself time when comes to moding.

Different author, different mod and forum thread:

Like I said, it depends on craft design. I don't recall if I used spoilers on craft on picture, I think that flaps were sufficient and with combination of large wing surface area it allowed reasonably low landing velocity. I almost never used drag parachutes at all on planes. There is craft designs when I have used spoilers. Usually middle control surface on wings I used as spoilers, inner control surface for flaps and most outwards just for roll control. IIRC, weight on runway was around 300-350t and I always test landing with full loads before going to space.

It depends on craft designs. I only need spoilers if craft is too fast to stop it on regular way with wheel brakes. If you need them, it is good to put spoilers behind COM, it will make aircraft more yaw/sideslip stable when you start to break. Sometimes even help to put it near tail if yaw stabilization is issue. Shuttle use split spoiler on vertical tail surface, for example. That is most generic answer that would be good for all kind of aircrafts, but you will need to experimet with your own designs, where you will get most benefits of it.

I did not understand this part exactly, but in flaps in general have certainly usage. It increase preassure under wings just near placement of flaps and due to increased preassure it increase lift. By the same time, flaps also increase drag. But, since drag force is also heavy influenced with craft velocity, you need to pay attention to lift/drag ratio. At low velocity, you have most benefits from flaps due to increased lift and overall drag force is reasonably low. So, L/D ratio is high. But, as velocity increase, efficiency or L/D of flaps drops because drag force increases. You can benefit from flaps on both, take off and landing. Increased drag on landing is actualy desireable, to slow down more quickly and since you have also increased lift, craft would not fall from the sky like rock imediately. However, it require some skills in craft designs to place flaps properly and have most lift where you need it, but not messing up with pitch controls too much. Most benefits you will have if you place flaps near COM, just slightly behind, where it would have low influence on pitching and giving most of lifting force where you need the most.