Bakase

I don't really like that K cockpit... i love the one in the current test version! It's not really a problem having extra cockpits in the pack, anyway -- I don't think anyone's complained about it! As for part descriptions -- I'll be back at home in just over two weeks, so I can finish them off then.

Do you mean the basic canard? I've mentioned this several times already but there doesn't seem to be one yet.

I don't think any balance pass has yet been done -- none of these parts are final. Also, you say that the most massive plane parts hardly weigh anything -- would this have something to do with the fact that they are hollow?

No they don't... I mean this is completely besides the point, but linguistics is a field that kind of interests me and that just ain't true. You're thinking of Accentless American English or General American -- the set of american accents perceived as having few regional inflections from different parts of the US.

A couple of these parts are already being developed -- see the image posted a couple of pages back. http://i.imgur.com/7XhRNpm.png Also... Stock has a 2.5m to mk2 adapter.

That looks AWESOME! What are you calling the new fuselage profile? As before, I'm happy to write part descriptions again... Can't wait for the new update.

Have you turned angle snap off?

This should be working. This might seem like a stupid question, but bear with me -- are you sure you actually have liquidfuel in your fuselage? Otherwise it's an install problem.

Did you ever get a sound recorded for this? If not, I've got an idea I can experiment with after work today... Not promising any good results, though! This idea just popped into my head at work now, a couple of months later... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

AFAIK, BDarmoury is meant to override both FAR and stock aero for its parts -- it should be calculating its own aerodynamics already.

Ven, can you fix the FAR config for the 'Basic Canard' part that you added? You're forcing the game to apply the stock code instead. Also, can I request some 'chine' parts? To fit on the side of aerodynamic craft for smoothing transitions and area ruling. I think that would be a neat addition, but I'm not sure it's within the scope of this mod. 1. These are TextureReplacer configs 5. Realchute doesn't have anything to do with VSR!

I don't think any of these should be causing issues. It's more likely to be a moving or animated part -- particles and effects shouldn't have anything to do with FAR! Could you give us a screenshot or a craft file of something that causes the problems?

Stock bug, I'm afraid. Small parts often overheat for no reason and explode.

Here's a sneak peek at what I've been working on...

https://my.mixtape.moe/hwurmf.craft I just forgot -- I'm running Ven's Stock Revamp so that may be the cause of the issue: if so I sincerely apologise! Nonetheless, the glitch happens when I take the tail piece off and move one of the two turbojets into its place instead. Removing the turbojet and playing around with its position causes all sorts of funny things to occur.

Assuming you remembered to calculate the stability derivatives rather than just opening the graph window... You done installed it wrong, lad. Have you got Modular Flight Integrator? How about module manager? - - - Updated - - - Also -- is there a known issue with the axis of the graph shifting? I know it existed before and I've just encountered it again... have you managed to iron it out in the dev build? Or is it something that's impossible to fix? I imagine working out the plane's main axis could be rather tricky... In any case, if you'd like more information on it I've got a craft that can reproduce it at several different angles if you take the engine on and off. If it's an issue you'd like me to look into I'll test it on the dev build, but otherwise I'd rather spend my time playing with the stable version. The glitch doesn't really matter to me.

Thanks haha And for AccidentalDisassembly and M_Ouellette i really give you guy's comment quite lot of thoughts because what you guys describes makes more sense than then current K fuselages. So instead of a single k-cockpit how about i add one more j-cockpit with more j to k adaptors? because that would be pretty equivalent to another k cockpit but it gives more versatility. Also the current K fuselage will probably make more sense to look more like a scaled up J fuselage rather than the current which are basically flying bricks. I created some mock up models (it doesnt look too good yet just an idea of how the K fuselage could be, they are roughly J fuselages scaled up by 1.25) http://i.imgur.com/xvlJZpj.png Note that the picture is from an anime called to-aru-majutsu-no-index, i found it when i was searching space plane images on googles and it's what i modelled the J cockpit after and main source of inspiration for the wing designs. Even though it's a anime i thought the ship is really well designed and it looked visually very convincing of it's function with it's atmospheric engines on the side and a pair of rocket engine at the rear. Apparently that scene only lasted few seconds as i couldn't find more reference images, im amazed how much thought the animators given it as a aircraft design. Its probably my second Favorited space plane design after the Valkyrie TAV. The new k fuselage design looks more like a extension of J parts with flatter bottom, also gives a much more smoother look overall. You could argue it looks very similar to the Mk4 fuselage with its bulge at the top and lobes on the sides but i would say its some kind of spaceplane fuselage design convergence haha. This new design remains unable to carry 3.5m cargos but compare to the J fuselage, its able to give the 2.5m cargos a much bigger clearance with flatter floor more suitable for rovers. So i think is a nice extension of the j fuselage. I do not plan to give it a cargo ramp because i find cargoramp in ksp is rather awkward so ill go for a elevator part instead. Also to mention i plan to create these little rectangular cargo modules thats designed to fit inside J and K parts. Because the K parts is huge so i plan to create as few parts as possible, mostly just hollow fuselage with a decent amount of fuel stored on the sides. I know this is going to be a huge change to the k fuselage, but i think im going ahead to make this change, im always open to more comment though when it comes to new designs! what do u guys think? Well this looks awesome! I knew something looked familiar about this pack, though... Would never have guessed it was inspired by Index! The new parts look great. I whipped up a few descriptions up for the current release but haven't done all the parts yet... I guess I might wait until this revamp!

So nobody seems to have done extensive testing with FAR... I played with it a bit. It's fun, the parts all play nice with FAR (new voxel model means no special configs necessary). No huge bugs to report, besides one config issue -- you're changing the lifting body / control surface modules around in a way that prevents FAR's original configs from working or the modules are computed after FAR and that breaks it. This causes the body to revert to stock lift code instead. Vis-a-vis balancing, I haven't really had that much time to test, but things seem decent enough. Is there any specific testing procedure I should follow? One thing -- and this isn't a FAR issue to the best of my knowledge, but I can't get the engines to do the pretty glowy thing. What am I doing wrong?

You know, there's an easy way to find out...

Because lift is a highly complex principle deriving from a number of factors that it's nigh impossible to fully explain without delving into complex fluid dynamics calculations. As such, most people have been taught a highly simplified version of it that relies on eliminating all but a few factors and hedging the explanations of what gives rise to these things.

You can download the current dev build from the github. I guess to find out when an update is is to check here and the github! Look at the update log to know what's included. - - - Updated - - - This'd be useful if he had a common misconception, such as one of those two. He doesn't, though! He's made a completely new one.

If you genuinely had a point, I'm sure I'd love to listen to you. Do point out my logical fallacies, of course. Planes don't fly sideways. They do fall. You keep confusing people's arguments based on symmetric and cambered aerofoils. For the sake of establishing basic principles, keep to a symmetric aerofoil argument. A symmetric aerofoil operates the same both upside down and normally. This is the wing structure used on planes that do fly upside down, such as the one you posted a picture of. And let's skip all the complicated fluid dynamics, which will just confuse things for someone who doesn't understand physics, or the mathematics behind it. Don't try to pretend you've worked any of that through! Every point you made in the paragraph you replied to Ferram shows you haven't. Don't lie. It doesn't help your case as someone who wants to understand the physics. We're able to skip out the fluid dynamics (well, the calculations) because there's only one effect we're interested in, and we don't need a quantitative description. If you want that, you're going to need more of an education than I can give you. At zero angle of attack, our symmetric aerofoil generates no lift. We'll assume the plane is travelling forwards at a constant speed, for now. As you tilt your plane upwards (using control surfaces), your angle of attack changes -- the wing surface is now pitched upwards. Airflow travelling under the wing is deflected downwards. According to newton's third law, if the plane is exerting a downwards force on the airflow, an equal and opposite upwards force is exerted on the plane. This is what we call lift. Happy? If you're going to argue and say that a plane with a symmetric aerofoil can fly upside down with no AoA, you'd damn well better provide a source.

Nobody said control surfaces control lift. Control surfaces are for turning the plane. What problems? There are no problems here. ONLY if we're talking about asymmetric or cambered aerofoils. Plenty of people have covered this. If you turn one of these aerofoils upside down, its lift vector points downwards. Doesn't make sense. What? Do you know what a vector is? As you have so kindly demonstrated, experience is not equivalent to knowledge -- of which you have none, and I'm inclined to doubt the former too. Yes, it does. That's just the effect of the wing propagating forwards (because the wing is not in a vacuum, effects can propagate in the form of pressure differences). A) I think the simulation doesn't seem terribly good, but I don't really know how to interpret this. Your simulation won't display any effect on the craft, even if it predicts one there -- which it does. Notice that the net movement of the flow is DOWNWARDS? Ever heard of a little thing called Newton's third law? I do hope you're not a physics student, as anyone who lacks that understanding is surely going to fail. There really is no hole in the theory -- or at least not one you have hit upon. If lift always points upwards, do you think planes can fly on their sides? Why do we need wings? I think you'll forgive me for saying that you do seem like a crank or a crackpot for trying to dispute established principles with no understanding of even the most basic physics.

I think you forgot your image! Does this happen using WASD input, or is it just the stick?

Yes, FAR is good. If you're not going to build and fly your planes in a sensible manner, of course FAR won't be happy with it. With FAR, you actually need to consider the shape of your aircraft rather than just slap sixteen wings and a turbojet on a fuselage and call it a day. Otherwise, you can wait until they update B9 for the stock aerodynamics -- which won't happen until 1.03 is released (along with a stock aerodynamics overhaul).