Daniel Prates

A interwar-like fighter using SM-Stryker, AirplanePlus and BdA + aviator's arsenall parts: Wing size tweaked with 'tweakscale', ailerons and flaps by procedural wings. I use FAR too, so it has working flaps, and since FAR makes everything more difficult, the weight was capped at 4 tons (which already is a lot!) by adding only a couple of .50 machine guns from aviator's arsennal, diminishing the wing's structural strenght (a FAR feature) and bringing along only enough fuel for some 25 minutes of flight. It stalls at 45m/s, but only 35m/s with full flaps. Top speed is around 120m/s. Crappy performance for KSP standards, right? But actually quite good considering the weight, engine power, what it was designed for, and of course the extreme realism provided by FAR, which REALLY FORCES YOUR HAND to design sensible, realistic airplanes. (EDIT: so maybe it's no wonder it ended up looking so much like a real life plane. Needless to say, all Centers were properly placed, which influenced how it ended up looking). This is all 1.3 KSP or course. Half those mods haven't got into 1.4 yet and maybe never will. I am only posting this to show what can be done with half a dozen mods, this one in particular! Kudos to the dev!

A interwar-like fighter using SM-Stryker, AirplanePlus and BdA + aviator's arsenall parts: Wing size tweaked with 'tweakscale', ailerons and flaps by procedural wings. I use FAR too, so it has working flaps, and since FAR makes everything more difficult, the weight was capped at 4 tons (which already is a lot!) by adding only a couple of .50 machine guns from aviator's arsennal, diminishing the wing's structural strenght (a FAR feature) and bringing along only enough fuel for some 25 minutes of flight. It stalls at 45m/s, but only 35m/s with full flaps. Top speed is around 120m/s. Crappy performance for KSP standards, right? But actually quite good considering the weight, engine power, what it was designed for, and of course the extreme realism provided by FAR, which REALLY FORCES YOUR HAND to design sensible, realistic airplanes. (EDIT: so maybe it's no wonder it ended up looking so much like a real life plane. Needless to say, all Centers were properly placed, which influenced how it ended up looking). This is all 1.3 KSP or course. Half those mods haven't got into 1.4 yet and maybe never will. I am only posting this to show what can be done with half a dozen mods, this one in particular! Kudos to the dev!

Yeah the game will trick you like that, causing you to think something is logical when it isnt. Let me explain better the countering thing. In some designs, I felt that there were not enough elevator authority from my rear placed elevators. I experimented by placing aditional foward canards, thinking it would be a no brainer: twice the vectoring power, right? Only... no. I got an effect where they anulled eachother. The visuals where right, they would point to opposite directions when a pitch command was given (as they should) but for some reason the effect was they would simply cancel eachother out. Certainly a game thing, in RL in think this was not going to happen. So I went all "spock-in-the-giant-amoeba-episode" and thought it would be logical to reverse the "deploy direction" data in the part's context menu. And it worked. I'm not happy with it though!

Oh its a lapel pin then! Yeah, its a button type thing. It was awarded in 1945 so it fits your description.

Damn! It works!

Could you post a picture of this thing, from the SPH, showing the CoL and CoM? I am curious as how you managed to place the CoM behind the CoL.

You can try to fool the game by inverting the surface's 'deploy direction', from normal to reverse. This indeed happens because the game cant figure out what to do in some designs, specially the avant-garde ones like yours. The game inverts: counter it by counter-inverting! Its a commom thing, in my experience, in designs with both a tail elevator and a nose canard. You would imagine they would add to eachother but the opposite happens for some reason.

Yeah but does it, though? I am not sure of it. Look, its too bad you're not liking this conversation, its those kinds of discussions that make this forum worthwhile - as long as they are friendly, which from my part you can be sure it is. No need for 'oh boy' me, allright? I would say this is not Coriolis effect, but rather, the object moving against an also-moving background. This is not what the Coriolis effect is, iirc. Planes drifting in bearing is something else indeed, but I have my own explanation for this, given above. EDIT. Wait. ... maybe there's a disparity of terminology here, which is my fault. I'll be clearer. There are two different things, coriolis FORCE and coriolis EFFECT. the force is due to inertia, gravity etc. The effect is the perceived drift. The first is due to force vectors and the second is what you see when you compare two differently traveling objects. I still maintain that if the coriolis FORCE is depicted in-game, that is something to be seen, but the coriolis EFFECT, yeah, I guess in that sense you can indeed see it. It's the artillery shell example you mentioned above. But that would have nothing to do with gravity, or how well the game models it.

That could be due to the Coriolis effect, but could also be due to something else, like a bug as @XLjedi mentioned above. You are precluding the possibility @Laie that they veer to one side of the other because perhaps the plane is not perfectly level, thought it may seem to be by glancing at the navball? Though I am not going to state categorically if in-game the effect 'is' or 'is not' implemented (since I don't know that), I would guess it probably isn't. I agree with @bewing that KSP models gravity very well. But that is to say, it mimics SOME aspects of gravity very well, possibly the most relevant ones, such as gravity acceleration/pull and its inherent mathematics. But it is not a 100% precise, all-encompassing laboratory replica or depiction of what the real-life phenomena of gravity actually is. I think that would perhaps be impossible. So if the game programming replicates some or even most consequences of that thing we call gravity, that is not to say the mere existence of something akin to gravity in the game would automatically generate all effects of gravity that we see in real life! Again, I'll say I AM NOT SURE if Coriolis was embedded in the programming (and I would guess you guys aren't either). I am just saying that if the programming mimics some effects of gravity, it does not automatically implies that all real life characteristics of gravity automatically would arise too. We would have to study this (I searched the web and found nothing) or ask the devs. In any case... it should be easy to find out, or at least, to exclude Coriolis altogether. The experiment made by @TheFlyingKerman could be done first flying north/south, then south/north. Since coriolis pulls to the same side, the effect would have to change sides and be experimented on the other wings. If they don't.. its not Coriolis. If they do, it's still not proof, though (although I would start to suspect it might be)! @TheFlyingKerman why don't you try it and post it here for us? Please nobody take me for being a stubborn type. AFAIK, it could be or couldn't. I just think it's not showing much lover for the scientific principle to reason like that: a) i see a phenomena and I have an idea of the cause; b) ergo, IT IS the cause! Consider this: if the laws of gravity were fully implemented in KSP as they are in real life, we should be able to see matter attracting matter, shouldn't we? Place a couple of parts in space and see if they attract each other. See what I mean? Its not because we see some of the manifestations of gravity in-game, that the whole enchilada is there working as it does in real life. The devs would be much more than good to achieve this, they would have to the like 'lucy' from that Scarlett Johanson movie!

Ok great, I'll check it out. I use kerbal engineer redux for my data screens.bur that seems more complete! I dont think ksp is THAT precise and realistic!

That's ksp all over!

Oh you bet. Physics and aero in ksp will frequently bug out. Some more: However in the issue mentioned in the OP, that is, one wing providing more lift than the other, I think that what you said above about control surfaces could be the answer to this. The control surfaces, although paired during craft design, work independently during flight. They are not 'tied' together, so that they move exactly the same in opposite directions. Now, assume one is moving slightly more than the other. That will generate slightly different torques, there is going to be a little yaw, there is going to be a slightly different draf profile in each side of the craft etc. If this generates an actual yaw motion, it's inevitable: one wing will be travelling faster than the other. Its what happen when you use rudders in a real life airplane: you start rolling to the side you are yawing, since the outward wing will be travelling faster, hence, generating more lift on the outward side. This could explain the difference in lift generated by the different wings in the craft shown in the OP.

Let me be a little more precise. I too observe this issue of craft veering to the left or right during talkeoff. Its something that may look like a bug but may not be one. Insuficient gear number/size for the craft weight, incorrect placement of the main gear in relation to the CoM, or the thrust vector forcing the craft downwards during takeoff is a sure way to have your craft drift to the sides. It is usually solved by tweaking those things. Now, granted, I dont know what your specific issue was, if any. Just seemed like a relevant comment to make since this forum is consulted by a lot of people with the same usual problems ans they seek these coments to find some light. Aircraft drifting out of the runway is a fairly common issue.

Like a soviet flying monster of the 50s! The nose resembles the caspian sea monster. @TheFlyingKerman what is that screen full of data, to the right of the pic? This is more likely to be a landing gear issue! Yaw certainly makes one side of the plane to travel faster than the other, since it induces the outward side of the turn to go faster than the inward side. This could explain the slightly higher lift, as the faster it goes, more lift is generated.

Would you be talking about the "near future elecrical" mod reactors? If so, they use a nuclear fuel and generate a waste resource in the process, which is not recyclable. But both can be transfered to-and-from a separate tank, like other resources. So you can bring along the reactor and an extra batch of nuclear fuel. It is a very heavy set of parts though. I only use them in stations and outposts, ships tend to be impractical with them (in a hard difficulty, no revert no quicksave career game that is).

Its goos to see this working in 1.4. Thanks @micha and of course @orionkermin. Making history has this new gemini-like capsule but, though it indeed looks good, it has nothing going on on corvus!

In my book the only parts able to provide a safe entry into Eve are the retractable heat shields. They have a large area when deployed and can be used from the very start of the entry, so they provide the most deaceleration all the way. Downsize is the complicated design that your craft will require, but mostly thats all.

If this mod of yours still haven't got much hype, dont worry. Its probably because you made it 1.3 compatible. As soon as you bring it up to 1.4 this is sure to be a very popular mod! We need more Infernal Robotics content, its one of the coolest KSP addons, and for some reason there is a awfully small amount of content for it. Now for some practical issues: there are some mods out there (old ones, forgot which) that allowed you to use mouse control for moving parts. Can you implement this here? Using the basic IR GUI to move this multi-elbowed arm is a knightmare!

Hehe I mentioned it exactely because odf the absurdity of a tank being brought as payload on a moon mission. Still, a classic. Actually, giving all the mods out there, I am surpsised nobody thought of the tintin moon rocket yet.

Get "contract configurator" plus any of several contract packs. It will do wonders to give you new objectives and challenges. There are mountaineering packs, historical mission packs, military mission packs.... it is guaranteed to give you something to do.

Congrats @SpannerMonkey(smce), its great to have this updated. Time enough, I think, to go all tintin-like and drive a tank on the moon!

Oh yeah, but I mean, same family of spacecraft. Maybe someday we'll see the whole family here!

To think this could have been the first moon landing! Whenever I see the stage configuration for how this was supposed to have happened, I can't help to think how 'kerbal' this looks: Its how I usually did it, when I used to play with mostly stock parts. It shows that this Russian approach was, at least, very logical. EDIT: Almost all other modules can easily be replicated with already extant Tantares or even stock parts. The landing legs, though... there is no in-game part that I know of, modded or not, that comes close to that. It seems an excellent approach to avoid toppling problems

Yeah I do use far and never got to explore its many tools! Tks for the advice.

Oh, ok. I'll leave it as a suggestion, anyway. Its a great feature of AA, I use it and nothing else from that mod (for cruising, I prefer pilot helper). I imagine AFBW could feature something similar (equal): you press a button, and it tries to keep straight.