BrawlerAce

Makes a lot of sense! I've got no problems with the way they're balanced as is in the stock mod, I just wanted to try my hand at adjusting the parameters to make something more realistic for use with FAR and such. Yeah something I noticed while testing was that if I reduced only the thrust, it severely hurt their ability to maneuver as they would not lead very much until it was too late. I will try testing out pronav, I was using aam this whole time. Few more questions related to that and the documentation: You mentioned steerMult is analogous to the P term in a PID, does the pronavGain term work similarly? And are there terms analogous to the integral and derivative terms? Does aamLoft work similarly to aam + the ability to loft? If so, could I use pronav and just set lofting parameters if I wanted to make a loftable missile? Where is the ingame editor you mentioned for adjusting guidance parameters haha (I have advanced tweakables on) Thanks for answering my other questions, it was very helpful

There are a few things that confuse me when it comes to some of the documentation on the github wiki (and in the part files) for missiles. The wiki doesn't seem to document everything, then depending on which file you look at, the notes next to each parameter say different things. I guess some questions: Does maxTurnRateDPS limit the missile's turning performance itself? Or is it just used by the AI? Is optimumAirspeed the top speed of the missile ignoring the launch platform's initial speed? How specifically does steerMult affect the performance of the missile? It kind of seems like an arbitrary parameter from how it's described. If I wanted to have a maximum G overload like a lot of missiles tend to have, is it possible to do that with the settings right now? I was guessing it might have something to do with maxTorque but I'm not really sure how I'd convert that. How does torqueRampUp work? Is that the increase in torque per second or something? Is it possible to create a missile that has a caged seeker before launch, but uncages after launch? Something like the early Sidewinders. What exactly does uncagedLock do? I figured it just allowed radar slaving, but I can radar slave my missiles even if they don't have uncagedLock = true Some of the documentation also suggests that it allows for LOAL for heatseekers, which seems like an entirely different thing. Is there a way to make missiles more or less susceptible to chaff in different aspects? So missiles like the R-3R are very susceptible to chaff, but the Sparrow requires beaming/notching to make chaff effective. Lastly, when making new missiles, is there a quick and easy way to test them? The current process I have is quite time consuming. Some of BDA's weapons are not very realistic, and while that's fine I wanted to try my hand at making them more realistic, but a lot of this stuff is rather confusing haha. Some clarification would be great.

I found the issue with this because I also ran into this when I was making a modpack. In AJEExtended/Templates/Exotics/AJE-Exotic-Templates.cfg, it looks like you edited the existing shock cone intake instead of copying it like I assume you intended to. (@ instead of +) @PART[shockConeIntake]:NEEDS[AJE&!SXT&!B9_Aerospace]:FOR[AJEEXTENDED] { @name = AJEE_SQD_SABRE_Intake

I'm having similar issues where engines provide negative thrust. I have an install with just AJE, SolverEngines as downloaded from the GitHub (not the one packaged with AJE), and Module Manager 4.1.3 on KSP 1.9.1. Here are some things I've noticed: The J85-GE-4, AL-31FM, J58-P-4, and J75-P-17 all had negative idle thrust, but moving the throttle even slightly brought the thrust back to positive. Their maximum thrust was less than advertised; these variations ranged from losing 3kN of thrust on the J85 to losing 46kN on the J75. However, I only tested the engines on the ground, so if they provide more thrust at certain speeds, then perhaps the max thrust isn't an issue, although idle thrust is still very much an issue. The CF6-50E was the only engine that didn't have a negative idle thrust. Its maximum thrust was also less than advertised, losing about 42kN, but again I only tested on the ground. The CF34-3B is by far the worst hit engine, with an idle thrust of -8.9kN and a maximum thrust of 2.4kN. It only reaches non negative thrust around 88% throttle. Now as stated above, I don't know if the engines provide more thrust at certain speeds, but even then, 2.4kN is really bad haha. Once I start rolling, the thrust jumps to 10kN but quickly drops as my speed increases - by 45m/s it was only putting out 7.6kN. There were no errors or really anything of relevance in KSP.log or the console. I could've sworn I saw this issue posted earlier but I couldn't find it in either this thread or the AJE Extended thread. (Also, I did test with SolverEngines included in the AJE download and had the same issues, but I didn't do as much testing)

I suppose that makes sense, however I had a much easier time locking in a singleplayer world as opposed to a multiplayer server. In singleplayer I could lock on to a Juno without much of an issue, while in multiplayer I had trouble locking even the afterburning turbofan. I'm not sure if it's an issue with BDA or LMP, but I was assuming it had to do with BDA.

Took me a while to respond to this, oops. I checked both the debug menu and KSP.log, and there's nothing unusual. I should specify that I'm using the multiplayer mod with LMP, and I only have issues locking with IR AAMs against players.

How sensitive is the AIM-9 seeker? I had trouble locking up an aircraft using Juno engines but the Goliath engine was easy for me to lock on to. edit: Just to resolve this, it just had to do with my aircraft design that gave the Sidewinder locking issues.

I tried recalculating the normals both ways (I'm using Blender 2.8, where it's been changed to two options, recalculating outside and inside), and it still looks the same ingame. I created this model basically by making a cylinder, then editing one end to create the intake. Let me know if you need any more screencaps.

I recently tried my hand at making models for KSP. Perhaps I should've started with something simple, but I decided instead to model an intake similar to that of an F-100 or Super Mystere intake. When I load it in game, there are no issues preventing it from working, however there are issues with the part's texture and shading. First, the texture. I attempted to adapt a stock texture from the circular intake, but it's always too dark. I did the UV mapping using the stock texture file, then in Unity I set the material to KSP/Diffuse. I also tried redirecting the texture path to the stock texture, however whether I have the texture path redirected or not, it looks like this. Second, the shading. Aside from the texture being off, the shading looks like it's fine in the editor, at least to me. However, outside of the SPH/VAB, the shading is noticeably off. What am I missing? Any help would be appreciated, thanks! I'll also take any advice on the quality of the model itself too; this is my first part and my first time modeling something in Blender, and I'd love to improve it if I can!

I'm glad I'm not the only one having these issues. I've made so many aircraft/spaceplanes and thought I was doing something wrong haha. I've asked around in a few other places too, and the general consensus is that the best way to slow down is by ignoring the gear brakes and using airbrakes/spoilers/thrust reversers/drag chutes/etc. (anything to slow your velocity besides the gear brakes) until you're moving slow enough that the gear brakes won't have any substantial effects. This isn't an ideal solution, but it's better than nothing. An alternative is braking for half a second to a full second, releasing, and braking again, using the rudder to adjust until you're moving slow enough, but this is really inconsistent and can cause your plane to steer out of control anyways, not to mention increasing your landing length. It's the only thing I can think of without resorting to unrealistic solutions. That's a real shame. For whatever reason though I have a much easier time landing in stock with the landing gear brakes; if I don't turn off steering, the plane may wobble a little but it doesn't steer out of control. I wonder why it's so different in FAR. With that being said, the springs/dampers are clearly noticeable whether using stock or FAR aerodynamics.

Hopefully this isn't too dumb of a question, but how do I successfully land in FAR with my landing gear brakes? Whenever I try landing and braking with my landing gear, my plane always ends up steering to one side and sometimes tipping over and crashing. I've tried disabling my steering, using a wider wheel base, flying with the FAR stability controls, and using a different mod, Atmosphere Autopilot. Am I just missing something here?

I went and tested all the prop engines, and at least on my install, everything looks to be fixed now. Thanks!

That may be true, however I noticed the R-3350 Duplex-Cyclone and the R-1830 Twin Wasp, both Airplane Plus parts, also have the same issue. Have you tested those engines out?

So I went and changed the name of the folder to AJEExtended. That didn't do anything, but considering most of the other engines already worked, not too shocking. I also removed tweakscale, still had the same issues. I don't believe I have any significant clipping in parts, but the test aircraft I made works fine with the Double Wasp and the 8Aa (as in those two engines provide thrust that make the aircraft move). Here's the test craft though. I made a test install to see if it was an issue with my modded install too, and for some reason it broke the tweakscale on the back tail, but otherwise it's the same craft. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EQcNPHFtrr5oKr6eZyZPcnBkPdrP4xyd/view I'm running on KSP 1.7.1.

Sure thing. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N5Y4oI0ppporTnCfaUbLDMTzKOK1KOrq/view

There are a few prop engines that don't seem to properly provide any thrust; it seems like their thrust is somehow being blocked by parts behind them. It's kind of like when you have a rocket or jet engine being blocked by something, and that engine heats up the part behind it instead of providing thrust. I've installed AP+, KAX, and SXT, so I've got those respective engine replacements. I haven't tested every engine (or most of them really), but affected engines include the P&W Wasp, the BMW VI, Bristol Mercury, Napier Lion II, Rolls Royce Kestrel, etc.. It seems like it's mostly the lower powered (~250-1000hp) piston engines, as engines like the Double Wasp work fine, however the Hispano-Suiza 8Aa works despite only putting out 150hp. Any idea what could be causing this?

I haven't seen anything on this, so I decided to make a forum account for this. With the Breaking Ground DLC having come out yesterday, I decided to try to make a variable geometry aircraft. In stock, there are no aerodynamic changes, which i assume is because of stock's simplified aerodynamics. However, in FAR, I've noticed that when I build a craft, having the wings swept back actually degrades high speed performance, as if they were acting like air brakes engaging. To test this, I made two aircraft without the robotic parts, one with the wings mounted forwards (as if they were swept forwards) and one with the wings mounted back (as if they were swept back), and they demonstrated performance that made sense (the first aircraft didn't perform as well at high speed, while the second one had a higher max speed). I also tested this with Infernal Robotics because I was curious to see if it was just an issue with the DLC or not, but I ran into the same issues. Interestingly enough, if I build an aircraft with variable geometry wings swept back by default, it seems to fix the issue sometimes, while other times I'll still have the same issues. Not sure if this is a FAR issue, but do you know anything about it? It almost seems like when wings are deployed, they act as airbrakes regardless of their actual purpose.