tetryds

Alguém pode colocar links para as imagens etc. aqui quando elas chegarem? Ajudaria bastante

Oh, well, it actually matters, but all you want is them not being too close together. If they are closer they become less efficient.

Two small tails also have a smaller radar cross-section. You can also angle them to affect your roll stability. That is not all, there is a huge difference between using one and two vertical stabilizers, from storage to structural integrity, it's up to you to find out what fits your design the best.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-1-0-4-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-15-4-Glauert-7-12-15?p=2075520&viewfull=1#post2075520 Time for reviews

Why would I do that? The F-35 is... beautiful It was just a joke. It is, posible, just harder. Wanting to have more post stall control than enough to not die is asking a bit too much though, too little gimbal.

I am making those, I have the scripts and everything ready, just need plenty of time to make the videos Wanderfound has some tutorials, but I don't remember where you can find them.

So, radars are pretty much a core feature for this mod, IMO it got to a point where advancing and adding more things just don't make sense without an overhaul on this area. It's not as fun to dogfight when you can just double click the enemies and always know where they are. And it would not make a lot of sense to develop AI even more when at a point it will have to be changed to start working with the radars. Missions would also use this massively, this goes down to how you are using everything on the mod. The other suggestions are also great, but they feel a lot more like "extras" than actual core features like radars. BahamutoD, I am an electrical engineering student and I can help you developing the radar system for BDArmory, we could even go further and implement electronic warfare on the future. If you are interested you can pm me.

Then it's just too much deflection on the elevators, your main wings may be too far forward or your deflection is set too high, or both.

@VentZero, your post has been moved from the FAR mod thread. Please keep craft sharing and design discussion to this topic to not cluster the mod topic.

Indeed, you are stalling. The reason why you are stalling? Those canards. You have way too much deflection on the canards, when flying straight they are fully effective, pitching up generates a lot of pitch momentum. Then, they stall, at a certain AoA, this creates even more momentum. That increases your AoA a lot, and that makes your main wings and horizontal stabilizer also stall. But the stall of the wings and horizontal stabilizers together is very strong, that pulls your nose down violently. Then your AoA decreases and stall is gone, your canards become effective again and you keep bouncing forever. Your canards will stall at a very low AoA, and they generate a positive feedback loop. Their deflection will hardly ever be above 7 degrees, I recommend setting it to something between 4 and 6 degrees. But be careful, when your canards do not stall they are extremely effective, which may cause disassembles. After you set your canards right, use this to set your elevators: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/121176-Official-FAR-Craft-Repository?p=2060785&viewfull=1#post2060785 ...let me add these to my sig now.

To pensando em fazer um docking múltiplo no braço mesmo, a ideia é interessante. Agora não sei se seria emocionante igual entrar em orbita com dois foguetes. Talvez fazer inserção direta de três foguetes ao mesmo tempo e docar numa estação, seria bem loco. A bubble de loading continua sendo 2,5km, mas a de unload é uns 20, ou seja, se a nave estiver carregada ela continua até sair mais longe do que 20km. Isso ajuda bastante. Qualquer coisa dá pra usar o BDArmory pra aumentar o range.

You should post it on the official FAR craft repository, this topic is mostly to discuss the mod itself you will get better support there.

Time to poke ferram4. I agree that they are not precise enough. We are also missing something like Mach sweep at straight flight AoA, but that may be asking a bit too much. About the help, no problem, I will continue to post these small guides when people face dificulties. I have everything ready here just waiting until I have time to make the full video tutorials (as stated on my sig). For good hypersonic imagine two cones, one on the rear and another on the front, don't place anything crossing them. Quite a rough advice but it will help.

You can use Mach sweep for a given AoA, thay makes It a lot easier.

Yes there is, you forgot one detail, area rule is for transonic drag, right now FAR measures supersonic drag by a composition of hypersonic and transonic drag (may/will change). You can imagine hypersonic drag as being generated by a raycast, your large thin wings and bumps on the craft will not be hypersonic drag friendly. That is the reason why I did not add a single anti-shock body on my craft and it can easily make it to much faster than Mach 4.2 even though it has around 0.60 m² of transonic wave drag area. Area ruling blinded you to the other effects, it happens, don't worry. Well, yes, kind of. The idea I am having is not overhauling the challenge, but making a second version of it, or a completely new one. But I don't want to kill this challenge, this second version would come later, there is still a lot to happen here, and we also need to see what people come up with. Now we know what works and what doesn't, and we also know how far we can pull it and still have people to submit crafts. So, what I am coming up with so far is something totally different, so different that it may end up not even interfering with this challenge. The first idea is to have a few possible roles, likely three, each with it's specific requirements. More than one role can be fulfilled by a craft, which would compete on them at the same time. Filling all of the roles would be extremely hard, and by doing so your craft competes on the special multirole aircraft category. Specific role combos can be set, but that would only happen if we had a very big amount of submissions. About mods, I don't think there should be a distinction between modded and stock aircraft, this challenge showed us that there is no problem with that. But of course some mods like FAR itself would have to be enforced, I was thinking about AJE just for the realism boost, it's not hard to move to it since stock improved so much. Engine choice would not be a problem, you should be able to pick any that you wish. If the requirements are set right the engine choice will be just a design decision, some categories will fit certain engine types better, naturally. For scoring, I am still unsure, but I am thinking about dropping a point score system and using something else. I also think that the player skill can count, it's a challenge afterall, but it's very hard to get subjective judgment like this. It could be that I could fly all of them myself, but that wears out quickly, and something like this is very complicated to judge. The last one I made where I had to fix the crafts myself had to be put on hold simply because I did not have time to work on all of them. Halsfury suggested challenges, but amount of completed challenges gives preference to people with more playtime. A possible solution would be having two or three scenarios per role, and instead of having a better craft completing the missions are just extra requirements. We would end up having lists of capable airplanes, without defining which is better or worse. But this is something that still needs a lot of thought. The idea is to start simple, and as more people submit their crafts more roles can be added, it would be cool to include propeller fighters, bombers, etc. on the future. Or make new challenges for them.

I am starting to think about better ways to measure how good a fighter is. I feel that right now it's a "who is the fastest" competition rather than traits that are important for combat. And that is something very complicated to define, I will see what I can come up with.

Cair ele não cairia, mas quebrar provavelmente. Mas isso é se ele estivesse girando aproximadamente na velocidade orbital, é claro. Ah, e a órbita ser geosíncrona ou não não muda nada, o objeto sendo orbitado estar girando não muda nada pro objeto que orbita. Bem, muda, mas bem pouco.

Good question, this is one that I have never seen people asking before. One of the most important things when designing towards being able to pull high G loads is placing your wings efficiently on your craft. Your main wings are meant to sustain the craft, their lift should be very close to the center of mass, or slightly ahead of it. If you place the wings too far behind, you will have to generate a lot of extra force on your elevators, and that overloads the wings. Placing them right on the center or slightly ahead of it makes it behave like a fulcrum placed on the center of mass, you can easily tilt it up and down with a very small force on the elevators. Another thing is setting your control surface deflection to be as efficient as possible, you can do that using the method I mentioned on the official FAR craft repository. If you place your main wings correctly the drag on the elevators will be close to negligible, you will not need to worry about them stalling. There are a lot of ways to pull high g turns, but it depends on the size of your craft and at which speed you want to fly. A solution that works often is having a lot of lift, but you will get a lot of drag from that, and extra weight, they can also make it more complicated to area rule. So, you will usually want a low aspect ratio profile, as a plus you gain resistance to stall at the expense of lift, so you will be able to pull much higher AoA before stalling. Thus, while subsonic you need control to keep such higher angles of attack, and stability. The major stability concerns when doing this is roll, wing flexing should give you some extra dihedral, but be careful with uneven flexing. Transonic is a problem here, if you go supersonic you have reduced lift, and need higher deflection on your elevators, but subsonic gives you a much greater lift. What happens here is that if you bleed too much speed while turning when barely supersonic you will get subsonic and your wing lift will skyrocket together with the cloud of debris. There are some not yet implemented transonic effects, so my advice is just stay away from this region if you can. When at supersonic what you want is to have as much lift as you can with as little AoA as possible, this way dynamic pressure does not kill you but you can still pull relatively tight turns. But if you fly supersonic at high altitudes, you will need that extra deflection again. You see, there is a problem here, for every situation you will need the control surfaces to deflect differently, that makes it complicated to design a craft that behaves well on all cases without using control mods. It ends up that if you want to make a good plane, not just for pulling high G turns, you need to focus on a certain speed and altitude range. There are many other things I did not mention here, and the closest you get to the optimal point, the more tradeoffs you will have to make. Edit: about wing strenght/weight, you always want them to be as light as possible, but enough so that they can keep up with the turns. The heavier they are relative to the rest of your craft, the lighter you need to make them, to the point that you can pull insane g turns with a 0.675m drone with your wings close to the minimum weight possible.

Wing strenght and deflection angles depend a lot on the design. I am starting to think I should put the explanations I gave on my sig... I also typed a long text explaining how to optimize for high g maneuvers but I did not have time to fix it before posting, will do tomorrow.

Aqui tem vários presets pro controle de xbox que também serve pros de ps: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90610-Central-de-Ajuda-Perguntas-Repostas-e-Tutoriais Mas eles tão desatualizados, pelo visto agora dá pra usar os manetes sem editar a configuração manualmente. Deveria atualizar esse post, fica pra quando der tempo.

About the looks, yes that is super important. There are many examples of worse planes that won simply because they looked better, even though they were worse in every single aspect. Good ugly planes exist, but bad good looking ones are everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32 Even though not a requirement it would be interesting if we tried to keep our planes eye-pleasing as a plus Edit: by the way, looks are not totally useless, they are a marketing and appealing factor.

This thing looks great.

Desculpe Climber, mas não é assim que funciona. Tem uma explicação bem detalhada aqui: https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-centrifugal-force-reduce-the-effect-of-gravity?share=1 Edit: Se o planeta girar as coisas vão cair aparentemente mais devagar no equador, esse é o único efeito, algo girando não sofreria gravidade reduzida.

Sim mas essas não são as únicas forças agindo no corpo, também existe a gravidade afetando todos os pontos, e não existe nada gerando uma força para negá-la. Para um anel desse tamanho você não poderia resolver a gravidade do anel considerando ele como um ponto, até por que ele também possui massa etc., só daria um pouco de trabalho para ter valores exatos. Mas iria cair sim.

O problema é que não existe um vetor resultante A gerando uma força para cima a não ser que exista algum apoio. Ou seja, o anel vai cair mesmo assim, independente de estar girando.