MAKC

Tailless delta are generally pitch unstable. That's just how it is. Also, your canards are probably stalling while trying to correct for the pitch up moment.

Can I be so bold as to request a fine control feature, maybe akin to Procedural Parts? I'm building a ~1:1 replica of, as jonrd463 correctly guessed, a Starfighter (NF-104A) and while your addon has been of great help, I feel the current minimum size and increments to be too rough for finer engineering.

As the title suggests, it seems like radially attached parts (fuel tanks, landing gear, etc.) that have been offset will reset to their default position on loading a saved craft in SPH. Bug does not occur when reverting to SPH from launch with correct offset positions. Anyone else got this?

Is this needed for RSS?

Barely past M1.2 around 6km and procedural parts tank attached to AJE (2.0.3) engine overheats and explodes. Gonna go investigate and then report back.

Tweakables suck! It doesn't allow for the kind of precision adjustment that I feel is needed. Can't we get input fields instead? Regardless, this is a total PW-killer. Thanks a lot!

Any chance of a user-adjustable .cfg for this? The cruising shake is a bit much when I'm doing Mach 3 at high-altitude, leaving me unable to read the RP monitors.

This. Very much this.

Mistake: The 3rd stage decouplers will decouple both the SRBs and the liquid-fueled boosters with fuel still left in them. Second mistake: No update on Win64 progress.

KSP 0.25, Win32. Entering 0 in the Mach speed field and clicking the button in the stability deriv tab causes FAR to crash.

Edit: Nvm I just forgot to install FAR.

Center of mass problem. In the graph it shows that as you pitch up, the CoM moves further forward relative to the CoL, which will decrease pitch stability even more, like a positive feedback loop. It's a really tricky one to solve because it usually involves having to redesign your entire craft, the location of fuel tanks and how the fuel tanks drain. Adding cargo into that equation makes it even harder. Good luck.

Because the intakes were designed for KSP, not for real life scales. And I assume the AJE team gave them an intake area matching the size of the model. Real military jets are huge, especially compared to the tiny Kerbals. [spoiler=]

You can physically rotate (Shift+W/S for pitch) your craft in the SPH to see how the CoL behaves during different angles of attack. You can also use the FAR lift/drag graph for the same purpose but I find just rotating to be a lot quicker and easier to test.

Good that you reminded me. It's a bug in the inlet MM patch. The same intake appears 3 times, so it gets 3 times the intake area. You can fix it by removing the other 2 duplicate entries.

Colorful grid across the terrain just above the KSC?

Getting a strange visual glitch with latest RSS & Real Fuels. I let it rebuild the .obj files but it didn't help. Every graphic setting is at its highest except no v-sync and no terrain scatters & I'm using the 8k textures. http://i.imgur.com/y7Chmop.png output_log.txt Also, I find that the upper part of the sky becomes too dark blue, almost black. It doesn't look very realistic IMO.

What? Calm down lol

Really? I was hoping that besides having the largest harddrive in the world, I also had the world's fastest connection, seeing as I downloaded it in 0.5 seconds. Bummer.

This is unacceptable.

Thanks for clearing that up.

So what is the deal with a jet engine's maximum thrust? I've googled quite extensively and everyone says that a jet engine produces the maximum amount of thrust when static at sea level. Then why is it that the jets in EngineSim can produce more thrust than their maximum thrust? It's confusing.

Yep I am and Taverius is right. It's a D-30F6. Anyway, I did right-click everything on the plane just to make sure but I didn't notice anything excessive in terms of drag.

This is a real-sized (it looks bigger because the cockpit is comparatively small since Kerbals are much smaller than humans) fictional jet bomber/interceptor without its combat load and very little fuel in the tanks and to my layman eyes and with that TWR it seems like going past M1.0 shouldn't be a huge problem, yet it is. The speed is maxed out in every picture and as you can see even with altitude it does not go much faster. I even shielded the cockpit with an interstage fairing instead of clipping a conical tank into it because it would give me the drag from both the whole cockpit and the conical tank. You are the expert and I believe you when you say that drag is correct, but maybe it scales wrong with size? I don't know. Something is off. Edit: The intakes produce 0 drag by the way. Edit2: Vessel View is set to show drag.

I dunno man, maybe you are right but I also see a lot of people who have been to airshows saying that a lot of modern fighter jets have sea-level supersonic capability, that they have witnessed it first hand. Plus there are the famous vids of F-18s going supersonic a few meters above the sea.