Huelander

Edit: didn't saw the last page. Ferram or anyone that may know about it, is delta wings the most stable configuration for a spaceplane? I tend to have way less headaches using wings this way than anything else I found on wikipedia. Especially at around mach2 and mach 3.5 that most of my other designs have problems.

Great! will it work for both turbofan (TFE731 and CF34) engines too?

MR4Y there is a ramjet engine within Taveriu's mod that can do the scramjet role. A true Scramjet don't makes much sense in KSP since the planet is so small with a low atmosphere that the orbital velocity is still in the range of what a scramjet could do. A single jet engine only to orbit wold be possible with one, with don't makes much sense too.

Ferram there is some new engines and intakes with the lastest B9 pack that creates a few drag problems, Taverius kindly explained the probable cause in this post. I will try to explain the best way my poor English allows me to. By my understanding, those engines and intakes uses another method for intake area so they can weight more than the 0.01 of the stock intakes and have the same amount of air going through them. Because of that, the data on the right click UI on them are wrong, as in 10x what a similar sized intake does, the "air req met" in the FAR UI is 10x+ more than normal the same way. All engines on the pack that came with a intake (CF34, TFE731) and a few intakes (RBM Variable Geometry Intake, RNM Variable Geometry Intake) have this problem. To illustrate this, I am using your stock plane FAR Fireball. The drag at this example static analysis without any extra parts looks like this: Now, with two extra Ram Air Intakes, not that much extra drag: With two CF34 mounted, it won't ever get off the runway:D: Two TFE731: Two RBM Variable Geometry Intake: And for some reason the "EM engine mount" of the pack does the same, with or without any intake/parts connected to it. Using two TFE731 (weight 0.49) engines increases the drag almost the same ammount as using one CF34 (0.81), the drag increase seems to be weight related. Looking for a possible solution in the readme, there is a "FARBasicDragModel" that I've tried using it messing with the values for area and drag for those parts and nothing happens, I am doing something wrong? Or in those cases it won't matter? Using a simple structural panel between the wings and the side of those cargo bay solved the problem here, or fuel tanks and then attach the wings to them. Seems that the guess that far does are just a bit over the real size of the cargo bay, at least the "says that the part is shielded, but really isn't" bug that happened with the last B9 version is fixed.

Thank you for this really detailed answer, I will make a post on the FAR thread and try to explain the situation.

Changing the default area in the cfg file from "area = 0.00025" to "area = 0.000025" seems to bring the amount of air to a similar, albeit a bit lower, level of others intakes, but the part still generates a huge drag with FAR, huge as in a small plane will fly like a brick amount. The CF34 (this engine is so beautiful) and TFE731 have the same huge airflow, and a huge drag on any plane they are in.

Something seem wrong with the flow value in those "RBM Variable Geometry Intake", the flow value is around 10 times as much as any other similar sized intake, bug or intended?

Ferram4 remember this bug I posted a while before? Now that is possible to change the starting state of the cargo bays on B9 it seems to work as intended again, with the parts on that pack at least. Sometimes I need to reload/launch and go back to SHP for FAR recognize the right values, other than that it works fine.

Found out what is happening, FAR for some reason thing that the wings are inside the cargo bay so it don't make any lift and it falls like a brick. Removing the side tanks and using the wing directly attached to the HL cargo bay don't change anything. Also, you can now change the deployed state of the cargo bay in the action group menu. This is really great, thanks!

Are anyone else having issues taking-off with the D-175 Strugatsky using FAR? It starts to ascend and then fall like a brick the next second, the pic is how it stays on the runway. It has a massive Cd for some reason too.

Loading times stayed the same, overall FPS decreased by more than 50%, i could play fine with 45-60 before, now I don't go over 25 no matter if it is a single mk1 pod or a 100 part ship. I can change the graphics option from low to high with anti-alias and it stays the same. 3.2Ghz AMD Phenon II CPU, AMD HD4870 GPU, 32GB of ram, 40GB X-25V Intel SSD.

Good job, this is one of the best plug-ins for this game. Eagerly waiting the final version

That explains why the direction of the roll is the almost always the same, thanks for pointing it, time to use even more struts I guess. Also, your mod is really good Taverius, I can't wait for the awesome engines you and bac9 are doing.

It also happens with the MK3 cargo that starts off closed. It detects the parts inside but the plane drag still increases. About the roll issue, it happens most of the time with small planes that I rarely use struts on the wings. That last plane has around 170 struts, so it makes sense for it be one of the most stable I've built. Thanks.

Also, many of my planes roll when i am using the pitch control. Even with the wing lever enabled when i press S or W it roll clockwise at 1-2 degrees per second, what I may did wrong for it to happen? it happens even on the plane that i posted last post. Meanwhile this monster flies like a champ, empty for now since it had a insane drag with full cargo.

@ferram4No, its a bit different than that. If I put a rocket fairing under a plane wing for example, be it empty or with something inside the Cd stays the same on the SHP and flying, and the plane fly almost the same way. Tested it with the previous version on 0.19.1 and those screenshot are from 0.20 with only the B9 (my most used cargo part) parts, your mod and TV Aerospace to be sure that it wasn't another mod that caused the issue. Those two pics are from the plane Empty on the SPH and flying at 200m/s at around 1km of altitude. The Cd on it is pretty low, as expected, and the plane accelerate really fast, it can get off the runway around the middle without problems. Those two are from the same plane with a bunch of structural fuselage inside, since they are relatively light and have a great surface area. See, the Cd on it is a lot higher on the SPH and the flight date window, also it flies like a brick and can only get off the runway almost at the end. With the cargo bay closed, just noticed it today by the way, the drag is much greater and the plug-in stops recognizing that there are parts shielded inside. Also it can't even get close to 200m/s anymore, it's like i am using a open chute with it.

First of all, thanks for the awesome job you did on this plug-in! I've learned a lot from it and I can't go back to the stock model, getting a SSTO to orbit is a lot more fulfilling than before. Second, I think I found a bug: When using KW or other fairings everything seems fine, but when using cargo bays it seems broken. If I put anything inside a cargo bay the Cd increases the same amount as if i put the part outside it as in the picture, it happened with B9 cargo, LSI cargo bay and with the TT MK3, happens with any type of part put inside too. When right clicking on the part it says the correct amount of parts shielded as with fairings, but the extra drag is still applied. I've tried it with a simple plane and a few more complex ones with the same result also, tried it with the last version on 0.20 with the same results. When empty, the Cd on this plane is around 0.05 flying at mach 0.5 and more than 0.22 with things in the cargo.

Thanks, I will try the Tweakable Parameters method since saving the setting for each ship sounds really good. If possible, this function in the plugin would be great as ASAS is really convenient for docking or holding a station still.

I registered in the forums especially to say thanks for this awesome plug-in! I've been using it a lot on spaceplanes since they are really tricky to position RCS in a good way and they tend to waste tons of RCS for roll control, excellent results so far. I noticed the small roll you described on a few SSTO planes, it is still ten times better to dock than stock controls. A suggestion that may or not be easier to implement is to remove authority of RCS thrusters from ASAS modules, the way ASAS works now it will just waste all the RCS over-correcting on medium+ crafts (especially if they wobble). This way it's easier to translate the ship while ASAS keep the heading with the pod/SAS torque.