m4ti140

Well, this is how planes work. It's called stall You actually didn't even stall (I haven't looked at images before posting) but the drag increase is normal, drag increases with AoA. If the pitching moment goes negative with increase in pitch then it's statically stable, this is how aircraft are supposed to work. WW2 fighters had to be stable, bc they didn't have Fly-By-Wire back then. You can make a statically unstable aircraft and keep it stable with Atmosphere Autopilot mod in FBW mode (FAR stability is assistance is usually not enough), but that wouldn't be a ww2 era aircraft Anyway, to reduce stability move the center of mass and neutral point closer together. Shift wings and tailplane a bit forward and regenerate graph. The slope of Cm function (pitching moment coefficient) should reduce and the CoM and CoL markers should get closer together (don't trust the CoL marker though, check the stability derivatives). Make sure it doesn't flip and go positive though. Always check stability derivatives. This should reduce Cm_alpha and therefore reduce control moment required to maintain pitch. But it won't magically prevent your wings from stalling. Also remember that a replica made of KSP parts won't have the same CoM location as the real one (or a simulation mode of that specific aircraft) Thus your lifting surfaces won't be in the same place either. A rule of thumb in case of such aircraft is that the CoM should stay between 25% and 35% of mean aerodynamic chord in all configurations. That is, you should check CoM locations with and without fuel (and take into account which tanks empty first) with and without payload, with landing gear extended/retracted etc. and make sure the CoM stays within limits. Or, since ferram provided us with great tools, check stability derivatives in each configuration seperately after each change you make to he aircraft. Or just hit fly everytime and worry about details if it crashes and you have to find out why - this is the beauty of KSP after all.

@ferram4 This post actually made me curious - is the wing overhaul going to feature airfoil selection? What airfoil does FAR currently assume?

This mod is awesome. I pretty much dropped the usage of stock SAS. In fact the stock SAS should be replaced with this. Hell, it made STS replicas stable in ascent. The only problem I have is that it seems to go nuts when you give it an aircraft in a standard canard configuration. It sometimes doesn't know what to do and either ignores input or locks itself in max deflection. The latter often happens at high angles of attack. But this high is typically something like 8-10 degrees. Going beyond that (which happens often and close to stall with delta wings designed for low speed landings) results in controlls locking up in maximum pitch down position and LOCV.

@ferram4, what does rootMidChordOffsetFromOrig setting do? It is not described in documentation.

Would be cool to have "wing capacitive shielding" parts that would fit to the lower surface of stock shuttle wing/cs parts, and properly configured for this role (thermal settings, maxtemp etc.) Also what is the status of the body flap? Is it going to support FAR? EDIT: @Pak I started to do the configuration myself, and noticed a couple of things: 1. The stock control surface area is way smaller than it should be: It should be around 4.5-5m^2 2. The part model is oriented backwards (relative to how the other control surface models are oriented) - this is actually problematic with FAR, as without some advanced configuration magic the center of lift of the part is located outside of it. SAS, as well as any autopilot mod may also have problems with this part due to that fact. I'm currently playing around with FAR parameters to try to make it work regardless. Also, slightly unrelated: the real shuttle reentered at 40deg AoA. In fact it was the only angle of attack it could reenter at - any deviation from it would destroy the shuttle by either exposing insufficiently shielded parts or causing too high deceleration/loss of control - that's why the shuttle had to bank and do the S-turns to control the rate of descent. It was also, with a help of the flap, stable at that attitude.

The thrust reversers do not work with AJE, the visual effects are there but the engines are still thrusting forward. Any fix?

There's some serious problem in KSP 1.0.5 with this mod - it doesn't properly disable itself upon exiting VAB. Once you hit the flight button or exit to Space Center it starts to throw out nullref exceptions and then proceeds to s slowly degrade physics, causing phantom forces to be applied to your craft. If you disable it manually with the 5 key before exiting the SPH/VAB the problems disappear but when you come to the SPH/VAB again the WASD camera is enabled and cannot be disabled anymore.

Without the proper terrain shading (i.e. with sun side of mountains still alit despite being in the shadow of bigger mountains) the godrays look a bit out of place

Are you planning to support Kerbinside in future?

OH KRAKEN, where did you get those clouds from? Those don't look like EVE. As for masses, thanks for listening. The stock Mk3 passenger cabins are actually way too heavy as well, considering their capacity. It almost looks like it already accounts for the mass of Kerbals, and the way they're constructed one would expect them to carry fuel/provide cargo space/be double-deck. If it was empty weight, it would rather fit 5m real life equivalents, while yours fits 3.5-4m. I know stock parts are in general supposed to be heavier then IRL, but while it is merely a correction for lower orbital speeds regarding rocket balance it makes aircraft unnecessarily hard, as it significantly rises the airspeeds aircraft operate at. This is especially apparent with FAR, as it simulates stall. Speaking of which, It would also be cool to see 3.75 and 5m passenger cabins in the future, especially 3.75 as we already have a cockpit, which could be complemented by passenger higher deck. At Kerbal scale those would be equivalent to 747 and something ridiculous (tm) respectively

Suggestion: separate masses for male and female Kerbals

@Lack I've got a suggestion: add skewed elevons to use as ailerons with your new wings. I currently use them only for flaps because the anti-shock bodies placed on them define their orientation on the wing quite specifically.

@Svm420 I bet it's intake area. I know I had to configure a new intake and eventually used a rescaled goliath instead of a wheesley for the model when making a config for a PW6000 series engine. Also remove the area line, you've set the dry thrust already.

Link for patch is broken

I'm not prioritizing time to space, I want to perform a continuous burn ascent, ending on a circularized orbit. This would require the engines to cutoff exactly when the vehicle hits apoapsis.

Are you planning to make the altitude at which the turn is finished tweakable as well?

Yes, but you could rescale them with rescale factor instead (unless you're doing something more sophisticated here) so they are available without procedural parts installed.

What other mods did you use here? @Lack This pack is outstanding. It fits the really problematic gaps in stock part set, especially when building aircraft. The only problem I have with this pack is that the 2m airliner parts (Kossack line) are mindbogglingly heavy, they have masses more in line with Mk3 parts not the Size 2 parts. The KAX horizon cockpit for instance, a direct "competitor" to Kossack is 2.75t, ~75% of Kossack's mass. I actually went on and reduced masses of this entire part line by 1/4, because aircraft made with them had ridiculous stall speeds. A nearly exact scale replica of a320 series (2.5m as opposed to ~3-4 of the original, more less the Kerbal scale of 0.64) had dry mass almost equal to the full scale real life equivalent, which with much shorter Fat-455 wings resulted in stall speed of around 190-200 knots with flaps (I play with FAR installed). So, these could use some slimming down, because now they feel as if they were made of tungsten rather than aluminum.

1. I noticed now 2. You may have better data then. Also I wasn't sure what fudge factor did. 3. Maybe, but we severely lack high-bypass turbofans in 80-120 kN thrust range and 1-1.5m diameter range. I'm gonna try making configs for a couple of engines (at least CF34 and PW6000) possibly with models rescaled from either Wheesley (with matching intake and nacelle) or Goliath. Now how to force AJE to figure out area on its own? EDIT: nvm, it works Also: I noticed a lot more engine configs in squad.cfg, do they require Procedural Parts?

Ok, so I wanted to make a config for a new engine, or more specifically CF34-10, as the included CF34-3B has terrible performance and cannot be used for the same applications as stock Wheesley (which topped out at 120kN as opposed to 41kN of this one) and I noticed that it has been butchered even more than it should have been: 1. The mass... 4.1 tonnes? Really? The real one weights 760kg, that's less than 1/4th of that (edit: noticed it's fixed on github already, so nvm) 2. "areaFudgeFactor = 0.65 // The real CF34 is slightly bigger than 1.25m, so have to compensate" CF34-3 is actually slightly smaller than 1.25m 3. Also why CF34-3 in the first place? That engine sucks (pun unintended). Why not PW-6000 or even CF34-10? EDIT: Do I just leave area blank if I want it to be automatically set by thrust?

Don't you need FAR for EAS? I'm pretty sure you need FAR installed for RPM to show EAS.

OK, I get it. I tried to recreate the Emerald Sunrise with EVE+Scatterer but for now EVE 2D cloud layers render in front of Scatterer's effects and are not subjected to them, so it looks like I'll have to wait.

Ok, got one more question then: what are the physical meanings of HR and HM exactly (the half heights)? I suppose one of them is the altitude at which pressure drops by 1/2 (that is 50% of mass is below it and 50% above it) but what about the other one?

So, since this thread severely lacked images of Eve, I sent a probe there specifically to observe the famous emerald sunset with Scatterer enabled. Here are the results: You hear that? That's my jaw shattering against the floor. Now with some fiddling with EVE I'm sure we can obtain this sort of sunrise: Now, how to change the way the effects scale with altitude? Is changing config point altitudes enough? I want to get the effect from picture 2 and 4 to show up at 1 bar altitude instead of ground level (approx 10-12 km).

A couple of questions from an aerospace student: 1. Are you planning to add simulation of ground effect? 2. Does lift differentiate on the same wing segment if flow velocity changes along it (for example in a rotor blade)? 3. Is C_D corrected for viscous effects? 4. Are edge vortices simulated? Does curling wingtips do anything? 5. Is seperation simulated? Can you lose rudder in a spin? 6. What methods do you use for computation? Is it only an approximation or are you running actual cfd in the background?