Search the Community

This is an unofficial continuation of Ferram Aerospace Research by @ferram4 updated to latest KSP version. The original thread can be found here. New source code repository: https://github.com/dkavolis/Ferram-Aerospace-Research All content now licensed under GPL v3. From the original thread: Update to version 0.16.0.5 "Mader" (Note for Kopernicus users: DO NOT overwrite MFI that comes with Kopernicus since it is locked to that particular version) ALL USERS: NO LOGS OR REPRODUCTION STEPS = NO SUPPORT Original Review: Aerodynamic Failures: Building a spaceplane and talking about editor GUI stuff: Features Shape-Based, Vessel-Centered, Aerodynamics - Long, thin shapes drag less than wide, flat shapes, and smooth changes in body width reduce drag. The shape of the vessel as a whole, not individual parts, controls drag, so shape the vessel as you see fit. Emergent Fairings and Cargo Bays - The voxel model method FAR uses allows for the actual shape of the vehicle to play a role in how lift and drag are applied. Build a hollow shell, and close it up, and everything inside it will be protected from the airflow as it should. Wing Effects - Realistically adjusts lift based on wing position and configuration: wingtips lift less and drag more than wing roots. Stall - Passing the critical angle of attack suddenly reduces lift and greatly increases drag. Can put planes into tailspins, flat spins, and cause crashes. Mach Effects and Area Ruling - Lift and drag will vary as expected with Mach number. Supersonic planes will need to properly area rule themselves for optimum flight characteristics. Body lift - All parts lift: a fast enough brick will fly, if not that well. Download: Get v0.16.0.5 "Mader" from Github! Official FAR Craft Sharing Thread Post your crafts there, not here, please. Violators will have their posts moved by moderators, and will have everyone very annoyed with the additional workload for both moderators and me. The FAR wiki at GitHub The source at GitHub Everything licensed under GNU GPL v3 Part.cfg changes powered by sarbian & ialdabaoth's ModuleManager plugin. Interface with stock heating system and other mods interacting with the physics system powered by sarbian, Starwaster and ferram4 ModularFlightIntegrator Toolbar powered by blizzy78's Toolbar plugin. Installation: Copy the GameData and Ships folders into the KSP root directory and merge them with the existing GameData and Ships folders. Make sure that you copy over everything in the GameData folder. Serious issues will occur unless this is done. Changelog: FAQ - Common Questions and Solutions to Common Problems What does this mod do that stock KSP doesn't? Stock KSP calculates drag as a linear combination of the drag properties of a vehicle's parts, with some interaction changes to handle some of the most obvious aerodynamic interaction effects. FAR instead calculates the drag from the vessel shape as a whole, resulting in a more realistic model of aerodynamic drag and body lift. In addition, FAR accounts for wing shape, rather than just overall area like stock KSP. Finally, thanks to the overall vessel model, FAR can account for things like area ruling, where the vehicle's area cross-section must vary properly in order to fly at supersonic speeds (well, without MOAR BOOSTERS, in any case). I don't like my rocket coming apart under heavy aerodynamic loads; how can I turn it off? In the Space Center scene FAR has a debug menu that can be accessed to mess with a large number of the parameters. Under the "cheats" section of the first tab there is an option to disable aerodynamic failure. Does this plugin work properly with other mods / part packs? Sure; FAR figures out what the properties of the part should be based on its dimensions and some basic aerodynamic assumptions. If you use a mod and suspect that it causes unrealistic behavior, search the thread to see if it has been brought up / addressed by the latest release; if it hasn't, feel free to bring it to my attention. The only exception is with wing parts, which are more complicated and currently must have their properties specified manually. Does this plugin make payload fairings and cargo bays work properly? Yes, it will support any and all fairings and cargo bays. Even those that you make out of completely unrelated parts, so long as you close up the shape. In fact, to FAR, there is little difference between the inside of a closed fairing and the inside of a fuel tank part; they're both just as internal to it. I can't seem to turn off the Flight Assistance Systems... what's going on? In the Flight Assistance GUI every button that is pressed activates a control system; when none are pushed down no control systems are active. I suspect that you've actually created a poorly designed craft and that you're attributing aerodynamic forces that you're not used to dealing with to non-existent control inputs. Do I need ModuleManager and/or ModularFlightIntegrator? Yes; they are used to properly apply aerodynamic properties to stock wing parts and to interface properly with the game's physics system. Not using them will cause FAR to not function. I'm using the win64 KSP build and I am still too outraged to read the topic title or changelog, please mock me. Very well, I shall. Haha, silly person. Anyway, win64 is now unlocked for the foreseeable future. If it turns back into the crashtastic support-heavy nightmare it was, the lock may return, but I do not anticipate the need to do that.

can anyone tell me how to change FAR(ferram aerospace research ) to work one 1.4

My computer ( a mac) crashes when i install far and boot it up, ksp works just fine without far and i have made sure my pc can handle far ill be posting the crash log asap

I've been playing the aircraft design Using mod installed in KSP (1.8.1 and now 1.12) for years, All of it is good, except for one fact that this mod generates lift in slow speed (taking off speed) obviously weaker than it should be in reality. I built aircraft according to the real-life examples, I always edit the mass and size in part.xml file and change all mods' setting to make sure the aircrft is close to real ones. This Fokker Dr.I in game is made to be 5.77m × 7.19m, Weights 550kg, Wing area is 20m^2. It's really close to the Wiki data, and I make the Mass-Lift-Centers-distance close enough for a fighter aircraft. However, the stall speed is tragically much higher than real-life-data's 72 km/h, I have to fly over 120km/h to make sure it doesn't need too much AOA to keep level flight. When it comes to other larger aircraft like B-29, the taking-off is so unrealistic that it feels like flying a Space Shuttle. I've been testing the different factors that might affect the Lift force, like the thickness of B9-procedural-Wing, or the length of Leading and Trailing edge, or the distance between deckedwings, And the result is, the only factors that determine lift, are Wing area (not matter how the wing is shaped) and Wing AoA in flight. So that means I can never use the real-life aircraft example's WingArea-to-TotalWeight Ratio to take off in the real-life speed, I have to fly much faster in higher AoA I've tried to edit part.xml to increase the "deflectionLiftCoeff " or any factor that looks like being about Lift or wingarea, but nothing works, the flight test data are the same. So, is there a secret setting button I don't know in FAR fuction that can increase the Lift generated in low speed ? Or is there any other ways to violently edit and increase Lift of B9ProcedralWing or other wingparts?

Ok, i'm not an absolute noob in KSP but I'm far from being a veteran. I'm the perpetual student, always learning (and occaisionally even succeeding). So here's my question: The FAR mod, yay or nay? I try to keep my install pure stock, but the idea of a more realistic aerodynamic model is compelling. Further, I'm running KSP 1.10.0 and will try to upgrade to 1.10.1 this wekend. Is FAR worth it, especially on these newest versions?

I've been tackling this plane for sometime, although it has proved itself to be troublesome, and the project took way longer than expected(still haven't really finished by this point). Anyway, presenting the ADF-11F Raven: The ADF-11F Raven is an advanced unmanned air superiority fighter boasting phenomenal maneuverability, laser weaponry, and ridiculous loitering time. Designed with "ultimate survivability" in mind, the Raven is actually an ADF-11 drone nose unit with a RAW-F air supremacy wing unit attached, together forming the ADF-11F. The combined Raven would always attempt to take damage with the RAW-F wing unit, and when being damaged beyond combat capable, the nose unit would detach and retreat, bring back crucial combat data for further tactical advancements. Front and rear: Missile bay and laser weapon: ADF-11 nose unit detaching: Detaching in progress: https://i.imgur.com/2tqDFa9.gifv The Raven is unmistakably MASSIVE, even surpassing the Tupolev Tu-28 in maximum takeoff weight. Detaching the ADF-11 from the Raven is like ejecting a Dassault Rafale on top of an F-22. For a size comparison, we've asked Jeb to roll the Aeris 3A in front of the SPH for a photo shoot: Jeb even agreed to pose for a photo: And don't trust the blue ball, it can and will deceive you... The delta platform is rather stable even without vertical tails. Bit of a surprise for me there.

So firstly the centre of lift it is slightly slow to refresh I'm guessing this is far doing calculations. My main question, I am building a plane using realism overhaul and realistic progression, with FAR. I would like to my centre of lift to be above my centre of mass to utilise the pendulum affect to stabilize my craft. My com is slightly below my col, When I raise the Wings to the top of my craft the com moves with the col. Granted the Wings have some weight I'm using procedural parts. So I emptied the Wings fuel tanks and lowered the mass strength muilplier %. Thinking this would change only the mass and not the lift, but the com and col both move down. Why does col change when only changing weight of parts? Is it something to do with FAR indicator being centre of pressure not centre of lift?

The Tournament It's that time of year once again, which means time for a new BAD-T. Like the last three BAD-T tournaments, this will consist of 2v2 dogfights featuring WWII-era aircraft battling around and above sites scattered all over Kerbin. Contestants will submit a craft, which will then be pitted against other submitted craft in a standard tournament ladder format, with fights recorded and posted to YouTube. Defeat means a craft is out of the running, success means it moves up to the next bracket. Depending on the number of entries, a second-tier ladder may also be run, featuring craft that lost during the first round of fights. To enter, simply create a WWII themed aircraft. Replicas of real-world craft are permitted, but not required. Craft design, AI configuration and armament are entirely up to you. As long as it follows the rules and looks like it could have been a real WWII-era fighter, it's a valid entry. The following mods are required: FAR 1.5.9.1 Liepmann with ExtremeTrader's KSP 1.4.5 patch. Aviator Arsenal with the KSP 1.4.5 patch. BDAc 1.2.2.2, with DMG_MULTIPLIER = 750 in the GameData/BDArmory/Settings.cfg. BAD-T Props pack ,which requires the FireSpitter .dll Additionally, the following mods are permitted, but optional: B9 Proc wings Procedural parts Take Command (for planes using constructed open cockpits) Adjustable landing Gear Tournament Brackets Aircraft Classes: Entries will fall into one of two categories, Fighters and Heavy Fighters. Fighters are single engine monoplanes. They have one engine. They must have a dry mass of at least 2.5 tons*. They can use up to 100 points worth of engine and armament. Heavy fighters are heavy twin engine monoplanes. They have 2 engines. They must have a dry mass of at least 5 tons*. They can use up to 150 points worth of engines and armament. *Dry mass is the empty weight of the craft, wet mass is the loaded weight of the craft with fuel and ammunition. Resources like Oxidizer and Ore which aren't used as fuel or ammo can be used as ballast and count towards dry mass. Points: Weapons cost their diameter in mm. *This includes decimals – 12.7mm MGs cost 12.7 points each, etc. Engine cost is indicated by the number in their part name. *'B27-D Brutus' costs 27 points, 'B32-D Gazelle' costs 32, etc. Ammo is free, carry as much or as little as desired. Rules: - Craft must have no more than 60 parts. -Only Aviator Arsenal weapons permitted, with the exception of the Ball Turret. -No more than six of any one type of weapon. Multiple different weapons is allowed. -Only BADT engines allowed (Widshed, Brutus, Gazelle, Wizard, Buzzer, Foxhound, & Falcon). -No aerospace grade parts (radiators/heatshields/airbrakes/etc) allowed; (Ore/RCS tanks allowed as ballast, but not as structural components). -No reaction wheels. Cockpit reaction wheels must be disabled. -Craft must have at least 1 Kerbal, either in a cockpit, or a constructed open cockpit using a command seat. -No BDAc armor panels. Intrinsic part armor thickness is to remain at 10. -Constructed cockpits must be safe, something that a sane (you, not Jeb) pilot would want to sit in. -Part clipping is allowed, within reason. No clipping resource containing parts into other resource containing parts please. Clipping ballast parts into ballast parts is permitted. -If using P wings, keep wing thickness for main wing pieces at least 0.120. -Craft must include a visible Communications Antenna – this is AA's combination AI pilot and weapon manager. -AI min altitude must be at least 300m. -Craft should have at least 15 minutes of fuel. -If both craft on a team run out of ammo, they forfeit the match, as they can no longer shoot down the opposing team. -All entrants will be required to shoot down a Test Dummy craft to certify flight-worthiness in FAR – this is basically to ensure your craft can take off and do maneuvers without a RUD. -No text editing of craft files. -The Eidahill Clause: While cheesy Min-Maxed designs that take advantage of loopholes or game exploits may be technically legal, I ask that contestants respect the spirit of the competition, not just Rules As Written, when designing their airplane. Submissions: Craft must be submitted by the deadline, 11:59 PM, Friday, October 26th. One entry per person. If something goes wrong during submission, or you realize your craft is not rules compliant and needs some changes, contact me via PM. Otherwise, all submissions are final. To submit, upload your craft to KerbalX or similar, and sent me the download link via PM. Sharing links to your crafts in the thread is fine, but only craft I've been sent via PM will count as entries. F.A.Q. Can I submit more than one craft? -No. Entering more than one craft runs the possibility of your entries fighting another of your entries, and the purpose if this tournament is to see how your craft do against other people's designs, not your own. However, if there are not enough entries to fill a roster, secondary entries may be accepted at my discretion. I submitted my craft already, but it (accidentally) breaks the rules, what happens now? -If your craft is an illegal design, I will PM you, and give you the chance to correct the design and re-submit. I've updated my craft after submitting it, can I resubmit? -No, simply to keep the logistics of managing entries simple, one submission per person. You can edit your submission's KerbalX upload or similar as long as it retains the same name before the deadline, but no submitting multiple craft. Can I submit a biplane? -No. Biplanes were mostly obsolete by 1940, and the spirit of the tournament is modern WWII era designs. Can I submit a jet? No. While WWII saw the emergence of first generation jet powered aircraft, for balance reasons all craft should be propeller powered. I'm bad at building craft in FAR, should I still submit something? -Yes. Sure, there will be some entries that are hyper-competitive, but for the most part, this tournament is aimed at having fun, watching submitted craft fight bravely and die gloriously. For the most part FAR is fairly simple to use, but don't be afraid to ask for advice. The rules said something about constructed cockpits? - Take an External Command Seat and use parts to build an open cockpit around the Kerbal (proc parts are good for this). Just make sure it's a cockpit someone other than Jebediah would be comfortable sitting in. Tips & Tricks -Manually fly your craft at least one before handing it off to the AI. This lets you make sure it flies as you expect, and is capable of hard turns/coming out of a dive with out ripping a wing off. -Determine what the minimum altitude your aircraft needs to pull out of a dive from is, and set the AI accordingly. Last thing you want is for the AI to lithobrake your plane during a battle. -Test your craft against the Dummy. The dummy is an aggressively sub-optimal design; if your craft cannot shoot down the Dummy, it is unlikely to perform well against tuned competition aircraft. -Check your wing strength/mass settings. Right click on a wing part to see a slider to adjust the wing's mass and strength. Be careful not to increase or decrease it too much, though. Too little strength and the wing will snap off during maneuvers, too much mass and the plane becomes unnecessarily heavy. -Ammunition is heavy, so consider how much you need. Having a single box of ammo per cannon is generally enough, while machineguns can usually get away with one box per 2 guns. That said, remember that running out of ammo essentially counts as being shot down by the opposing side. -The AI is not by any means a proficient marksman. It may be a good idea to lower max gun range down to something in the 800-1250m range. True, the AI might hit something at 2.5km out, but chances are all it will be doing is wasting all of your ammo at that range. -FAR changes how the CoL indicator in the SPH works; it now shows the center of aerodynamic pressure of the aircraft, rather than the sum output of all lift generating parts. Instead of trying to line up the CoL and CoM indicators, try to align the main wing with the CoM. -Pressing F2 in the editor brings up aim vectors for all guns on a craft, useful for gun calibration if you i.e. want weapons to converge at a certain distance.

Not really sure about this section being the proper place for this query, but i figured that if it wasn't then someone would point me the right way. So currently I'm taking a forced break from KSP (I'm trapped in trigonometry hell pls help!!!!). But i figured as this isn't really something that requires me firing up the game, and has a number of different approaches which would likely keep the thread going for a while . That makes it perfect for something to sit here and simmer while i slog thru graphs, functions and derivations of arcane formulas for the next few weeks. Anyway; to the actual blasted point. I rather enjoy building aircraft in my heavily modded install of KSP, and iv'e always had some difficulty figuring out how to replicate how actual planes use control surfaces. Note we're not excluding stock, but i personally always use Procedural Wings & Control Surfaces along with FAR in my installs. So anything specific to those is worth mentioning alongside other advice if you know of it. For instance flaps; iv'e never once built a plane in KSP with actual flaps. Not because i don't want to, but because i couldn't ever figure out how. Inverting the deployment direction doesn't seem to be enough since then they just become awkward airbreaks sticking up perpendicular to the edge of the wing, and actual flaps can usually deploy in multiple angles (For instance you almost always have settings for "Landing" which create a wack ton more lift so you can go below stalling speeds on approach). Things like Split Flaps, Elevons and Spoilerons i can't even conceptualize how to do in KSP, and it doesn't seem that any tutorials go beyond very basic aircraft design. So i ask of this wonderful community; please vanquish my ignorance and replace it with the knowledge i seek.

Warning : mild anomaly spoilers I've always used FAR for the challenge and sake of realism, but never really flown a plane because of the difficulty of such a thing and because I focus my KSP games on career, which have you very rapidly leave Kerbin's atmosphere for farther and oddly shaped horizons. Sure did I attempt a few test flights to get my hands on it knowing I would want to fly spaceplanes at some point, but even with a handful of tutorials for designing and flying planes (and understanding the UI) and a good amount of practice, I never managed to land anything. Problems during take off are easily solved and flying an eventually balanced plane is not too difficult with a joystick, but landing with FAR was a nightmare and all my test flights would end up in a ball of fire. So I ended up giving up and decided to postpone flight mastery to another day. I just installed the Anomaly Surveyor contract pack yesterday and one of my first missions involved going to a location close to the KSC, the abandoned airfield. Well, it has to be it, I guessed. No rocketing around that time, we'll have to fly there with a plane. Jeb swiftly hopped into my previously designed early career plane and took off (forgetting to embark Bill and Bob, but we won't need to reset experiment anyway, isn't it). I could have practiced my landing, but thought you know what, I might as well try and land there, if I get tired of failing, I'll parachute Jeb and the contract will be a success anyway. Against all odds and after a couple of tries, I actually manage to land there with only a little trip outside the runway! I taxied there, obviously Ok, great! Amazing achievement, I should call it a day and recover the plane, right? But I have quite a bit of fuel left (randomly added to balance the airplane) and I want to keep going, I can do that, it's easy now I'm not at all overconfident! So where is the next anomaly? There's one quite close on the other side of the KSC and one about 600 km south east. Let's go for the latter, I want to try out a long, high altitude flight. So I accept the contract and here we go. Do you have time to talk about scatterer? Totally anticipated it would be night time when I arrive and not at all cheating with the luminosity with Planetshine Oh, mission control must have forgotten the part where the Monolith is on top of a huge mountain peak... What do I do now? Land in the highlands and attempt to climb? That would take days. Abort and go back to KSC? I might not have enough fuel and how disappointing... No. There is only one thing to do in that situation with Jeb piloting and that crest on the right looks like a perfect, smooth and leveled runway! I do not want to miss and fall into that... Here we go, slow and steady. By that time, I learnt there actually is a trim in (stock!) KSP, it should be feasible. The secret recipe was to lower the throttle and play with it and the flaps position for speed control (I would inevitably stall at flaps 3 even at full throttle) and to set the elevators control deflect to very high (30 instead of 7 with my settings) in order to be able to touch the ground parallel to the slope with a huge pitch inclination just at the limit of stalling. Perfect landing! Nothing wrong, nothing special to see, the left wing and the tail were removed for the sake of parking stability on the slope. Aaaand we made it! A gentle touchdown under 50 m/s at a 30° pitch on a 30° slope, followed by a gentle braking with no slipping, no destroying half the plane or anything! And on the first try, not at all after a few dozen attempts! Totally unrelated pictures All and all, I learnt a lot today. I definitely will be flying more often with FAR and am considering giving GAP a try. Any other recommendation from FAR users? Yes, Jeb, you can go home, now.

Kerbal Wind Implements wind and a continuous-gusts model for Ferram Aerospace Research. Provides GUI with settings for wind direction, speed and turbulence magnitude. The mod was Inspired by KerbalWeatherSystem by silverfox8124 and the addition of a wind speed hook to FAR's API. Dependencies FerramAerospaceResearch is a dependency. You need it or this mod won't even load. Blizzy's Toolbar is an optional dependency. Stock toolbar is also supported now. Which toolbars to use can be set in the configuration file which you have to edit in order to make the change. Download https://github.com/DaMichel/KerbalWind/releases (Source code on GitHub) Installation: Extract the zip file content into the GameData directory. Picz Credits I took an early release of KerbalWeatherSystem as template, gave it the polishing that it deserves, and thus turned it into this fun little stand-alone mod. Proper permissions were given, and now my code is released under the MIT license. Much thanks to Ippo for writing the FAR patch that lets you add wind, and Ferram4 for making FAR and accepting all those patches. License The code is subject to the MIT license (see GitHub page). In addition, the creators of derivative work must give credit to silverfox8124 and DaMichel. The toolbar icon is subject to the WTFPL (http://www.wtfpl.net/)

I'm trying to build a Delta II in RSS/RO, and i am having a repeat issue, where in vertical integration, the center of lift becomes very unstable, sitting very far off of where it should be, in extreme cases even being very far outside the rockets physical dimensions. adding fins and wings to said rockets does very little, as the center of lift does not move up or down, only staying directly on the COM if you manage to get it there. https://file.io/Bka5q8 ^ Output Log ^ https://imgur.com/a/ZJ3k0pY ^ Delta II COL issue ^

Hi guys!!! I have a very simple question I'm sure you airplane experts will be able to answer easily! I am trying to incorporate flaps to my airplanes to smooth my landings - I place control surfaces and activate the flap buttons but I do not see/feel any effects on my craft - would anyone be kind enough to teach me how to set flaps please? Many thanks in advance,

I seem to be having a little problem with my planes on takeoff. That's three separate designs now, so I have no idea what's wrong, and in fact I can't see much in common between them. They all have the exact same problem though. On the runway, during takeoff roll, a particular speed comes when the aircraft starts leering of the center of the runway. It should be noted that I am using FAR and I'm not really an expert with plane design, even though i enjoy it. Right coming back to the case, I present to you most recent of these troublesome designs. It is in no way a spaceplane, as one can see by its engine. Hence it was designed with low-speed, low-altitude performance in mind. However, the runawy sideslip is fatal on takeoff, the plane ususally rips off a wingtip, rotates around it and comes to stop, sliding backwards. I have also found a description of it that I've written. Both for RP purposes and as notes for myself in case i come back to it after a longer break:

Hey guys! I have a moderately modded install of KSP version 1.3.0. My problem is that i encounter multiple issues during my play and get a ton of errors and NullReferenceExceptions to the point currently even my save file gets corrupted sometimes. The mods are all installed via CKAN with the exception of DeadlyReentry, PlanetShine and AGEx. These mods should be compatible with 1.3.0 as far as i know and the problem doesn't originate from them as i suspect. Problems i encounter during gameplay regularly are the following: FMRS sometimes corrupts my savefile which i need to restore via the S.A.V.E. mod FAR continuously spams the log with this error: [ERR 18:43:23.451] [FAR] NaN Prediction Section Error: Inputs: AtmDen: 0.0241596 Mach: 0 Re: 0 Kn: NaN skin: Infinity vel: (0.0, 0.0, 0.0) Sometimes in space i get a NullReferenceError from which point SAS and AtmosphereAutopilot can not stabilize vessels. In the VAB sometimes engines ignore fuelflow priority and ignore crossfeed rules resulting in strange dV calculations from KER and magical cross-feeds to engines on vessels which should not receive fuel from specific tanks. Solar panels on vessels keep magically reverting back to retracted state on load but somehow still produce power and stay online when i don't load them. It's got out of hand to the point i can't deal with it alone. I think there are issues with multiple mods which is hard for me to backtrack so i ask for help here. Developers of the mods i'm having problems with may also find useful stuff in my logs. [20171108_1849] output_log.txt KSP.log

Recreations of my craft from V0.25 SSTO contest thread: SSTO Spaceplane Airplane Design Contest II Akademy Awards and probably some new crafts too I want to use this post to promote some of my favorite mods, like FAR, B9, KW Rocketry, IR parts, Procedural wings and some that I found recently like Adjustable landing gears and Advanced Jet Engines. When I need to ask someone about something in other threads it is easier to pinpoint them to this post, so they can see pictures and even download a craft file to see what I was talking about. Unhide spoiler to reveal links for old KSP version craft files from V0.90 to V1.0.2. KSP V1.0.5. craft files moved to spoiler section. All craft files are available in one archive - Download craft files. KSP 1.1.2 Craft files - All craft files are available in one archive trough download link. Pictures and descriptions moved to spoiler. KSP 1.2.2. Craft files. All crafts are available in one archive trough download link. Some picture will be added later

You know who you are. If FAR isn't installed, then it's not KSP. You've ripped the wings off a hundred planes a thousand times. You have PWM modulation for the pitch up key in muscle memory. Now, it'ts time to show off. Peg the g meter. The rules are simple, and the objective is even simpler. Objective: Build a plane that can generate and survive the highest gee-forces possible. Post an F3 screenshot of your plane (landed or flying) showing the max g-force as well as vessel mass. Short videos or even a gif of the attempt are always great too! Scoring is measured in kilonewtons, which is (the mass of your plane) x (your max g-forces survived) x (9.8). Rules- 0.) You have to have FAR installed, with all default settings. 1.) Your plane has to survive the attempt. (This is a flying challenge, not a crashing challenge) 2.) Your plane cannot have any stalling surfaces during the attempt. 3.) Your plane cannot have a TWR greater than 2. (This a plane challenge, not a rocket with wings challenge) 4.) You must perform your attempt in Kerbin's atmosphere. Other than that, have at it! All mods are in, nothing else I can think of is off limits. You get the spirit of the challenge by now I'm sure, which is pretty much make the most maneuverable plane possible. So far my best is 28 gees with a 1.2 ton plane, and after a bit more refinement I'll submit it! One submission per person on the leaderboard at a time, but feel free to one-up yourself as much as you want! Leaderboard: 1.) 2.) 3.) ...

A drag-reducing aerospike is a device (see Nose cone design) used to reduce the forebody pressure aerodynamic drag of blunt bodies at supersonic speeds. The aerospike creates a detached shock ahead of the body. Between the shock and the forebody a zone of recirculating flow occurs which acts like a more streamlined forebody profile, reducing the drag. Wouldn't it be nice to see this in game?

Problem 1. RSS & Realism Overhaul (at least FAR+ deadly reentry) installed - game version 1.0+ (tested in 1.1.3) 2. You got an airplane (anything landing horizontally) into low earth orbit 3. You want to get it back down without burning up. Usual outcome: Let's assume, you finally got a craft flying in FAR at both subsonic and high Mach speeds and even have thing not spinning out of control during reentry attempt. As soon as you try to reenter at LEO entry speeds (~8000m/s ish) stuff simply overheats and explodes :-( Howto do it anyway: a) Procedure: You can't use ablative heat shields, so you'll want a very shallow lifted reentry with as low an initial speed as possible, so the heat load can dissipate. You really need to fly the craft all the way down from orbit using a steep AoA to get a detached bow shock and limit overheating. 1. Get Apogee of your orbit to under 200 km above earth (propulsively or with very careful >100 km perigee atmospheric breaking if you dare) Otherwise your reentry speed will be too high and you will overheat before you even get enough lift to fly. 2. Get your perigee at 70 km or below (very shallow reentry) 3. Make sure the reentry shock front is detached. If your plane is pointy in flight direction (MK2 cockpit - good for supersonic performance on ascent but too pointy for nose first reentry) then you need to fly with high angle of attack to form the shock front on the bottom of your plane (20°-30° AoA or even more!) 4. At 80-90 km altitude you will start to get significant lift (at speeds exceeding Mach 20) keep pitched up to control vertical speed. Try to sink as slowly as possible, don't exceed 100 m/s vertical. 5. Keep flying with high AoA (blunt shockfront, high drag, lots of lift) and low vertical speed. If you can force a shallow climb, do it. It will bleed speed even faster. You will likely end up between 60km and 70km for seemingly ever. The reentry corridor might span 1/3 of a whole orbit from initial reentry until you are slow enough to fly circles or change direction. 6. Once you are below 3000 m/s you basically made it. You can trim down the AoA and descent more aggressively and maneuver around. b) Craft Design: 1. All "exposed" components should be able to sustain 2500K surface heating. WARNING: Most RCS thruster pods are not, might have to be placed in the back of the craft, above wings or similar to be shielded from reentry bowshock. Most engines also can't survive that much heat and need shielding from front and bottom (like the Shuttle's SSME) -- Hint: Small Landing gear pods can only sustain 1500 K, you'l likely need medium or large unless you reenter bottom up to shield them. 2. The plane must be aerodynamically stable at subsonic (for landing), supersonic, and hypersonic speeds in rarified atmosphere. You can test that with suborbital flights not exceeding 3000 m/s going up to 60-80 km. Many MK-2 fuselage planes tend to enter a flat-spin in thin upper atmosphere even though they are stable further down. I solved that with "SpaceShip 1" style tail-booms, with SR-71 style tail fins on them ... even though they aren't foldable, they gave me both enough tail stability and enough control authority for #3: 3. You need to find a way to trim the plane for extreme AoA flight aerodynamically, so you need quite a lot of control authority. If the airstream at Mach 20 wants to bring the nose down, you can't fight it with RCS for long. Even in this configuration the plane needs to be semi stable (stable enough that SAS can keep it from spinning out of control) - in a nutshell that means you need forgiving stall behaviour (since you basically reenter high-speed-stalled) Example: Flight with large AoA (22°) and level flight - at this point already descended to 65km and 6100 m/s: (At this point also my bow and mid section RCS thrusters had all but vaporised, only the three at the tail remained. FAR and deadly reentry have a habit of overriding your decision where to place RCS thrusters in a very convincing way ) This shuttle can sustain flight at +20° AoA thanks to setting of max control deflection (40°) and AoA setting -200 on the tail boom rudders. SAS is only used to keep roll and yaw centered. Tail rudder trim reset to zero AoA and 15° max deflection once speed below 2000 m/s, SAS no longer needed (self stable) In this flight I overshot my landing site by more than half a continent and ended up in the middle of the Indian ocean. I managed to ditch the craft with onlyminor damage (ripped one of the tail fins off, but the fuselage and wings held, Jeb was fine )

Thought this warranted a separate thread since FAR players and Stock players are usually completely separate groups. Download here: https://kerbalx.com/crafts/14936 My KSP1-Shuttle (https://kerbalx.com/Naito/KSP1-Shuttle2016) now fully compatible with FAR! Full launch/re-entry/landing. Add the challenge of FAR with your Shuttle launches! Almost the same launch profile/capabilities as my original shuttle, though you now need to be a little more careful with high dynamic loads during launch and landing or else you'll rip your wings off =D Practice your landings with the SCA: https://kerbalx.com/Naito/KSP1-Shuttle2016-FAR-SCA3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B34u5l9LkA i make a flyingboat!! and takeoff&lading at sea!! it was difficult but funny work.

Using FAR+B9 Procedural Wings, so basically i feel like B9 procedural wings always making the centre of lift so far back. If i want this plane more maneuverable, i have to move the main wing much more to the front than a normal air liner would looks like (Picture 1). If i move the main wing a little bit back and make the aircraft looks normal, the centre of lift (CoL) is way back from the centre of mass (CoM) (Picture 2). It makes the plane so hard to pitch up, and cant even level fly, surely cant be used, as shown in the following pictures. I can move the fuel tank to the back, so that the CoM and CoL can stay close to each other, but this dosent solve the problem, because the CoM will move to the front during flight, while the fuel is burning up, the plane wont feel good about that. So i am really confuse about this. The stock wings work fine though, their CoL wont be too far back, if with the same configuration as the above procedural wing one. So i am wondering what i need to do if i want this aircraft flyable? Why FAR+B9 procedural wings so hard to use? thats all, if you can help, i am much appreciate. if you cant understand my English then i should rip. PS. some of my mod list: AJE, FAR, B9 Procedural wings, RSS, Firespitter, KerbalJointReinforcement, MechJeb, RealFuels, TacFuelBalancer, TweakScale, KSP interstellar extend... Thank you.

Hello all I'm experiencing a bug with KSP. Only time when I get this bug is when I have mobile processing lab (scilab afterwards) on my craft. FAR reports zero drag and lift and the control surfaces do nothing. After I reach about 250m/s speed, the scilab vanishes but everything attached to it are floating where they were. I have narrowed the problem down to the scilab only. A simple rocket with scilab has the bug, a complex rocket without the scilab is fine. Here's a log from a run containing: Start Load savegame Load a craft Launch a craft Verify that the bug is there Alt-F4 https://www.dropbox.com/s/fhdx50i0hlx3916/KSP.log?dl=0 edit: the correct log file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pfn6s2zy70ihrev/output_log.txt?dl=0 Modlist from ckan (basically RO and RP-0 plus a few):

So recently I downloaded FAR because I was getting tired of the weird stock aero behavior. Now I'm dealing with real aero issues, and this one is baffling me. I'm trying to launch a rocket, and these are the two iterations of it (in reverse order of development, compared to how the album is ordered): I know CoL is generally supposed to be behind CoM, but hey, I'm trying out 'realistic' designs, so no fins. I feel like logically, it should still work, but MJ's autopilot always ends up losing control somewhere between 3km and 7km, depending on the settings. I've tried changing AoA, toggling Corrective Steering, modifying the Ascent Path (currently I've got it set to begin gravity turn at 0.8km and 75m/s, ranging from 50-80% shape in my tests)... and I still can't get this thing to space. Either aero forces drag it way down or drag it back up, which then ends in the rocket spinning out of control and breaking up. Help. MJ autopilot makes this game playable for me, because I've been through enough manual launches that I'm not really in the mood to even supervise the launch stage.

The Kerbal Alliance military, in their infinite wisdom, has decided to open yet another competition for the best BDArmory fighter design on the planet, disregarding the fact that the entire planet has been at peace for decades. Entrants are restricted, but barely, by what’s noted down in appendix one. Since the Kerbal Alliance is not a terribly pro-active organization, they’re probably never going to get around to determining the winner, so the competition is running in a “beat the best” format with challengers going up one-on-one against whatever beat the last champion, with both designs controlled by the idiot AI that took over the control tower last week. Competitions will be broadcast via the state-approved TV channels when Real Housekerbs isn’t on. APPENDIX ONE: DESIGN RESTRICTIONS 1a: You MUST USE FAR, BDArmory,and Dynamic Deflection. Dissenters will be processed into delicious snacks. 1b: Other Allowed Mods List: Adjustable Landing Gear, B9 Procedural Wings, Procedural Parts, and any visual/audio mods you want. In fact, if you can record at a respectable framerate while using visual mods, please submit your rig to the Kerbal Alliance for usage in recording the dogfights, in return for the Alliance’s everlasting gratitude. 1c: Entrants are limited to using a single 20mm hidden Vulcan for the guns, as per KOSPAR regulations. 1d: Entrants are limited to a maximum missile count of ten, none of which can be PAC-3s, and all of which must be faced forwards. We don’t want a repeat of the Monkey Flight incident. 1e: Entrants shall program their AI autopilots to a minimum altitude of 1400, default altitude of 2000, and maximum speed of 400. All other settings are up for grabs, but AI settings resulting in unstable flight will be glared at disapprovingly. If you can’t get the slider to exactly the stated settings, “close enough” is good enough. 1f: Entrants shall limit their engine choices to one of the following: up to four Junos, up to two J-33s, up to two Panthers, one turbo-ramjet limited to 50% of throttle. Any fighters using other engines will be laughed off. 1g: Entrants may use one ECM pod, two chaff dispensers, and two flare dispensers, and are limited to one forward-facing radar array [required for entry]. 1h: Manned fighters only. The Kerbal Alliance is still not comfortable with the moral ramifications of automated killing machines, especially when they’re using probe cores developed last Tuesday. Video of first "match" because I can't find the YouTube embed button on this new forum interface Download the F-12 now to get started!