I was bored, so here's a CFD of a simple KSP rocket

[zitronen]

I just eye-balled the rough shape in CAD, its probably not very accurate. Left side is at Mach 1.0, right side is Mach 2.0. Conditions are sea level, 0 AOA, engine off coasting. Drag for M1 is around 74kN, and 220kN at M2. It should be a lot less if the engine is on, due to the reduction of base pressure drag.

What really bugs me with KSP aero is the shock cone graphics effect, it just makes no sense at all. You would expect water vapour to condense after the shock wave, when air expands. So for this rocket the shock cone will be at the joint between the pod and the booster, and maybe a weaker one at the base of the booster. At Mach 1 it will look like a disk, and gradually become a cone as speed increases. I'm fine with everything else with stock aero though, if I wanted things crashing and blowing up with ultra realistic aero, I go fly my RC planes!

[Camacha]

if I wanted things crashing and blowing up with ultra realistic aero, I go fly my RC planes!

To be fair, re-entry effects on RC planes are pretty bad too

[cantab]

I wonder how those drag figures compare with FAR.

[PB666]

I just eye-balled the rough shape in CAD, its probably not very accurate. Left side is at Mach 1.0, right side is Mach 2.0. Conditions are sea level, 0 AOA, engine off coasting. Drag for M1 is around 74kN, and 220kN at M2. It should be a lot less if the engine is on, due to the reduction of base pressure drag.

https://sites.google.com/site/zitronfiles/CFX.jpg

What really bugs me with KSP aero is the shock cone graphics effect, it just makes no sense at all. You would expect water vapour to condense after the shock wave, when air expands. So for this rocket the shock cone will be at the joint between the pod and the booster, and maybe a weaker one at the base of the booster. At Mach 1 it will look like a disk, and gradually become a cone as speed increases. I'm fine with everything else with stock aero though, if I wanted things crashing and blowing up with ultra realistic aero, I go fly my RC planes!

two things here.

1. i try to stay below mach 0.8 below 20,000 meters. Your right the ballistic and cone shapes will create a diagonal bowhock above 0.99. Evev the ball tip will build alot of force at mach 1.

2. I have created alot of aerodynamic fueled and non fueled caps and lowered the drag, they are pretty useful for hig power strait up to escape rockets, of course for the effort i lowered to CoD, some of them get thier burn on trying to exit the atmophere.

People wonder why thier rockets flip, its like duh, you trying to push 300 m/s and drag is builing at the nose of the rocket what do you expect.

[0111narwhalz]

Which is why rockets need winglets; they convert an inherently unstable situation into a stable one. The winglets tend to reduce their AoA, which forced the tail behind the nose.

[Hcube]

Which is why rockets need winglets; they convert an inherently unstable situation into a stable one. The winglets tend to reduce their AoA, which forced the tail behind the nose.

Gimbals are really enough IRL... It's brute force to counteract the airflow, but it works fine... Excepted in KSP where the gimbals are ridiculously limited ^^

[magnemoe]

Gimbals are really enough IRL... It's brute force to counteract the airflow, but it works fine... Excepted in KSP where the gimbals are ridiculously limited ^^

The real world controllers are also better than our SAS.

With the new aero Mechjeb's limit to terminal speed is suicide, your rocket wobble a bit, this cause mechjeb to reduce trust who decrease stability often resulting in the rocket going even more sideways mechjeb response is to cut all trust so you tumble.

[Steel]

What software are you using for the CAD and CFD?