Fix the Aerodynamics and Drag

[Mukita12]

The Drag and Aerodynamics System in KSP is uh... Very questionable.

Like MK2 (i think) Cockpit, it looks sleek but generate a thick ton of drag.

Yes there is FAR but FAR Is too realistic to say... Just fix the drag i guess and while you do that.

Fix the bug aswell

[The Aziz]

1 hour ago, Mukita12 said:

 

Fix the bug aswell

See the second picture in my signature.

[Aeroboi]

1 hour ago, Mukita12 said:

The Drag and Aerodynamics System in KSP is uh... Very questionable.

Like MK2 (i think) Cockpit, it looks sleek but generate a thick ton of drag.

Yes there is FAR but FAR Is too realistic to say... Just fix the drag i guess and while you do that.

Fix the bug aswell

@Mukita12 Mk2 does indeed cause a lot of drag. But the greatest drag penalty from Mk2 is when you have a extended frontal cross section due to pitch. If the air hits head on to the spaceplane mk2 cockpit there is the least frontal cross section. Usually this isn't the case as you have to raise your nose somewhat to climb whereby air hits the belly of the fuselage and over extends the cross section.

What you can do is rotate the main wings on a incline (wing incidence) by a degree or two (sometimes 3 or 4) so that the nose can stay on prograde during the highspeed airbreathing stage. IME Mk2 isn't draggy at all if you put the wing incidence right. Just make sure that all the mk2 fuselage parts are distributed evenly over the length of the spaceplane so that the fwt and aft have the same amount of drag so as not to cause re-entry instability.

Mk2 is also most noticeably a spaceplane part and it represents a lifting body. It's almost a wing around a fuselage. Aerodynamically air gets distorted around a non aerodynamic surface and a Mk2 is wedge and somewhat faired along the edges but it still represents a non aerodynamic platform that isn''t shaped with curves. So in reality the fuselage should act as a drag inducer. On the other hand drag on Mk2 is good if you want to sufficiently do a re-entry from Orbit. Because it has drag you have to install less wings. Less wings is more Dv on a spaceplane and people generally install to much wings on their spaceplanes anyway. It's better to make a spaceplane to get off the runway using the least amount of wings. This usually means your takeoff is at the end of the runway between 150-200m/s and not any slower then that where you'll require excessive amount of wings.

 

[qzgy]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

See the second picture in my signature.

Its broken for me.

[JadeOfMaar]

4 hours ago, Mukita12 said:

The Drag and Aerodynamics System in KSP is uh... Very questionable.

Like MK2 (i think) Cockpit, it looks sleek but generate a thick ton of drag.

Yes there is FAR but FAR Is too realistic to say... Just fix the drag i guess and while you do that.

Fix the bug aswell

Are you playing on KSP 1.5.0? Because 1.5.0 has unplayable broken aero.

Some do consider FAR to be cheaty when used on stock-scale. On the other hand, planes become more difficult in their own way due to the atmosphere seeming thinner due to the reduced drag-- the weights of parts in KSP are great (as in "a lot" not as "that's an awesome thing" ) and will cause planes to require even more wing or more runway for liftoff and landing. Stall speeds will be higher due to lift vs weight problems provoked by FAR.

@Aeroboi The problems with the drag cube system (and not necessarily the Mk2 fuselage) are much greater than "What fuselage you use and how you use it." I often find that a disturbing large source of drag occurs at the cockpit, the first part after it (usually a cabin in my case), or otherwise somewhere forward of the first cargo bay (often placed right after that cabin).

 

Edited March 2, 2019 by JadeOfMaar

[Mukita12]

38 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Are you playing on KSP 1.5.0? Because 1.5.0 has unplayable broken aero.

Some do consider FAR to be cheaty when used on stock-scale. On the other hand, planes become more difficult in their own way due to the atmosphere seeming thinner due to the reduced drag-- the weights of parts in KSP are great (as in "a lot" not as "that's an awesome thing" ) and will cause planes to require even more wing or more runway for liftoff and landing. Stall speeds will be higher due to lift vs weight problems provoked by FAR.

@Aeroboi The problems with the drag cube system (and not necessarily the Mk2 fuselage) are much greater than "What fuselage you use and how you use it." I often find that a disturbing large source of drag occurs at the cockpit, the first part after it (usually a cabin in my case), or otherwise somewhere forward of the first cargo bay (often placed right after that cabin).

 

Well... When i post this, i haven't upgraded from 1.5 

but now i have upgrade it... atleast it's better

[Kerbinchaser]

5 hours ago, The Aziz said:

See the second picture in my signature.

What if you wanted to go to heaven

but god said

C O D I N G  B U G S

[ZooNamedGames]

Don't like the aerodynamic model? FAR to the rescue.

[Mukita12]

12 hours ago, ZooNamedGames said:

Don't like the aerodynamic model? FAR to the rescue.

"Yes there is FAR but FAR Is too realistic to say"

[ZooNamedGames]

11 minutes ago, Mukita12 said:

"Yes there is FAR but FAR Is too realistic to say"

There was a FAR lite mod I was going to mention but I can't remember the name (something like SIMPLE or NERF, an word based acronym), mentioning it would've broken the impact of the sentence and lastly I don't even know if it's maintained anymore.

[FleshJeb]

14 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

There was a FAR lite mod I was going to mention but I can't remember the name (something like SIMPLE or NERF, an word based acronym), mentioning it would've broken the impact of the sentence and lastly I don't even know if it's maintained anymore.

It was called NEAR. Apparently it was intended as more of a joke than anything. Personally, I like to stick to stock physics and parts, because there’s a larger community to share with.

[ZooNamedGames]

8 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

It was called NEAR. Apparently it was intended as more of a joke than anything. Personally, I like to stick to stock physics and parts, because there’s a larger community to share with.

I definitely agree. I love mods but stock has more people to enjoy your work with far less strings attached.