KSP 2 Procedural Wing Designing

[mcwaffles2003]

So looking over Episode 3 I noticed some details I haven't heard discussed yet. If you look over the procedural wings segment of the video starting around 3:53 you see them transforming the wing. I noticed that not only is the shape of the whole wing changing but at 4:01 - 4:05 the overall shape of the wing doesn't change and instead the internal components of the wing shift as shown in my MSPaint clippings below:

Nates exact words during the clip copied from the closed caption and the video:

Spoiler

 

Quote

 we now have several different  procedural wings to choose from these allow you to  adjust the shape and size of the wings and they  also include stabilizers and control surfaces  this new capability is paired with the new VAB  overlays that show the effects of those changes so  you'll see lift effects drag effects mass effects  because there's so much you can do in this game  

So now I am assuming that each individual part of these wings may serve a function as is the case in real aircraft. This make me wonder to what depths will we be able to design our wings?

Are we going to be able to adjust things like the camber of the wings and will it have real effects to how our planes fly? During the demonstration I did not see them show a changing thickness of the wing but that does not necessarily mean the function does not exist.

Will our planes have functional flaps? The fact that we can shift the ratio of the blue and yellow marked regions seems to suggest so.

Will we be able to shape the leading edge of our wings (circular, bi-convex, wedged) possibly specializing our craft for subsonic or supersonic flight?

The subtle nuance demonstrated here makes me wonder how much more prevalent the "aero" part of aerospace engineering will be in this game. Maybe we'll be surprised and see other relevant technologies enter the game like ram and scram jet engines and help us in our creation of even cooler SSTOs.

Edited July 15, 2021 by mcwaffles2003

[Dientus]

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

So now I am assuming that each individual part of these wings may serve a function as is the case in real aircraft. This make me wonder to what depths will we be able to design our wings?

Interesting... I see it now...

So my question of the second is, are they changing the control surfaces of the wing? Or is it only the size and location of flaps?

 

I really need to go through these videos again and try to find planes created in KSP to watch for any flex, flap movements, and such during flight.

[OHara]

I can easily imagine that the UI was designed around the parameters of the wing+aileron that go into the simulation.  The mod FAR, for example, has these parameters:

@PART[winglet3]:FOR[FerramAerospaceResearch] {
  MODULE {
    name = FARControllableSurface
    nonSideAttach = 0   // 0: attaches at root,  1: attaches at leading edge
    MAC = 1.695  // Mean  aerodynamic chord
    b_2 = 1.587  // Half the wingspan of a pair, b/2
    MidChordSweep = 22.1   // Angle of sweep
    TaperRatio = 0.449  // chord at tip / chord at root
    maxdeflect = 15
    ctrlSurfFrac = 0.2  // How much of the area deflects
}}

and your marked-up images seem to show ctrlSurfFrac being adjusted.  That video (link) shows the other parameters being adjusted, but also the spanwise position of the aileron is being adjusted, which I do not see as a detail you can adjust with FAR.

I like the idea of having the aileron as part of the wing, because then you can model the interaction in a simple way and have the same part act as a flap giving more low-speed lift.  (FAR, being hard-core, does estimate interaction between KSP1's separate wings and elevons, but I have enough understanding to know that is more difficult.)

I would accept that symmetric camber is an appropriate simplification for a game like KSP.  Asymmetric camber would give lift when the airflow is parallel to the chord of the wing, but then we would need to make the foils symmetric, which is a subtle thing to see, for vertical stabilisers and rocket fins.  It is easier to see in-game when we rotate the symmetric aerofoil slightly, to give the same effect.  The next detail we might notice from an asymmetric aerofoil would be that it stalls a little earlier when used upside down, and that is maybe subtle enough that no-one would miss it.

I would also accept that ignoring the cross-section of the aerofoil is appropriate.  The thickness of the wing and location of the maximum thickness are difficult to see in a game.  The aspect ratio ( b_2 / MAC ) and angle of sweep seem to be enough detail with which we can describe the kind of wing we want and at what speeds we can expect it to work well.

[mcwaffles2003]

6 hours ago, Dientus said:

So my question of the second is, are they changing the control surfaces of the wing? Or is it only the size and location of flaps?

Each segment of the wing changed size and morphs except the leading edge including the structural base and tip of the wing and the main structural body of the wing. I've now included the video starting at the beginning of the clip in the OP 

 

[Dientus]

2 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Each segment of the wing changed size and morphs except the leading edge including the structural base and tip of the wing and the main structural body of the wing. I've now included the video starting at the beginning of the clip in the OP 

 

Well now I feel stupid, I totally missed him literally saying "....now you can change control surfaces...." LoL

 

[mcwaffles2003]

4 hours ago, OHara said:

I would accept that symmetric camber is an appropriate simplification for a game like KSP.  Asymmetric camber would give lift when the airflow is parallel to the chord of the wing, but then we would need to make the foils symmetric, which is a subtle thing to see, for vertical stabilisers and rocket fins.  It is easier to see in-game when we rotate the symmetric aerofoil slightly, to give the same effect.  The next detail we might notice from an asymmetric aerofoil would be that it stalls a little earlier when used upside down, and that is maybe subtle enough that no-one would miss it. I would also accept that ignoring the cross-section of the aerofoil is appropriate.  The thickness of the wing and location of the maximum thickness are difficult to see in a game.  The aspect ratio ( b_2 / MAC ) and angle of sweep seem to be enough detail with which we can describe the kind of wing we want and at what speeds we can expect it to work well.

I agree that a default camber would be appropriate and I am not expecting otherwise, though it is fun to speculate on. As to your concerns about noticing the subtle differences in assymetric camber and cross section though , Nate says:

Quote

allow you to  adjust the shape and size of the wings and they  also include stabilizers and control surfaces  this new capability is paired with the new VAB  overlays that show the effects of those changes so  you'll see lift effects drag effects mass effects

So there is a whole UI built around designing these wings that was not shown to us in the demonstration. I will say at least for your specific concern:

4 hours ago, OHara said:

The thickness of the wing and location of the maximum thickness are difficult to see in a game.

My guess is that the location of maximum thickness will be fixed to the joint between the leading edge and the main structural body of the wing.