Coefficient Total   Pressure        Viscous Internal
Cd:  0.2954161974    **0.2954161974    0**       0
Cd(f):      0.1477080987    0.1477080987    3.229828695e-17 0
Cd(r):      0.1477080987    0.1477080987    -3.229828695e-17        0
Cl: -5.58892122e-13 -2.583862956e-15        -5.56308259e-13 0
Cl(f):      -2.132712819e-13        6.351893838e-14 -2.767902203e-13        0
Cl(r):      -3.456208401e-13        -6.610280134e-14        -2.795180388e-13        0
CmPitch:    6.617477909e-14 6.481086986e-14 1.363909229e-15 0
CmRoll:     6.986151525e-15 6.953853238e-15 3.229828695e-17 0
CmYaw:      0.003692702468  0       0.003692702468  0
Cs: 0       0       0       0
Cs(f):      0.003692702468  0       0.003692702468  0
Cs(r):      -0.003692702468 0       -0.003692702468 0

Inverting the order leads to incorrect drag prediction for a flat plate, f.e. It looks like the previous setting was the correct one. We detected differences between v2112 and v2206, a wing where drag should be from the shape (pressure) showed most of the drag due to viscous effects in v2206 and the correct info in v2112. So, we tested it in a simple case of a flat plate under Coutte flow (see attached case, [CoeffTest.tar.gz](/uploads/8b14398add7831c56c748d3676dc8e1e/CoeffTest.tar.gz)) and the results are the following, forceCoeffs forces write: Coefficient Total Pressure Viscous Internal Cd: 0.2954161974 **0.2954161974 0** 0 Cd(f): 0.1477080987 0.1477080987 3.229828695e-17 0 Cd(r): 0.1477080987 0.1477080987 -3.229828695e-17 0 Cl: -5.58892122e-13 -2.583862956e-15 -5.56308259e-13 0 Cl(f): -2.132712819e-13 6.351893838e-14 -2.767902203e-13 0 Cl(r): -3.456208401e-13 -6.610280134e-14 -2.795180388e-13 0 CmPitch: 6.617477909e-14 6.481086986e-14 1.363909229e-15 0 CmRoll: 6.986151525e-15 6.953853238e-15 3.229828695e-17 0 CmYaw: 0.003692702468 0 0.003692702468 0 Cs: 0 0 0 0 Cs(f): 0.003692702468 0 0.003692702468 0 Cs(r): -0.003692702468 0 -0.003692702468 0 Note that drag is wrongly attributed to pressure instead of viscous effects. My suggestion, revert the changes, but it could collide with the initial bug post, maybe further investigation is needed. K.R. Santiago

@santiagomarquezd , if I get you correct, the drag-count (total value) is correct but the contributions are wrongly split in terms of contributions coming from pressure and viscous effects, right?

Hello @shorty, I expressed myself wrongly. The contributions are probably right, the column order is swapped.