Official FAR Craft Repository

[tetryds]

1 hour ago, Elthy said:

Those add outward facing yellow arrows while in flight, whats the meaning of that?

Your FAR install is broken.
Let me guess, you are using CKAN.
Well, install FAR manually and you will not have such problems anymore.

[Elthy]

I installed it manually from Kerbal-Stuff, the  "Hugoniot" version, in a fresh KSP 1.0.5...

Are those torque-arrows working like in conventional physics?

 

[tetryds]

The torque arrows should not be displaying, are you sure you installed FAR correctly?
It requires Modular Flight Integrator and Module Manager to work.

If the torque arrows are displaying it means that there is something very wrong.

Same for when the derivatives or static analysis graphs don't work.

[Elthy]

I redownloaded FAR from Github and installed it again (deleting the old folders before pasting in the new ones). The only difference is an updated modulemanager. This is what happens:

If those torque arrows work like i know them they should at least point in the same direction...

 

Edit: Im using the Large Fins from KW-Rocketry in that picture. When switching them to KSP winglets those yellow arrows disapear.

Edited February 6, 2016 by Elthy

[kcs123]

If those arrows bother you too much, you can turn them off. On KSC main scene, open FAR settings window. uncheck option

"Show torque arrows in Areo Overlays"

Torque arrows does not necessary point in the same direction. A lot of variable factors influence that.

[Elthy]

I switched them on on purpose, to see whats happening (way easier to understand than those cryptic numbers).

Interesting links in your signature, but they only get you to the first post in the thread. Did you update them after the forum update?

[ferram4]

Yellow arrows indicate one of two things.

1) You turned on FAR's torque displaying function in the KSC, which has been disabled by default since 0.15.1 and aren't telling us that you did this, or

2) You're using mod parts that do not support FAR, in which case you need to talk to the author of that mod to get support for it or stop using those particular parts.

[tetryds]

@Elthy It seems more like they are coming from different control surfaces.
The ones pointing the same direction are inside of the craft thus you cannot see them.
But you don't turn stuff on, talk about it THEN tell us that you turned it on on purpose, something can end up being experimental and/or broken.
There is a very good reason why something is disabled by default, to avoid exactly this kind of confusion.
Anyway, it doesn't seem that there is anything wrong with your FAR install now, thus everything is working as it should (inc. the torque arrows).

Now what you have to do is improve your design, I would start by adding more wings, going easy on dihedral, removing the angle of your vertical stabilizers and moving your wings forward to make it easier to control without that much input.

Then it's just a matter of iterating it until you have something that works well... or trash the design and start over.

[kcs123]

27 minutes ago, Elthy said:

I switched them on on purpose, to see whats happening (way easier to understand than those cryptic numbers).

Interesting links in your signature, but they only get you to the first post in the thread. Did you update them after the forum update?

Thanks for noticing. I have updated links imediately after forum migration, but perhaps some additional work on forum after that have broke links again. Second and third link should lead to same thread, but to different post. Should be working properly now.

Anyway, with such amount of torque you might still have trouble to control that craft. I turned on torque on overlay too and created screenshots, so you can have something to compare. Didn't have time to create new craft, but it should suffice as example:

 

 

[Elthy]

57 minutes ago, ferram4 said:

Yellow arrows indicate one of two things.

1) You turned on FAR's torque displaying function in the KSC, which has been disabled by default since 0.15.1 and aren't telling us that you did this, or

2) You're using mod parts that do not support FAR, in which case you need to talk to the author of that mod to get support for it or stop using those particular parts.

Im sure its not 1. The second option is possible, its a KW-Rocketry part and those didnt get updated in ages. Luckily it was easy to replace with a stock part.

My craft came down from orbit in one piece for the first time, but it did spin out of controll at around 50km / 2500m/s. Figuring that one out could take longer since i need over 10min of reentry to get that far in the atmosphere, testing will be a pain.

What ive noticed: Those large MK2 cargobays (upscaled to 300%) didnt have aero-arrows at all. Is that a sign they arent realy doing anything to the aerodynamics or are those arrows not showing for other reasons?

[Doke]

Re-entry is often a bit tricky. It's hard to say what the problem is without more detail, but I find there are two things that usually cause issues:

(1) Piloting. Re-entry angle can make a big difference. Try either to stay slightly nose-up on a shallow descent, or right on the prograde vector with a very shallow descent. You might want to make a quicksave before you re-enter (with a hardsave on the ground, if you're playing career) and try a few different approaches.

(2) Stability. That thing looks a bit nose-heavy already, but your vertical stabilisers are probably inadequate, as others have mentioned. The higher your speed, the harder it is to retain yaw control.

[Elthy]

Maybe you can help me troubleshoot the reentry:

50km/Mach 8 are the conditions where i start to get problems. No matter which AoA, i start to drift of course in a combination of yawing/rolling. I dont know what those numbers mean, but they stay red until lower than Mach 5, slower than that and all are green.

I played around with tweakscale, addjusting the size of wings/vertical stablilizers and more. But even trice the size for those vertical fins didnt not make the nubers green (while looking extremly stupid). Any ideas?

[tetryds]

@Elthy that is not exactly how you should attempt to fix these issues.

You should read these references:

https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Overview-of-Stability

https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Definition-of-Terms-and-Symbols

https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Notes-on-stability-derivatives

We already told you how you could attempt to solve your problems, but that is not exactly what you did
So maybe it's a better idea if you figure out what is wrong on your own.

[Elthy]

18 hours ago, tetryds said:

Cant remove the loveing quote, ignore that

Quote

´If Xu is incorrect, you have summoned the Kraken and should file a bug report.

Damn, propably no way to solve that one. My install is way to modded to debug anything.

 

18 hours ago, tetryds said:

I would start by adding more wings, going easy on dihedral, removing the angle of your vertical stabilizers and moving your wings forward to make it easier to control without that much input.

Ive read somewhere we an easy way to get good aerodynamics in FAR is to build similar to real life. The whole thing is a mixture of the Spaceshuttle/Venturestar/X33, and i dont get why mine isnt working but they are/would.

Ive tried all your hints in the editor, but those nubers dont go green no matter what...

[kcs123]

Keep in mind that shuttles used RCS to maintain stability in upper part of atmosphere. Copy that kind of real life craft design might not be best idea for your first craft designs with FAR.

Also "similar look" is not the same as real craft.  Slight shift of COM might be a big difference in stability - in SPH editor it can mean just few pixels forward or backward in wing position. Also few pixels might be a lot of influence when comes to cross section derivate that have a lot of influence when comes to supersonic drag.

[Elthy]

Just read that the Shuttle used RCS for yaw-control until it slowed under Mach 1! Sounds like a plan...

 

Edit: Managed to get back from Orbit without loosing control. Funny fact: I didnt need the RCS at all. Since i used this mod to stop the controll-surfaces from interfering with the RCS i noticed i wont spin out of controll as long as SAS/MechJeb/me cant overreact with those surfaces. I reactivated pitch when the reactionwheels werent able to keep my angle of attack, and roll/yaw when i was below Mach 1. Also it was nice to notice i completly forgot to lower reentry heating (since im playing on 3.2x Kerbin) but i still made it.

 

Edit: Does anyone know an alternative way to set action-groups to disable/enable FAR-controllsurfaces? That one adds 30 actiongroups for every part, which makes .craft-files extremly large...

Edited February 7, 2016 by Elthy

[Doke]

10 hours ago, Elthy said:

Edit: Does anyone know an alternative way to set action-groups to disable/enable FAR-controllsurfaces? That one adds 30 actiongroups for every part, which makes .craft-files extremly large...

No, but have you tried dynamic deflection? It lets you set control surface responsiveness based on dynamic pressure in the editor.

[Guest]

 

Su-35

http://kerbalx.com/RevanCorana/Sukhoi-Su-35-FAR

37 parts

99% stock with the 1% of FAR that makes it awesome

Edited February 11, 2016 by RevanCorana

[Hodo]

On 1/23/2016 at 9:15 AM, kcs123 said:

Long Range J33-J20 VTOL

Long distance field research doesn't have to be tedious with right craft design. Small craft that have a lot of fuel in tanks might not be able to take off fully loaded, but once you reach distant spot, fuel will be consumed and you will be able to take off vertically too. Might not look on the first sight, but craft actually have quite low drag. Such low drag allows supersonic velocity over 1 mach with single J33 engine that was originally not even designed for supersonic flights. For that reason you can't fly long on high speeds due to overheating, but 0.80 or 0.90 mach can be sustained for longer times. Stable craft design also allow maximum time acceleration without issues. That makes this craft a good choice for science exploration early in career. Because it is early trough SETIctt career, front landing gear might look odd compared to light adjustable landing gears but serve purpose well enough.

 

I actually have done something very close, except I use VTOLs from a mod, and my craft is not super sonic.  It is a fair bit larger with room for a small rover.

[Hodo]

On 2/6/2016 at 10:32 AM, Elthy said:

Thanks for the tips, ill try them soon.

The payload is not relevant for atmospheric flight since this thing is designed as a reusable upper stage, it will only fly in the atmosphere without fuel/payload (or on a big booster).

Edit: Now its flying way, way better! I made those tail surfaces 50% bigger (i love tweakscale), lowered the dihedirial angle of the main delta wings while placing them a tiny bit forward, also i added small vertical controll surfaces on the wingtips. Those add outward facing yellow arrows while in flight, whats the meaning of that?

Now to hypersonic testing in the upper atmosphere...

 

The problems I am seeing with your design is the Venture Star is a lifting body design.  Your craft is not. 

 

The thing that could be causing you problems when you roll or yaw is flex of the wings.  They must have a MASSIVE wing loading for that craft and the stain on them must be quite high.  So you may want to increase the size of your wings and find ways of reducing the mass of the craft without compromising the strength or mission capabilities of the craft. 

[Elthy]

Why exactly is my craft not a lifting body? I tried to build it with a big flat bottom, like what i saw from venturestar/x-33. Im not seeing aero-arrows on those big surfaceparts, though.

The wings are apparently sufficient in size, otherwise i would have had more problems. Im using ferrams joint-reinforcement, so i dont have a single strut on the whole plane (payloads are attached in the front of the cargobay, so they get "pulled" and dont wobble).

Also i kinda cheated a bit. Upscaling of parts with Tweakscale results in ^3 increase in wheight, so scaling those MK2-cargobays up would result in a 27-fold increase in mass. That was a bit to much, also i use hydrogen-fuel so i have a lower empty wheight but additional surface-area...

[Hodo]

@Elthy

Your craft is partly a lifting body, but not as smooth as the venture star design.

See how the craft is basically a flying wedge, yours is 4 massive cylinders tied to the top of a triangular wing.  And even the Venture Star will have some issues at lower speeds, as its mass starts to become a HUGE problem.

[Matuchkin]

Why are so many jet designs here based on the Su-35/37?

[Hodo]

3 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

Why are so many jet designs here based on the Su-35/37?

People are obsessed with Russian designs lately.  It is almost a 60/40 split between the Flanker and the F-15 Eagle. 

 

I personally always loved the simplicity of the F-104 Thunderchief or the Mirage 2000.

[Rodhern]

How well are the stock parts (game) balanced in FAR? For instance do the standard fins, "AV-T1 Winglet", "AV-R8 Winglet", "Delta-Deluxe Winglet" and "Tail Fin", each have their own advantage or are they all similar, or is one simply better than the rest? Are the properties listed somewhere obvious, that I have missed?

Examining the parts in the SPH I notice something like:

• The AV-T1 is available at a lower tech level (lvl 3).
• The Delta-Deluxe packs a punch (good reference area and weight for its relatively small size).
• The Tail Fin is very sleek (high lift and low drag).

Does this match your observations? What would you use the AV-R8 for?

Does anyone else use TAC Part Lister; it seems to get a bit confused about the mass of the wing parts in FAR.