-
Posts
3,132 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Everything posted by ferram4
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@aluc24: The current state of things is that it's still being developed, there are only 3 (I think) issues that still need to be fixed, and the only reason that I'm not rushing things out tomorrow (like I honestly could if I buckled down like mad to fix those issues) is that fixing some earlier issues required rejiggering some rather fundamental parts of FAR, which is the kind of thing that causes nasty game-breaking bugs to show up. So I'm delaying to give the wonderful/crazy people who mess with dev builds a chance to make sure that I haven't introduced any new bugs through that before a full release, this way if there is a bug I can take time to address it rather than deal with the effect of looking to rush to replace a stable release that is anything but. Also, bug reports from normal users are... frustratingly un-descriptive sometimes. So barring any new, nasty bugs being reported that don't involve collision-based shenanigans like @Juncoph's helicopter thingy, I think I can get a release out in a week or so. What's left shouldn't take much longer to address if it's within my power to address it. But I want to make sure that any issues that need a patch are minor ones, not gamebreaking ones.- 14,073 replies
-
- 21
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@Manimal: The error in the log indicates that you didn't use a version of FAR that is compatible with KSP 1.2.2 and so it didn't load. The stable version of FAR is not compatible with KSP 1.2.2, only the dev builds are currently. And for everyone else, I think the only currently important issues are a few bits of weirdness involving some particular mod parts not voxelizing properly and the FAR buttons sticking around when returning to the main menu (because the ApplicationLauncher system is borked compared to 1.1). If you've been playing around with the dev build, make sure to update to make sure that you're running with the current fixes and please make sure I didn't introduce some horrible new bugs in the process.- 14,073 replies
-
- 4
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
And technically, the layer of Kerbal EVA colliders doesn't matter, because FAR has never used those. It always defines its own simplified bounding box to voxelize instead. The problem is simply that something is wrong with the EVA chutes or need they need to be set up so that RealChuteLite can replace them automatically like it does for all other stock chutes. Otherwise, nothing I can do; it's out of my hands.- 14,073 replies
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
The Vesselmover behavior is almost certainly an issue introduced on the Vesselmover end. It appears that it is not spawning vessels in the same way that the stock game does, breaking everything. Nothing I can do to change that.- 14,073 replies
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Try with the latest build. I've messed around a bunch more with that and I think it might be fixed.- 14,073 replies
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@soulsource: Repro steps? I don't think I'll need the log for this one, but I thought I covered all the ways that buttons could keep appearing. @kcs123: If your findings are limited to non-specific, "it all looks good," just post it here, that'll be fine. If you've got a specific issue, I'd prefer it if you put it on Github. Makes tracking the issues easier and I should really get in the habit of using Github's issues more, so... Yeah. @Matuchkin: Basically, what Viatic said. It's a small barrier to entry to ensure that most of the people messing with the dev builds actually have an idea of how development works, either because they've been here for awhile or they've done their own development of stuff so that the feedback I get has a better signal:noise ratio. Sorry, but this is to make things move faster; if you're able to figure things out yourself though, there's nothing stopping you from getting the dev build.- 14,073 replies
-
- 3
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Since the discussion about ground effect has come up again, I'll have to make my position on it clear again. FAR should have ground effect and it is a relevant feature to any kind of aerodynamic system. The problem is that the way FAR is set up it is currently impossible to implement in a way that will be consistent with vehicle scale. That is, a Cessna 2 wingspan lengths above the ground should have similar ground effect to MEGA CESSNA, KING OF THE SKIES that is also 2 wingspan lengths above the ground, despite the fact that the normal Cessna will only be a couple meters off the ground and MEGA CESSNA will be several hundred. At least in terms of the multipliers on lift coefficient and drag coefficient and the reduction in downwash strength. One standard way of modelling ground effect in the real world is to either assume the plane is wings level and add a simple multiplier based on height / wingspan (obviously overly simple, doesn't account for heavy dihedral / anhedral effects, flying banked, and more pedestrian concerns like defining the proper wingspan considering this is all abstracted away in FAR currently). Another more sophisticated method is to take the same bound vortex system used to model the wing lift and mirror it under the ground, forcing the ground to be a streamline of the flow. That last one is what I want to do, but unfortunately that vortex system is currently abstracted too far to directly do anything like that (and requires a code overhaul) and also assumes that the ground under the length of the plane is, if not level, at least flat... around hills at very low altitude it is possible that you could get the bound vortex on the wing and the imaginary mirrored vortex to intersect if using a simple mirror right below the plane, and I have no idea what could come out of that model. Probably nothing good, considering the bound vortices are already lines of divide-by-zero that are carefully avoided and cancelled to get useful data out of the rest of the flowfield and I expect that any implementation will have many detours into NaN-space before that's working. So the short answer is that FAR doesn't have working ground effect because I have no good, non-hack, proper scaling options to implement it. If you're absolutely dying to get that implemented and want to help, the thing to do is to look into making a PR to replace the current wing code with a good numerical lifting line approximation (including mach effects) and also work on a way to put together entire wing shapes from many intersecting / nearly intersecting polygons, which is where I'm currently stumped on the wing overhaul. Then, once that's done, ground effect will be trivial to implement. Edit: Good news everyone! I believe that I have fixed the irritating multiplying buttons after scene load, the shader shenanigans, and I'm somewhat sure that there are no other new bugs in FAR itself or in RealChuteLite. Those who know where to go to get the dev build, please go get it, get everything in the GameData directory, especially GameData/Shaders/farshaders.ksp, make sure you're running MM 1.7.5 and MFI 1.2.3 and please test it to see if it works. In particular, I'd like some Linux and Mac users to try this to make sure that shaders play well with their stuff and just on Windows. Also, generally try to break things. There are some things I want to test to be sure are correct (water drag mostly) but due to that I don't know if I'll have the time for other testing before I try to get a release out, so please, play with it and make sure that no entrances to NaN space or 0-drag land have opened while I wasn't looking.- 14,073 replies
-
- 28
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Just to shut up this whole debate about whether or not FAR could have been / can be implemented: Back before the aero overhaul happened for stock, I offered to help Squad out with it. This was prior to the voxel method was developed and licensed and I likely would have tried to get that implemented as the system since it would be far easier to do in that system with the ability to top-down declare what meshes and colliders need to do and make things faster. They politely declined, the voxel method got implemented into FAR under the GPL license, and here we are. Also, as @tetryds said, a year late. As for re-licensing, it is possible, and I do have a list of who did what so that I know what can be stripped out and replaced if necessary. Most of the stuff from other people is actually stuff that should be replaced at some point with more accurate and faster code anyway, so there's very little issue with any of that. The older versions of FAR's code would still be available under GPL, but the rest can run something else. Now, behave while I try to figure out all the remaining things wrong with this monster. Every time I look here there are multiple moderator posts about cleaning things up. I don't want the thread locked (especially because it'll be a pain when I finally go to update) so don't give the moderators reason to do so.- 14,073 replies
-
- 32
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@MaxRebo and @ss8913, you are both absolutely terrible at reading. I appreciate the effort, but take it to github where I can track things, not here where you end up burying @tetryds' relevant post. Also, since it seems necessary, I fully endorse all of tetryds' post, as well as @DoctorDavinci's. Follow their example, let's not have a repeat of the leadup to FAR for 1.0.- 14,073 replies
-
- 9
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@Dozyjones: They are not changed at all anymore. They have not been changed since KSP 1.0.- 14,073 replies
-
- 3
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Well, then in that case, KJR v3.3.1 is now out with a fix to that issue, thank you to everyone who confirmed the issue was fixed.- 2,647 replies
-
- 2
-
[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@Cobrag0318: Try out the dev build linked above if you haven't already. I believe it's the same problem as everyone else has been having and given how finicky some station / orbital vehicles can be I'd like to know that your particular issue is fixed before I push out a new release and have to do it again if it turns out to be something different.- 2,647 replies
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
More complex colliders will always slow things down. First is just collision in general, then there's the expense of FAR building the voxel model which is proportional to the number of triangles it has to handle (roughly. There are some fixed costs that can't be avoided), though there won't be an increase in runtime expense due to FAR with a more complex collider. Just make it as simple as you need it to be for collision. Most complicated you should consider is the hexagonal design.- 14,073 replies
-
- 4
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
The handy thing to do is to ignore "e=bleh" because that hasn't been needed in practically a year why won't these things die already. That shouldn't even be listed in the FAR configs anymore. Dammit, I hate missing things on the wiki. As for the collider shape, the collider and mesh only matter for the voxel calculations, which do account for the overall geometry of the wing, but not the lift and drag-due-to-lift aspects. Make it stupidly thick and you will get hyper-draggy wings as a result. Don't try to be cheeky or get away with stuff, FAR will likely smack you around for that in the end.- 14,073 replies
-
- 4
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
What appears to be happening is some kind of shenanigans with multi-part joints and Krakensbane. Krakensbane has been made a fair bit more flexible in when it is activated in 1.2, and the switch seems to cause issues. I'm not sure exactly why this is happening though, but I'm sure I'll find it soon enough. Edit: There is now another dev build that should have this fixed. I question why I'm even linking this and saying anything considering that the entire point of dev builds didn't work out here and I had to push out a release to get a report on a critical bug.- 2,647 replies
-
[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@rebel-1: Yep, I see it too. Dammit, I'll look into it. It's certainly not a joint thing otherwise it wouldn't get that far. @Tidus Klein: I'll bet it's the same as rebel's issue. Probably. @MartGonzo: I can read calendars, I swear. @Bit Fiddler: KJR in general makes all joints stiffer, which stock doesn't do. It also applies the extra struting that stock has as an option automatically and across parts of the vehicle that it detects will likely be overly flexible rather than just to the heaviest part as with stock. It's easier and generally more effective than manually deciding where the extra joints are needed.- 2,647 replies
-
- 1
-
[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Jesus people, calm your selves. That means you @RevanCorana. Although I must thank you for being so willing to test the dev build when it's out, I'll be expecting your detailed bug reports and reproduction steps to help handle any issues that might come up from porting the mod over. After all, why else would you be so eager to get your hands on a 1.2-compatible build if not to test it? In all seriousness though to everyone, thanks for the patience. With KJR out I'll move to working on FAR, and someone has already been kind enough to attempt a PR to make it 1.2-compatible, though I haven't checked to see if it works or what other things might need addressing. So, um... SoonTM? I'll post here when I need guine-- I mean, testers for the dev build.- 14,073 replies
-
- 21
-
- ferram aerospace research
- aerodynamics
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@DirtyFace83: No, what you're going to do is head to the main download links because... KJR v3.3.0 is released with KSP 1.2 compatibility, changes that reduce physics wobble issues on stations and bases, and confirmed compatibility with the Konstruction mod. Have fun! Also, anyone who comes in and says that they found a bug in the dev build now will get a stern talking to about their sense of timing.- 2,647 replies
-
- 23
-
[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@nebuchadnezzar: And I assume that you are using the very, very latest version of the KJR dev, as it was noted that the latest one is supposed to have a fix for that issue? I'm guessing that you have not considering I mentioned earlier in the thread that any issues involving Konstruction were my problem and to post them here rather than bother RoverDude. Confirm that you are using the dev version uploaded a few days ago, and if that's not it, then I need a test case of a vehicle just before the welding is triggered.- 2,647 replies
-
[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@Quodios Kerman: I have tested the vehicle, both with AtmosphereAutopilot installed and without and I notice nothing out of the ordinary. Vehicle bounces on its suspension a little coming out of timewarp, but that's merely the effect of gravity suddenly being turned on and off. If something nastier is happening, I'm not able to find it. Logs might help, but regardless of whether I have them or not if I can't reproduce the issue there's nothing to be done.- 2,647 replies
-
- 1
-
[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Excellent. That means that I only have to address the issue with KAS struts introducing similar wobble on exiting timewarp and we can have a nice, stable KJR for release. I think that the KAS fix should be relatively quick though, so maybe tomorrow (don't take this as gospel bad things could come up) for the release.- 2,647 replies
-
- 4
-
[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@rooster: I can't test it because there are some additional parts in there that aren't in the stock game or Kerbal Planetary Base Systems. Also, another dev build for testing. This one should fix the parts remaining connected even after decoupling/undocking and should also fix the gaps created with Konstruction welding ports.- 2,647 replies
-
- 3
-
[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@rooster: So then that means that whatever station design you have constructed is exceptionally wobbly. I'll try increasing the number of joints between the endpoints and see if that helps. The parts not floating away after undocking is very strange, perhaps something changed with sending events when the vessel parts change. Go ahead and link the save, it'll make things easier.- 2,647 replies
-
- 1
-
[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
@rooster: Well, I tried something that might fix it that's in the latest dev build if you wanna give it a shot. I think it should work quite well. @adsii1970: On the previous page there was a link, as there is above. The reason there is no link in the main post is to help add minor barriers to entry to reduce the userbase of the dev build to those that either are here to help or are super-determined to use it. The purpose of that is to minimize noise in the issue reporting so that I can make sense of what we have. So has anyone given this a shot with Konstruction yet? I know better than to only rely on myself for sure-fire testing, I'm not crazy enough to come up with all the situations that make the physics engine angry.- 2,647 replies
-
- 4
-
[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17
ferram4 replied to ferram4's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
If you've got something that tears itself apart, I need the smallest example craft that causes the issue with the minimum number of mod parts involved. It's only rarely that a specific part causes the issue, it's generally the configuration that's the cause. Without test cases I'm left guessing what configurations to test.- 2,647 replies