[1.8-1.12] Ferram Aerospace Research Continued: v0.16.0.5 "Mader" 03/04/22

[frencrs]

2 hours ago, Bla Bla said:

planes with no part clipping (where the voxelization shouldn't really change the drag compared to stock) will still have a huuuuge difference in behavior between FAR and stock, separating the crafts between two irreconciliable worlds : FAR and stock : crafts created with FAR will perform poorly (and always very differently) with stock and vice-versa.

 

This has been the case since FAR was first created, plane shapes that fly in FAR are more likely to fly in the real world but less likely to fly in stock and plane shapes that fly in stock are more likely to not fly in the real world or FAR. It's just due to the stock aerodynamics being unrealistic.

[Bla Bla]

2 hours ago, frencrs said:

 

This has been the case since FAR was first created, plane shapes that fly in FAR are more likely to fly in the real world but less likely to fly in stock and plane shapes that fly in stock are more likely to not fly in the real world or FAR. It's just due to the stock aerodynamics being unrealistic.

I know, as I have been playing with FAR for years. I created countless planes, fighter jets, micro drones, missiles, a solar plane, a reusable heavy lifter plane for Eve that can launch another SSTO high enough so it can reach orbit, and a seaplane SSTO that can sea take-off and land 9 times out of 10 without unplanned disassembly (don't laugh, the water in FAR is way harder than anything I had ever tried, and makes Eve look like a really easy ride)... Something I was never able to create are FAR hydrofoils, I wonder if someone succeded in that ?...

For as long as I remember, I've been frustrated that I couldn't share the great crafts I spent so much time fine tuning with FAR with most of the community... And only recently I learned that this wasn't due to the complicated calculations of FAR aerodynamic model, but, for the greatest part, only to this simple choice of using the (realistic) N/m² lift area value in FAR whereas that value is buffed by Squad in the stock model.

To give you an example, my seaplane SSTO created with FAR has so much wing area that it would softly land at 30 m/s if flown with stock, but after more than 100 hours on it I find it nearly impossible to make it touch down with the water (full) at less than 75-80 m/s with full flaps, otherwise it'd fall from the skies. This has nothing to do with the aerodynamic model itself (good shape, no part clipping), but has all to do with the fact that both lift and drag are greatly reduced with FAR compared to stock by this lift/area number. For all the rest of FAR model, I'm more than happy that it makes unrealistic shapes impossible to fly, and the engineering of a nice plane more complicated (and rewarding) than in stock. I certainly don't want to change that. I'm just suggesting that this single lift/drg/area value could be made similar to that of stock.

So yes, indead, the value is more realistic in FAR, and it is artificially buffed in stock so the smaller kerbals can fly in crafts that look good at their scale (keep in mind that the standard fuselage have only 1,25m diameter, and is supposed to fit two passengers). But the whole game and all parts size and characteristics are also adapted to the stock (buffed) value. For those who find it most important to use real life value in the game's engine there is a mod called realism overhaul that would tweak a lot of things to do precisely that, and if that mod is used with FAR at the same time, then yes it really makes sense to use te real life N/m² area lift value in FAR (maybe these mods could detect one each other ?).

On the other hand, For those of us who whant to use the stock parts without tweaking them, and simply want to improve the stock aerodynamic model by using FAR, and all its more advanced options to make better crafts, I really see no point not to use the same N/m² value that Squad is using in FAR model, appart from segregating FAR users from the rest of the players.

I find that the (current state of affairs') only advantage of saying : "FAR lift/drag force applied per m² of area is more realistic than that of the stock model" is pedantry (except if you also use realism overhaul) and it is absolutely NOT worth the considerable gameplay annoyance of not being able to fly in stock, and share with most of the community, a perfectly engineered FAR plane.

The fact that it has been the case since the beginning doesn't mean it can't be improved !

 

Edited July 20, 2019 by Bla Bla

[Jognt]

1 hour ago, frencrs said:

This has been the case since FAR was first created, plane shapes that fly in FAR are more likely to fly in the real world but less likely to fly in stock and plane shapes that fly in stock are more likely to not fly in the real world or FAR. It's just due to the stock aerodynamics being unrealistic.

What he means is that FAR and stock are pretty much incompatible. 

Remember: a stock craft can still be built with proper physics in mind, but it’ll still behave very different in FAR, mostly in the “need more wings” category. 

Turn it around and a good FAR craft will behave very different in stock aero. 

The vision here is that it would be nice if a properly designed craft had similar lift capabilities in both stock and FAR. Which is that ‘one variabel’ thing blabla referred to. 

After all, the point is that “if it looks like a good plane, it should work like a good plane”. (When focusing on the aspect of lift)

Edited July 20, 2019 by Jognt

[Iguas]

FAR is great ! BUT, anyone of you managed to make a functional helicopter with the new stock parts ?

It seems like i don't get enough lift from those blades to do anything interesting, with electric motors, but also with the new turboprops.

That's funny, because planes seems to work way better (they need less power, but still). 

I could allow more RPM in cfg files, but i searched, and most helicopter don't go over 500 rpm, so that's weird.

If you managed to do one,  tell me ! (and gimme a screenshot, that'd be great !)

Thanks ! 

[kcs123]

New propeler parts most probably need proper config files for them, in similar way as it is necessary for regular wing surface areas. Otherwise, generated thrust is probably not calculated properly on those propelers. Stock aerodynamic physics is a bit of "cheaty" providing some dragbox and liftbox curvatore values for propeler parts that does not exist when you install FAR.

So, until someone create proper config files for propelers, those won't work properly in FAR.
Other propeler engines from various mods, like KAX, APP, Firespitter, etc. Does not use physical propeler mesh that is simulated like "wing" in the both stock, and FAR game. Those mods use rather mesh transform, to replace stationary propeler mesh with blured version of same propeler to get illusion that propeler is spining while it improve game performance a lot by not simulating physics on those parts. Instead, blured version of propelers just provide pre-calculated thrust based on altitude and throttle input.

[byong614]

I've been having fun with SM Marine until I installed FAR. Does FAR change KSP's water mechanics? I can barely go forward and even if I manage to do so, I keep getting stuck when steering. Literally stuck as speed drops to zero when I start to use my rudder.

[kcs123]

1 hour ago, byong614 said:

I've been having fun with SM Marine until I installed FAR. Does FAR change KSP's water mechanics? I can barely go forward and even if I manage to do so, I keep getting stuck when steering. Literally stuck as speed drops to zero when I start to use my rudder.

Yep, FAR changes water behaviour too. Can't say is it in better or worst way. I think that same fluid physics is applied to water, but it does not behave that good as in stock game, I suppose.

[Bla Bla]

4 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Yep, FAR changes water behaviour too. Can't say is it in better or worst way. I think that same fluid physics is applied to water, but it does not behave that good as in stock game, I suppose.

I think ferram decided to change (something) to FAR water quite a while ago when he saw a video of a craft resisting an impact with the sea at 70 m/s. If I remember well he said: "a plane shouldn't be able to survive an impact with water at such speed" and changed his code a bit. After that FAR water became incredibly deadly (at the time, stock water was much more deadly as well). It seems to me that wings, and particularly control surfaces have such a high drag in water with FAR (maybe because they have more mesurement points per area) that you'll never be able to overcome it, whatever engine power you have. I think ferram didn't really thought that he would make submarines and hydrofoils impossible this way, and boats and seaplanes incredibly difficult (to give discharge to him, Squad modelisation at the time also had the same limitations, and when he made that change FAR water -with the reduced drag- was indeed much more forgiving than stock and unbalanced).

Now the stock water has evolved, opening a whole new world of possibilities, FAR water has not, and it's purpose in game is still only (as ferram decided that day) to destroy your craft if it touches it (you can eventually make a seaplane SSTO if you are very very motivated and ready to spend 100+ painful hours fine tuning it, as I did, and always touch down with water at 0 m/s vertical speed, but forget about any submarine). Such a pity, I couldn't agree more...

Edited July 21, 2019 by Bla Bla

[byong614]

Is there a way to fix it or would I have to wait for the updates or something?

[The-Grim-Sleeper]

On 7/20/2019 at 11:30 PM, Iguas said:

FAR is great ! BUT, anyone of you managed to make a functional helicopter with the new stock parts ?

Yes I have, but it was a challenge to be sure. I am not on my Game-puter atm, hit me on the FAR-craft thread for the craft files.

A link to the topic and my findings (craft files to come soon)

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/109098-official-far-craft-repository/&do=findComment&comment=3639872

Edited July 23, 2019 by The-Grim-Sleeper

[Skeltcher]

Is there an ETA on FAR update to the new KSP version or the current version works with KSP?

[KingMonkeyNuts]

13 hours ago, Skeltcher said:

Is there an ETA on FAR update to the new KSP version or the current version works with KSP?

Please don't poke the bears. I think the gentle way to ask about a version update is to ask 'how is this mod working with the new game version'. If the mod-maker is still active, they'll see the post in their forum, and they'll respond. If it's a dead forum, then we can poke around and see if someone is still maintaining the mod. (btw; I'm here checking to see if FAR is working with the new version too)

 

[Beetlecat]

14 hours ago, Skeltcher said:

Is there an ETA on FAR update to the new KSP version or the current version works with KSP?

The best way to confirm the second part is to install it and see -- a big question would be how well the new stock rotors and motors work with helicopters. I'm gonna give a couple a try this evening.

[Tau137]

Ignore

Edited July 26, 2019 by Tau137

[chateaudav]

Hi,

I have lots of this in my output_log, can you help me ?

Here is the link to the full file : https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bX-VzGemXZBiW43nmzHLiKSuPDldahBJ

NullReferenceException
  at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.Component:get_transform ()
  at FerramAerospaceResearch.FARGUI.FARFlightGUI.PhysicsCalcs.CalculateTotalAeroForce () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at FerramAerospaceResearch.FARGUI.FARFlightGUI.PhysicsCalcs.UpdatePhysicsParameters () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at FerramAerospaceResearch.FARGUI.FARFlightGUI.FlightGUI.FixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

Thanks !

Edited July 26, 2019 by chateaudav

[Cruss]

Hi! 

 

I've recently.bought ksp for pc(already had it on ps4). I've got FAR, rescaled the solar system (10x), a bunch of other mods related to gameplay.

I also got a bunch of part packs including nft, ksp-ie, mk2 expansion etc.

Now this all seems to work fine however, i have great difficulty getting any engine to work above 20-30km altitude/1200-1600m/s. The issue? Heat. No matter what I do, my engines heat up and won't turn on again or blow up if they do manage to turn on again.

If I boost the craft to say 30km and 1600m/s+, the engines will overheat even without having run. Probably due to the craft absorbing all the heat. I've tried sticking more radiators on it than I had wings but any improvement seems marginal at best.

All other mods seem to be working properly, stock engines (rapiers) suffer from the same heat issues as say the mk2 expansion's engines.

I'm assuming this is intended behaviour? Heat starts building up at 500-800m/s and depending on the engine, becomes unmanagable at 1200m/s+. Altitude seems to have a minor effect, so does the % of throttle I set the engines to. However, even at 10% throttle, mk2 expansion scramjet will overheat, even above 35km altitude.

Any thoughts? 

Edit: for clarification, if i switch a rapier, or other, similar engine to closed cycle, heat issues do not appear! Only with airbreathing engines.

If it is intended behaviour, does that mean my craft is simply to small? 

I've made a sr 71 look a like. With a central open/closed cycle mk2 engine similar to a rapier. ( mk2 expansion, the m.a.t.t.o.c.k if memory serves me right). Then half way, part of the wing structure, 2 mk2 nacelles with the x43 scramjet. (Also from the mk2 expansion, however as mentioned earlier I have tested rapiers aswell with the same results). 

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by Cruss

[Aelipse]

That is not an intended behaviour. Parts with max temperature 2500 (mk2) should easily survive speeds around 1600 m/s at altitudes above 10,000 m. One of the mods probably messes with the temperature calculation or the settings. You might want to test which mod is the culprit here by switching them off, reloading the game and repeating the flight. A cannot give you a more helpful advice as I've never encountered this particular bug myself.

EDIT: Come to think of it, when I was testing the Real Solar System mod, I noticed it increased the maximum temperature or rate of heat dissipation as I haven't encountered any overheat until my velocity was well beyond 3000 m/s. Maybe the Rescaled Solar System does something similar, only on the opposite direction? Hard to say.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Aelipse

[Skeltcher]

There's anyway someone make this available in CKAN, not sure how that works but I cant find it there.

[steve_v]

11 minutes ago, Skeltcher said:

There's anyway someone make this available in CKAN, not sure how that works but I cant find it there.

FARc is on CKAN:

[Skeltcher]

On 7/31/2019 at 9:37 AM, steve_v said:

FARc is on CKAN:

Oh... its not showing for me. Its flagged for 1.7.3? I guess I'll have to allow older KSP versions.

[thunder175]

On 7/26/2019 at 11:11 AM, chateaudav said:

Hi,

I have lots of this in my output_log, can you help me ?

Here is the link to the full file : https://drive.google.com/open?id=1bX-VzGemXZBiW43nmzHLiKSuPDldahBJ

NullReferenceException
  at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.Component:get_transform ()
  at FerramAerospaceResearch.FARGUI.FARFlightGUI.PhysicsCalcs.CalculateTotalAeroForce () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at FerramAerospaceResearch.FARGUI.FARFlightGUI.PhysicsCalcs.UpdatePhysicsParameters () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
  at FerramAerospaceResearch.FARGUI.FARFlightGUI.FlightGUI.FixedUpdate () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

Thanks !

Any resolution to this?

[chateaudav]

6 hours ago, thunder175 said:

Any resolution to this?

Yes. I recommand to read this post : 

 

[BrawlerAce]

Hopefully this isn't too dumb of a question, but how do I successfully land in FAR with my landing gear brakes? Whenever I try landing and braking with my landing gear, my plane always ends up steering to one side and sometimes tipping over and crashing. I've tried disabling my steering, using a wider wheel base, flying with the FAR stability controls, and using a different mod, Atmosphere Autopilot. Am I just missing something here?

[The-Grim-Sleeper]

5 hours ago, BrawlerAce said:

Am I just missing something here?

As far as I know, yes, you are missing something. What that something is, I can't really tell you, because I have the EXACT same problem. Past posts on this thread suggested I need more wing. 'Enough wing to not stall when flying at 50m/s or less.' 'FAR makes wings produce much less lift at low speeds, so you need so much wing that the aircraft stops looking like an aircraft.'

I have not yet gotten around to succeeding at doing that.

If you need more help, you are 'supposed to ask on the craft-repo-thread', but it has been a bit quiet as of late.

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/109098-official-far-craft-repository/

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by The-Grim-Sleeper

[vossiewulf]

5 hours ago, BrawlerAce said:

Hopefully this isn't too dumb of a question, but how do I successfully land in FAR with my landing gear brakes?

 

26 minutes ago, The-Grim-Sleeper said:

I have not yet gotten around to succeeding at doing that.

If you want a slower landing speed, the first thing you should try are Fowler (slotted) flaps across a goodly portion of the wing trailing edge, and deploy them for landing. They work more or less like the real ones do, causing a pitch down moment but considerably lower stall speed and increase the angle of descent for a given approach speed. I don't have many aero parts mods but I have a good slotted flaps part, so chances are you have one or more.

Another thing I've done that makes planes track much better is to use twin nose landing clear, close side by side. Yes it adds weight but it much reduces the wobble of straight triangular gear when the plane starts lurching back and forth, which makes it very hard to get under control. Finally, make sure steering is off on the mains, and the steering authority is much reduced on the nose gear, try 20%. The usual problem sequence with this is plane starts wandering left or right, and just tapping the rudder key causes oversteer in the other direction, and we're off to pilot-induced oscillation city.

Wait, finally(bis), have a goodly amount of airbrake and deploy them as soon as you touch down, will slow you quickly without brakes or steering use, and they also help keep weight on the wheels so steering is effective. Or you could install a couple small solid retromotors aiming down and back at like a 45 degree angle. It should work but more importantly is something Jeb would do.

And I guess I'll mention one more but it's obvious, mount several radial parachutes under the skin and pop them once the mains touch down. Not at all cheating, many military aircraft have and use chutes for exactly this reason. When I use them I scale them down, you really don't need much to bring you to a halt in a hurry.