[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18

[tetryds]

Well technically they'd be horizontal surfaces set up for yaw only rather than FAR's idea of spoilers - but horizontal surfaces don't deflect when set up for yaw like you'd set up a vertical surface. You can't independently control spoilers as far as I can see, so you'd have to have a flap on one wing and a spoiler on the other, which would be horrendous to actually use

Ahh, you mean the way B2 bomber uses control surfaces for yawing?

No I don't think you can do that right now.

[Fueniker S.]

Yeah somethings changed.

And I am not sure what is happenning with your craft but I am still able to make aircraft that can pulled 10-15Gs subsonic and around 7-9Gs supersonic, with aero-failures ON.

That's what I suspected, also when I say pull High Gs, I'm not meaning 10-20, I mean in the hundreds, take a look

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76858-The-Stock-Craft-Repository-%28v0-24-2%29-no-longer-being-maintained?p=1365462#post1365462

[Wanderfound]

Ahh, you mean the way B2 bomber uses control surfaces for yawing?

No I don't think you can do that right now.

Yes you can: place them without symmetry and trigger each side with a different action group. Don't expect it to work very well, though.

[praise the suuun]

.

your right about supersonic ideal shape but look at that X-15: it couldn't take off from a run way cause lack of lift at subsonic (but it probably hit mach 10 or something looking at that dam thing ) and had to be carried up. hell maybe it could have launched and landed vertically but you need enough thrust so that the horizontal airflow isnt getting high enough to stall. similarly here ive had a few iterations of wings so steep, thin, stubby you could cut. there was not enough lift or thrust even at supersonic level flight. a delta wing was a good compromise.

your right about too many engines and structurals; once you get past mach 1 not much more power is required to go faster. its a fantasy design from the 1960's puppet show and its actually supposed to be some kind of fusion reactor heated . i settled for turbofans. variable wings turns out are a big NO NO in ksp.

for the intakes i tried to squeeze in and part clip to get as many as i could. when it hits that low drag zone at 20km you can really go! i think atmosphere drop off is exponential cause with all those intakes it flares out at 20.5km. to help the COM id be ok with taking off the rams underneath the wing. it needs heavy part clipped blue mounts on each side. that might get rid of the magic COL adjuster.

Edited November 17, 2014 by praise the suuun

[Wanderfound]

your right about supersonic ideal shape but look at that X-15: it couldn't take off from a run way cause lack of lift at subsonic (but it probably hit mach 10 or something looking at that dam thing ) and had to be carried up. hell maybe it could have launched and landed vertically but you need enough thrust so that the horizontal airflow isnt getting high enough to stall. similarly here ive had a few iterations of wings so steep, thin, stubby you could cut. there was not enough lift or thrust even at supersonic level flight. a delta wing was a good compromise.

That is the classic lifting body problem: you can make anything fly if you get it fast enough, but it's hard to get fast enough at sea level. Hence the invention of launch sleds, JATO boosters, super-long runways, angled launches, etc etc.

So, either put enough thrust on the thing that it can reach a few hundred m/s on the runway (either through disposable boosters or just innate thrust), or do a non horizontal launch. This doesn't necessarily mean a tailsitter; climbing on horizontal VTOL before a diving transition works as well. Thunderbird 1 never used a conventional horizontal takeoff.

For example:

and

Or just go to a tailsitter:

[tetryds]

your right about supersonic ideal shape but look at that X-15: it couldn't take off from a run way cause lack of lift at subsonic (but it probably hit mach 10 or something looking at that dam thing ) and had to be carried up. hell maybe it could have launched and landed vertically but you need enough thrust so that the horizontal airflow isnt getting high enough to stall. similarly here ive had a few iterations of wings so steep, thin, stubby you could cut. there was not enough lift or thrust even at supersonic level flight. a delta wing was a good compromise.

Yeah, I showed a bit of an extreme example just to make the differences a bit more noticeable.

IIRC the X-15 got very close to hitting Mach6, really cool.

Yes, the size of your wings are enough, you just need to move them back, they are dangerously close to the COM right now.

A good place for them would be actually the place where you stacked the intakes.

your right about too many engines and structurals; once you get past mach 1 not much more power is required to go faster. its a fantasy design from the 1960's puppet show and its actually supposed to be some kind of fusion reactor heated . i settled for turbofans. variable wings turns out are a big NO NO in ksp.

Ohh, making replicas from things made without any sort of scientific basis or whatsoever is always complicated, haha.

for the intakes i tried to squeeze in and part clip to get as many as i could. when it hits that low drag zone at 20km you can really go! i think atmosphere drop off is exponential cause with all those intakes it flares out at 20.5km. to help the COM id be ok with taking off the rams underneath the wing. it needs heavy part clipped blue mounts on each side. that might get rid of the magic COL adjuster.

Well, when you clip that many intakes you will have an insane ammount of drag.

I recommend you to go lower on intakes, if you have fewer intakes you can go faster, which ends up giving you the same ammount of intake air at a point.

There are several ways to get rid of the COL adjusters, it may require a bit of trial and error though

[Wanderfound]

for the intakes i tried to squeeze in and part clip to get as many as i could. when it hits that low drag zone at 20km you can really go! i think atmosphere drop off is exponential cause with all those intakes it flares out at 20.5km. to help the COM id be ok with taking off the rams underneath the wing. it needs heavy part clipped blue mounts on each side. that might get rid of the magic COL adjuster.

Intake spam is massively counterproductive in FAR; you're adding bucketloads of drag for no sensible reason. Cut it down to 2 intakes per engine at most; closer to a 1:1 ratio would be better.

If you're flaming out at 20,000m, you need to fly a much flatter ascent trajectory.

[Van Disaster]

Yeah, lack of air at 20k is probably lack of speed more than lack of intake, even with sharing intakes I don't get into trouble that low down. Usually the speed barrier is the engine's thrust/speed curve.

Stable minimally winged thing ( more stable than my SPH floor anyway, thanks DX11 ).

[praise the suuun]

.

that plane looks awesome and light. how much flight time have you got at cruising altitude?

[NathanKell]

use -force-d3d11-no-singlethreaded and that might fix the graphics issues.

[buljcron]

excuse me

I install FAR ,,but when I try to launch any type of engine it will work like this:

sometimes whole rocket will just explode....

I saw another report like this for 0.14.3.1,but he looks give up...

Im using Arch Linux 64bit system,,0.25 for ksp

[Van Disaster]

that plane looks awesome and light. how much flight time have you got at cruising altitude?

I don't know, I either get bored or blow up an engine before I even dent the fuel...

Sadly no change with that flag Nathan - I'd already had it in the startup shortcut but I'd typo'd it, but I still have wacky floors & solid pink aero effects.

Knocked up this thing to test air at altitude ( in hilariously crashhappy dx9 ):

One intake, one FAR modded squad turbojet M and a skinny plane. It didn't run out of air so much as just run out of effective engine - I had MJ autothrottledown on so I could concentrate on keeping it facing the right direction and it didn't throttle down until about 25km, by which time I had practically no thrust anyway.

What happened to Taverius' ramjets. The Retrofuture ones are a bit too small for this.

[ferram4]

@buljcron: Launching through Steam? If so, launching KSP outside of Steam fixes it. No other fixes known, and no one can point to what's going wrong.

[buljcron]

I just try launch it outside Steam ,both 64bit and 32bit version , same problem, nothing change...

[jkadarn]

Okay, I've managed to reproduce it at will, thanks to Rebel's notes. Yay!

0.25 Win32, two mods installed: FAR 0.14.3.2, and HyperEdit, used to put the vessel in orbit in the first place.

You can find the save game quicksave here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-8cKOlqLStFMlNnbnVMN2Zad3c/view?usp=sharing

And the output_log here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-8cKOlqLStFTzlNMnpyM0Y2dWM/view?usp=sharing

To reproduce:

- Load the quicksave. After the quickload, you should be focused on a Kerbal X in orbit. Click the time-warp arrow icons in the upper left to the fastest warp you can get.

- Let it warp until T+30 days.

- Then, using the mouse on the time-warp gadget again, set speed to 1x.

Using this recipe, I was able to trigger the failure three times in a row.

If I uninstall FAR and repeat the same test, the error does not occur.

I also encounter this issue quite frequently, on Kerbal 0.25, win32, with only Module Manager 2.5.1 & FAR 0.14.3.2.

On my computer, the warp duration needed to get this bug seems to be around 5~10mn (real time), no matter the speed or the location (landed on Kerbin, LKO, GKO)

I wasn't able to reproduce it on linux (either 32 or 64 bits), but that was on another computer.

I couldn't reproduce the bug with the previous version of FAR (0.14.3.1).

[ABZB]

Does anyone know what might cause the following to spam for every part on a vessel:

FAR Error: Aerodynamic force = NaN AC Loc = 6.99705131294936 AoA = 0

MAC = 1.388 B_2 = 1.311 sweepAngle = 6.12303176911189E-17

MidChordSweep = 27.6 MidChordSweepSideways = 0.111888451949879

at R8winglet

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

[Van Disaster]

Is it in flight or just at physics startup? I get quite a lot at the latter point, but it goes away as soon as the scene settles down.

[ABZB]

Is it in flight or just at physics startup? I get quite a lot at the latter point, but it goes away as soon as the scene settles down.

at vehicle load - does it not actually matter, then? I am curious if the MC can note the meaning...

[ferram4]

As I stated when you brought it up a few pages ago, you need to provide a full output_log.txt and reproduction steps.

[nli2work]

hey ferram4, I'm a little confused at the drag numbers on the tank part here. they are identical in terms of mesh objects, collision meshes, part modules, and stack nodes (1 front 1 back, both are used). only different in mass and length. short tank is 1/2 the length of the long one. but long tank's drag is 10 times the drag of the short one. changing their attach order doesn't change anything. what's happening?

http://i.imgur.com/wT17sB5.jpg

[ferram4]

Obviously, the meshes differ in some way other than just length, otherwise that would not occur.

[ABZB]

As I stated when you brought it up a few pages ago, you need to provide a full output_log.txt and reproduction steps.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/huxwm0ia4bbpog0/output_log.txt?dl=0

I get that every time I launch a vessel, or switch to an existing vessel. There is a noticeable pause beyond the usual KJR pause. It occurs even if the only part is the MK1 pod. Planes that should fly act as though they have almost no lift (I notice that if I enable the shaders, there is a very very faint blue tint of the CL, while the drag tint is bright and strong (comparing to the tints in Scott Manley's recent video demonstrating that feature).

[ferram4]

You are running the most recent version of FAR (0.14.3.2), correct? Can you reproduce it with a minimum number of other mods? I'm not sure how the R8 winglet could be throwing errors if the only part loaded is the Mk1 Pod; there shouldn't be an R8 winglet to throw errors.

[Din182]

Hey, I'm wondering if there is anyway I can stop the mod from disabling itself (and therefore, all lift and control surfaces) on 64bit KSP. I've been using it with only minor problems so far, and I used it with FAR in .24, so I doubt you are going to cause me any problems. It would be nice to be able to load all my mods without having to use the lowest quality textures now.

[nli2work]

Obviously, the meshes differ in some way other than just length, otherwise that would not occur.

this is x86 BTW.

both meshes are identical, 1800 vertices; 3024 triangles.

Unity setups are identical. http://i.imgur.com/9aLBRx6.jpg

config files are identical except for node locations and mass. http://i.imgur.com/C5vgfSg.jpg

when setting up drag model, which pivot does FAR use? mesh object's pivot? or the root pivot of the part? Changing mesh object's orientation before export doesn't appear to make any difference. Is this because the part doesn't explicitly have a FAR drag model?

Edited November 18, 2014 by nli2work