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

[blowfish]

Could that help explain why MechJeb hugely overshoots (or undershoots rather) by kilometers when landing in an atmosphere while using FAR?

Edit: My output log is absolutely covered in those errors.

Mechjeb doesn't understand FAR aerodynamics by default. There is a MechJeb far module but I'm not sure how well it works.

[steve_v]

Could that help explain why MechJeb hugely overshoots (or undershoots rather) by kilometers when landing in an atmosphere while using FAR?

Probably not, MechJeb simply doesn't know how to account for atmospheric drag in FAR.

[AngelLestat]

Ferram:

I like some of the changes that KIDS adds, but to "fix" FAR in stock game reducing ISP in atmo, just improve some aspects impacting negatively in others.

It can not be a way to adjust parameters or the aerodynamics formules used in FAR to match similar atmosphere effects for kerbin scales?

For example, we have Shape-Based Aerodynamics which is one of the 5 effect that you describe. "Tall rockets good; pancake rockets bad.".

Maybe (from ignorance) if the drag value calculated for certain craft is X, then in stock game would be X with a multiplier. But this multiplier decrease depending on our climb angle, to avoid change airplane behaviors.

Also increasing the drag due speed (even more) may help.

So those effect "in theory" would help to counter the lack of drag due the small size of rockets from ksp compared to real rockets, the lower speed required and the lower amount on time experiencing these effects on the atmosphere.

May work?

Edited January 8, 2015 by AngelLestat

[ferram4]

@HoneyFox: No, TriggerPartColliderUpdate() is a method that is used to force the list of colliders that each FAR module uses internally to update. It won't do anything to the part itself.

@Sandworm: What's happening is KSP is trying to load a part module that was previously applied, and discovered it doesn't exist in the config file. That's because FAR adds the modules programmatically, not through configs. This is expected behavior, and it is not the cause of your issue, if you even have one. Don't like it? Yell at Squad to give me the option to not save PartModule data, because currently, I can't prevent it and clean up the logspam.

@smjjames: Has nothing to do with how anything behaves. That is an expected error, that does not affect gameplay, because KSP does not consider dynamically adding PartModules.

@AngelLestat: I am not compromising FAR's focus on realism to balance for Kerbin's tiny scale. Nope, sorry, that's not what this project is about. There are already a few options to change a few very minor factors that are highly empirical, but I am not adding a finagle factor into equations because realistic aerodynamics doesn't feel right to you. FAR is about realistic aerodynamics, and it will stay that way. Other projects may choose to do that, but not this one.

[Sandworm]

@Sandworm: What's happening is KSP is trying to load a part module that was previously applied, and discovered it doesn't exist in the config file. That's because FAR adds the modules programmatically, not through configs. This is expected behavior, and it is not the cause of your issue, if you even have one. Don't like it? Yell at Squad to give me the option to not save PartModule data, because currently, I can't prevent it and clean up the logspam.

[steve_v]

I am not compromising FAR's focus on realism

Excellent

Please, let it ever be thus.

[AngelLestat]

@AngelLestat: I am not compromising FAR's focus on realism to balance for Kerbin's tiny scale. Nope, sorry, that's not what this project is about. There are already a few options to change a few very minor factors that are highly empirical, but I am not adding a finagle factor into equations because realistic aerodynamics doesn't feel right to you. FAR is about realistic aerodynamics, and it will stay that way. Other projects may choose to do that, but not this one.

Ok, of course I will respect your opinion. I understand it.

But why you said that is not real for me? I know that is real if we play with RSS. But the kerbin universe gets some gameplay benefics with 1/10x scales. Thrust, dry mass and many aspects are made it to try to get a similar rocket experience at those scales..

The stock aerodynamic total fail in try to match reality because they dont know what you know. But if someone wants to get similar aerodynamic effects at these scales like if it was earth size.. then the only way is change a bit the real aerodynamics effects.

But yes, may bring different behaviors in some other aspects. But the true is... I guess that squad would never improve it.

well, thanks again for your awesome mods.

[HoneyFox]

@HoneyFox: No, TriggerPartColliderUpdate() is a method that is used to force the list of colliders that each FAR module uses internally to update. It won't do anything to the part itself.

I'm a bit confused. if the list of colliders is for usage of checking wing interaction, a recheck is probably needed after some other plugin (in this case, PWing) claims that the part's collider has been changed, i guess? Or perhaps i totally misunderstand the mechanism, then i have to read more of these codes.

[blowfish]

Ok, of course I will respect your opinion. I understand it.

But why you said that is not real for me? I know that is real if we play with RSS. But the kerbin universe gets some gameplay benefics with 1/10x scales. Thrust, dry mass and many aspects are made it to try to get a similar rocket experience at those scales..

The stock aerodynamic total fail in try to match reality because they dont know what you know. But if someone wants to get similar aerodynamic effects at these scales like if it was earth size.. then the only way is change a bit the real aerodynamics effects.

But yes, may bring different behaviors in some other aspects. But the true is... I guess that squad would never improve it.

well, thanks again for your awesome mods.

If you're looking for some more challenge with planes and spaceplanes you could try Advanced Jet Engine, which makes jets behave as they would in real life. It won't affect anything with rockets of course...

[JoseEduardo]

Ferram, is there a workaround for the issue with Raidernick's Soyuz fairing while there's no official update?

[Mołot]

Could you please add a configuration option like "I know what I am doing, let me run it on x64 Windows"? I know it's not supported and I'm not going to ask for support, I just wanted to see how well it plays, and consider if it's worth it. Now, I probably will recompile on my own this evening, but config option would be simply more convenient, and I believe not so hard to do?

[taniwha]

But why you said that is not real for me?

Here lies the foundation of your problem. Reality is not subjective, so "real for me" makes no sense.

Before you complain about Kerbin's insane density (and that of the other planets): this is not necessarily so: boost G by about 8.85 (to 5.9057e-11), drop Kerbin's mass by a factor of 1000 to 5.98e21kg and its density becomes 6.6t/m³ (Earth's density is about 5.5t/m³), yet the surface gravity stays at 9.81m/s². And before you complain about boosting G by a mear 8.85, go read Raft by Stephen Baxter: G boosted by 1e9. Feeling the crush of the crowd takes on a whole new meaning

To sum things up: really, the only things that are different between KSP and our Universe are the bogus fluid mechanics (taken care of by ferram4 (FAR and BB)), G (taken care of by RSS), and the orbits in KSP would not be stable if they weren't on rails and N-body physics was used (Jool's system would fly apart, probably before you could get to it, certainly within a few years) (again, RSS).

[ferram4]

@HoneyFox: It should be automatically called in the function that pWings calls when it's cleaning everything up. If it isn't, it should be.

@JoseEduardo: Not yet, unfortunately. I have an idea (actually, many ideas) of how to simplify it, but I haven't implemented it yet.

@Molot: No, then people complain that they got a warning (see the CompatibilityChecker sabotage from a few months ago). Or they try to get support anyway. Or they go around blaming FAR for win64 issues, and suddenly I've got all these erroneous support requests from all corners burying the ones that I can fix.

Win64 isn't worth it. It's such a mess that I think the only reason they keep releasing it every update (as it becomes more and more broken and unusable) is that Squad wants to avoid the PR disaster of having to announce it was a bad idea.

[taniwha]

Molot: if you need 64-bits, use Linux. That is supported.

[AngelLestat]

@blowfish: Already in use.

@taniwha:That is not the case, you need to read my first post to understand.

[tetryds]

@AngelLestat: I understand what you want here.

You want a way that FAR could be implemented to match the stock game in a way it would not require a full rebalance of everything, and also without touching ISP values.

So, no FAR will not be that, for a good reason, but I remember seeing something on the FAR Debug Options, you can tweak ATM Composition from there (open FAR menu from KSC view).

But as the name suggests, you have to tweak the entire atmosphere for that, simply increasing drag is a bad idea, as it can cause a lot of flight stability issues.

I would like to see if you can achieve some ATM Composition settings that makes you require about the same ammount of Delta-V to get to orbit as the stock game, that can be very useful.

But bear in mind that such settings will overpunish non-aerodynamic designs.

Edited January 8, 2015 by tetryds

[biohazard15]

I've got a question. Parts that are hidden by using Offset utility - are they affected by FAR?

This little Dyna-Soar\Spiral\younameit mini-spaceplane relies on it to achieve a good CoM. It's fuel tanks (eight capsulated and one cylidrified Stratus-Vs) are hidden inside the cockpit. It flies well - or at least it glides well, until you start maneuvering, which it doesn't really like.

Also, I would like to get some general advice on it, as I'm a complete n00b at spaceplanes.

[tetryds]

General advices are:

-Don't clip parts.

-Don't clip parts using the gizmos.

-Don't clip parts using anything else.

-Don't clip tanks inside of each other.

-Don't clip anything else.

-Don't make mini/short planes.

-Disable controls for surfaces not meant for that.

-Keep the yellow line below zero.

-Keep all stability derivates green on the range you plan to fly at.

-Double the vertical tail.

-Double the vertical tail again.

-Double the vertical tail one more time, and move it back.

-And don't clip parts.

Edited January 8, 2015 by tetryds

[ThorBeorn]

I've got a question. Parts that are hidden by using Offset utility - are they affected by FAR?

Yes they are. FAR can not and will not in the future either be able to distinguish clipped parts from non clipped parts - all according to Ferram4. If you want parts shielded use a cargobay, a fairing, an interstage or something similar.

[bdito]

General advices are:

-Don't clip parts.

-Don't clip parts using the gizmos.

-Don't clip parts using anything else.

-Don't clip tanks inside of each other.

-Don't clip anything else.

-Don't make mini/short planes.

-Disable controls for surfaces not meant for that.

-Keep the yellow line below zero.

-Keep all stability derivates green on the range you plan to fly at.

-Double the vertical tail.

-Double the vertical tail again.

-Double the vertical tail one more time, and move it back.

-And don't clip parts.

Don't clip parts? What kind of madness is this. Without clipping, planes look super ugly.

Edited January 8, 2015 by tetryds

[AngelLestat]

@tetryds Not sure about the debug, but I saw the cfg with all the atmosphere parameters. The problem tweaking that is that you also change atmospheric fly which it work fine in stock.

In a logic world SQUAD should paid Ferram for its work and be able to use and modify his code to match it in their tiny universe.

But I saw as SQUAD keeps ignoring real solar cells aspects, ion engines, science-economics logic procedures, etc. So the only that I check lately are new mods advances. The problem is that they stop working each time that squads updates KSP.

[biohazard15]

snap

Thanks!

Yes they are. FAR can not and will not in the future either be able to distinguish clipped parts from non clipped parts - all according to Ferram4. If you want parts shielded use a cargobay, a fairing, an interstage or something similar.

Well, that's a bummer. Funny thing is that this contraption re-enters (with DRE on Medium settings) and glides rather nice (with SAS always on, of course). It can even do a small course corrections. Since it's all what I need from it (it doesn't even has landing gears), I'd say that it's a nice little plane

[Wanderfound]

Don't clip parts? What kind of madness is this. Without clipping, planes look super ugly.

Beauty in the eye of the beholder etc., but they look okay to me:

[tetryds]

Beauty in the eye of the beholder etc., but they look okay to me:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/Beta/Kerbodyne%20Showroom/Aero%20R/screenshot699_zps9e66da35.jpg

Perfect example.

@bdito: you are not forced to follow any of my advices.

As long as you don't clip parts, hehe.

[Hektos]

Beauty in the eye of the beholder etc., but they look okay to me:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/Beta/Kerbodyne%20Showroom/Aero%20R/screenshot699_zps9e66da35.jpg

GEEZUZ That tail plane O_O'

Is that even necessary?

Perfect example.

@bdito: you are not forced to follow any of my advices.

As long as you don't clip parts, hehe.

I get this impression that you have something against clipping parts...