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

[Svm420]

Its being designed for 1.0.

[Bakase]

If I understand how it works correctly, then your stuff should be shielded.

I don't think it will - they're two separate craft, so the calculations are done separately. I guess some kind of specific case occlusion for this could be implemented (calculating whether a part is within a cargo bay), but the base mechanics wouldn't support it. It's possible that Ferram's already put something like this in.

[Hyomoto]

Just pitch up for a moment. It kills your speed really good. Check this out. The deceleration Just short of the runway i did pitch up again (not shown) because i was way to fast, killing half of my speed for a gentle landing.

Hmm, I agree with the deceleration but I wonder then if it had to do with the stock 'flaps'. You pop those bad boys you lose a lot of speed as well, but no, I drifted for a good 10km with brakes locked on and engine shut off. Could NOT get it below 30m/s, and the plane would literally keep trying to take back off. I suspect they may be a hacky implementation. The latest patch just tuned up the thermo calculations so they'll probably tweak aero as well, but I am still holding out hope against hope against hope against ALL HOPE that one day Squad will look into whatever drives the WHEELS in this game. The lack of friction between them and the world is egregious, to say the least. Maybe ferram will tackle wheel calculations one day!

[Hodo]

Its being designed for 1.0.

So the Voxaero is for 1.0KSP.... good I can test that out when I get time, if NuFAR isnt out first.

[Van Disaster]

@Hyomoto - I wonder if you rediscovered infiniglide still got the craft? my experience is like DaMichel's, little pitch up results in lots of drag ( and given the eye-popping thrust of the stock jets, a little pitch down results in you gaining all the speed back pretty instantly ).

[Tonnz]

I'm wondering, if nuFar works on the shape of a craft rather than its parts, how does it tackle the deformation of a craft due to aerodynamic stress (wings flexing e.g.) ? Does it keep re-determining the shape of the craft, does it use only use the "normal" shape, or does it do something completetly different?

[Hyomoto]

@ Van Disaster - I think I've figured it out, it isn't infiniglide, but it might be the pitching down you mentioned. I was able to land and take off normally, successfully. It seems that uphill I stop quickly, but downhill I'll never stop, even with a low hill grade. The brakes clearly don't do anything because your craft just slides as if you were on ice. Landing on the runway this is no big deal, anywhere else creates a nightmare. It seems my old nemesis is in full form still. Being able to do donuts with the brakes engaged is comical, but I seriously hope Squad takes a good, long, hard, specific look at how comically useless they are. I'm wondering if the new aerodynamics have any input though, if what you are saying is true with a tiny pitch resulting in large acceleration that would definitely exacerbate the issue.

[blowfish]

It seems that uphill I stop quickly, but downhill I'll never stop, even with a low hill grade. The brakes clearly don't do anything because your craft just slides as if you were on ice. Landing on the runway this is no big deal, anywhere else creates a nightmare. It seems my old nemesis is in full form still. Being able to do donuts with the brakes engaged is comical, but I seriously hope Squad takes a good, long, hard, specific look at how comically useless they are.

If you're using the new large landing gear, you might want to up the break torque in the tweakables - I've found that the default value is way too low even for small vessels.

[Hyomoto]

I put it to max but this is a pretty long standing issue with wheels, and by many accounts friction. An excellent example would be make a SAS module between two empty fuel tanks. Should work well enough as a wheel, but nope, I guess I'm glad it's not the aerodynamics but I guess for all the improvements made in 1.0 I'm surprised/sad that this wasn't on the list. I'll keep my fingers crossed for the future! I can work around it, it's just a pain to have something not work the way you expect and have very little you can do about it.

[etheoma]

Duh! I forgot that Ferram said that new DR and nuFAR 1.0 versions were having incompatibility issues and installed both the Beta versions... So stupid...

Other than me making the stupid mistake its looking good Ferram keep up the good work. I haven't noticed any bugs apart from voxels looking like there not scaling with tweek scales in the VAB and SPH, but thats another mod and its probably the job of Biotroni to make sure that Tweak scales works with FAR isn't it? Even if its not its not your still working on it so there's time.

Edited May 1, 2015 by etheoma

[apdapreturns]

Are nuFAR beta builds already rolling out? How can I get one?

[Dinokin]

Are nuFAR beta builds already rolling out? How can I get one?

Download: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118088-1-00-ModularFlightIntegrator-1-0-%28Apr-30%29

Download: https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/tree/voxelAeroPort (click download zip > open the file > open gamedata dir > put far dir in your ksp gamedata > ??????? > profit

[cantab]

Ok, i have a very strange request, is it ever will be possible that most of the instrumentation (like IAS and EAS, Stall and High dynamic pressure redouts) and tweakables for control surfaces will be available as a stand alone for stock? Cause i kinda like stock aero in 1.0 but i grown used to all this little things like possibility to tweak control surfaces or to see your speed in kph EAS...

I back this request. FAR's analysis tools and its Flight Assistance are as important to me, if not more so, than its aerodynamic model. Designing a plane without the analysis tools is like designing a rocket without KER.

[Veskenapper]

Download: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/118088-1-00-ModularFlightIntegrator-1-0-%28Apr-30%29

Download: https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/tree/voxelAeroPort (click download zip > open the file > open gamedata dir > put far dir in your ksp gamedata > ??????? > profit

Ah! I've kept trying to run the temporary voxelAeroPort build, but missed that I needed the Modular Flight Integrator as well. That said, now that I've got the "beta" working, everything flies like a brick. Literally every design, stock or no, shoots off the runway and into the sea. Also, all the FAR analysis tools, like Display Debug Voxels etc. just returns this in the log:

[Exception]: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

Got that before putting the MFI in there as well, though, so I've propably messed up trying else to get this to work. Or, you know, it's just not finished yet, and I'll be better off waiting for ferram4 to work his magic.

[Dinokin]

Ah! I've kept trying to run the temporary voxelAeroPort build, but missed that I needed the Modular Flight Integrator as well. That said, now that I've got the "beta" working, everything flies like a brick. Literally every design, stock or no, shoots off the runway and into the sea. Also, all the FAR analysis tools, like Display Debug Voxels etc. just returns this in the log:

[Exception]: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

Got that before putting the MFI in there as well, though, so I've propably messed up trying else to get this to work. Or, you know, it's just not finished yet, and I'll be better off waiting for ferram4 to work his magic.

it works fine here '-'

[Vegemeister]

I back this request. FAR's analysis tools and its Flight Assistance are as important to me, if not more so, than its aerodynamic model. Designing a plane without the analysis tools is like designing a rocket without KER.

AeroGUI will give you some of the in-flight stuff. The new stock aero isn't as realistic as OldFAR, and I've found it usually suffices to put the CoL behind the CoM. I made a flying wing with no vertical fins in stock and it was controllable without SAS.

[NathanKell]

What AeroGUI will not give you, however, is any kind of stability determination in the editor; recall that in stock CoL is computed only for wings, and does not take drag into account (i.e. is not CoP). That means that you have literally no way of knowing (aside from personal expertise) whether your wingless rocket is stable, or whether a plane with lots of draggy parts and few wings is. :\

[etheoma]

Ah! I've kept trying to run the temporary voxelAeroPort build, but missed that I needed the Modular Flight Integrator as well. That said, now that I've got the "beta" working, everything flies like a brick. Literally every design, stock or no, shoots off the runway and into the sea. Also, all the FAR analysis tools, like Display Debug Voxels etc. just returns this in the log:

[Exception]: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

Got that before putting the MFI in there as well, though, so I've propably messed up trying else to get this to work. Or, you know, it's just not finished yet, and I'll be better off waiting for ferram4 to work his magic.

You need to install Module Manager FAR wont lunch properly without it, the main package that Ferram ships it in comes with it but github is a open source development platform so they kinda expect you to read the prerequisites at least.

if you haven't downloaded it your self you need to download it and put it in the game data folder...

Just the ModuleManager.2.6.2.dll 2.0.3 up I think is fine but your best off going for the most recent version.

Although don't try and use DR and FAR together for the moment, I think they have it so one will disable the other for the moment anyway to stop people making the game completely s*** the bed when installing the two... This is for idiots like me who forget Ferram's and sarbian's words on the current incompatibility.

Edit; its module manager 2.0.5 but if you go to the module manager page on this site you the most recent 2.6.2 is what you will get anyway so it doesn't really matter, although the instructions say 2.0.5 I'm not sure it will work any longer as the patch notes say upgraded to MM 2.5.13 Again not really all that relevant but if your running an earlier version than that, then that will be why its not loading initializing properly.

Edited May 2, 2015 by etheoma

[ss8913]

So I got FAR-VoxelAero working in 1.0 -- my only problem now is I can't find the airspeed settings.. I like showing speed in IAS not m/s (I'm a pilot... habits... indicated airspeed is important for calculating Vne, etc)... where is that? It was in the old one and was one of my favorite features

[camlost]

ferram @ co, you might want to play-test nuFAR with AJE to figure out drag constant. A test version of AJE is in my repo. While there's no such problem with stock engines because they're still OP, I find breaking sound barrier quite difficult.

[Spooks]

i tested FAR and AJE in new ksp install and works realy good alote better then stock i tink alote lass lift and engines less op keep up the good work

[Emilio]

I guess I did not phrase it 100% concisely, I meant variation on the cross-section area, like having a goo container on the outside of the ship.

If you cut the ship in half on the YZ axis you get an area, that is the area I am talking about.

So yeah, the fixed landing gears were not made for supersonic aircraft, unless you clip them a lot, in which case the mobile one would be pretty good, just like supersonic cars wheels.

This is well worth a more in depth explanation.

Ah, I understand better. Moving parts are fine, the problem is that the cross section has to increase smoothly for supersonic flight, is that right ?

[blu3wolf]

thats basically it.

[tetryds]

Ah, I understand better. Moving parts are fine, the problem is that the cross section has to increase smoothly for supersonic flight, is that right ?

If by "increase" you mean that the variation of every adjacent slice (cross-sectional area) must vary smoothly (second derivative), then yes that is right.

It's kinda confusing because "vary" does not mean vary in time, but actually means variation within the next discrete slice of the craft, but I guess you got it.

@ss8913: I heard it's broken, I guess we just have to wait for it.

[Jovus]

Speaking of variation of outline, does the new system take into account the shape of undeployed landing gear? I hope not. In real aircraft landing gear actually fold right into the body of the craft so that there is no break or bump in the outline, but in KSP we don't have that choice, and even undeployed landing gear make a profile change.