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

[p1t1o]

I'm not, but I don't trust anything on this toaster.

Dude I think you can turn it off while playing KSP...

[Camacha]

Dude I think you can turn it off while playing KSP...

I would personally not feel comfortable with doing something like that. The chances are small, but not zero that something will use the gap in security to gain a foothold. I have seen computers where just that happened.

Security applications can be a pain in the bum, but they are really necessary. I would advise not to fiddle with them for trivial reasons.

[Diazo]

Okay, I have an oddity to bring to your attention, I do not believe it is serious enough to call a bug.

In the VAB when a part is placed down the following message enters into the log a few times, usually twice but sometimes more often:

Cannot find event '-859566458'

And then when flight mode starts, the same message is pasted a few times for each part on the vessel. Again, usually twice per part but there is some variation.

All the other expected messages show up about FAR applying it's aerodynamics so I do not believe this is anything that affects gameplay, it's just these odd lines in the log.

I did a search to see if this has come up previously, but the search found nothing so I'm mentioning it so you are aware.

D.

[theonegalen]

If you unplug from the internet / disable your wireless radio on the computer while you turn off your security software, you should be safe. Best firewall in the world is not to be connected.

[ferram4]

@Diazo: Aware of that, though I'm not exactly sure what is causing it to be honest.

[Kalista]

I'm Having an issue with the menu in the assembly buildings not showing up on 9.6.3 . I have attempted to reinstall the mod more than once but to no avail. Switching back to the last stable version for .21 brought the menu back up though.

[ferram4]

Have you tried the solution in the FAQ? Delete config.xml and then run KSP?

[Kalista]

Have you tried the solution in the FAQ? Delete config.xml and then run KSP?

No such file in that folder exists for me in the latest version only file there was FAR.cfg and attempting to delete that still didn't bring up any menu. I am getting the one inflight just no menu in the assembly buildings.

edit: This is pretty much what I had to do to get my menus back. Loaded up 9.6.2 and got it to create the config.xml file. Then uninstalled the mod but saved config.xml then reinstalled 9.6.3. and put the file in the proper folder. Not sure why 9.6.3 was creating the wrong file in that folder for me but i got it atleast fixed for now.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Kalista

[BubbaWilkins]

I would personally not feel comfortable with doing something like that. The chances are small, but not zero that something will use the gap in security to gain a foothold. I have seen computers where just that happened.

Security applications can be a pain in the bum, but they are really necessary. I would advise not to fiddle with them for trivial reasons.

Most "security" applications provide little to no actual security. They tend to hog resources and otherwise bog down systems in much the same manner that the TSA has made air travel tedious. They rarely stop any actual infections and usually the first symptom of one is that your "security" app has been disabled. At that point, most of them are incapable of removing said infection without some additional assistance from the user in the first place.

In short, unless you are actively surfing the web or otherwise connected to the internet, you can disable any security app with no worries.

Ferram:

How does a vertical winglet on the end of a wing effect things?

[Raven Coldheart]

@Bubba: Ferram postet this on the previous page:

@Sochin: Wingtips are more affected by the trailing vortex system than the wing roots are, and that vortex system is where the majority of drag comes from. Winglets increase the lift to drag ratio by (1) taking advantage of the change in the local velocity vector to create a small lift force that is oriented such that it cancels a small portion of the wing's drag and (2) increasing the span of the wing so that while the winglet part suffers from more drag than the rest of the wing parts, the aggregate makes less drag.

[Camacha]

If you unplug from the internet / disable your wireless radio on the computer while you turn off your security software, you should be safe. Best firewall in the world is not to be connected.

This is all starting to get a bit offtopic, but it is sort of important, so...

What you are saying is true, but only if your computer is never connected to the outside world. That means no internet, memory sticks and any other carrier of information. It simply is not very realistic to work like that and certainly is not the case here, as the internet connection is only temporarily disabled.

Temporarily disabling your security software, even with the internet disabled, gives malicious software the chance to gain a foothold where it did not have one before. There is software that is not able to penetrate a system fully, but waits for opportunities like this. It could be found on one of your memory sticks, CD's or already be partially nestled in your system without it being able to fully infect it - until you disable your firewall and/or antivirus software. Some software is capable of independently retrieving information from a computer that was never connected to the internet by using memory sticks and similar channels to get the stuff to the outside world.

Temporarily disabling your antivirus software, even without an internet connection, is just asking for trouble. Disable anything and everything, except critical software that protects you.

Most "security" applications provide little to no actual security. They tend to hog resources and otherwise bog down systems in much the same manner that the TSA has made air travel tedious. They rarely stop any actual infections and usually the first symptom of one is that your "security" app has been disabled. At that point, most of them are incapable of removing said infection without some additional assistance from the user in the first place.

In short, unless you are actively surfing the web or otherwise connected to the internet, you can disable any security app with no worries.

That is a highly personal and controversial point of view and, to be honest, has been proven to be wrong. If you have these experiences with security software you should look for better software or review your browsing habits. No security is water tight, but decent software certainly does help a lot, especially when combined with proper computer maintanance and management and using your common sense when browsing the web (ie. staying away from dubious websites). Just as in real life, the chances of falling victim to crime are higher in bad virtual neighborhoods.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Camacha

[Surefoot]

Hi Ferram, first i have to say thank you for your awesome work. It has totally redefined what KSP is for me, and now it brought me over the 170 hours mark.

Latest craze for me was to build a Laythe SSTO, with a docking port for refuel. I am using B9 and procedural wings there. Recounting my experiences with it:

In 0.21 i found out that a design (very) loosely based on F-18 with a bit more swept wings and wingtip "winglets" was working very well. Quite stable (ignoring the natural dutch roll tendency if i try to yaw excessively), good AoA, a bit twitchy but handled like the above mentioned jet fighter. Using twin Sabre's as propulsion.

0.22 comes with the new SAS, and here my problems start: this kind of design is a bit unstable by definition, in 0.21 SAS had no problem handling the very slight movements necessary to make it fly straight. In 0.22 the SAS seems to overshoot by quite a bit.. shaking and wobbling nonstop, sometimes even totally losing control (went into a spiral spin at mach 5 with a prototype: nasty).

What i found out is my designs had a huge roll unstability. This is the roll-unstable design:

I got an almost similar design on which i added negative dihedral on wings (like on jet fighters) which solved the roll unstability. Wondering why i did a quick search which produced this:

http://www.b2streamlines.com/EffectiveDihedral.pdf

Tried to add some 45° stabilizers (very small winglets under the fuselage) with no success. Maybe the positioning was not good (tried a forward position, behind the cockpit).

Here on this screenshot you can see the negative dihedral (got vertical tails on this design, not sure it helps compared to the tilted tails of my other design):

I still got unstable flight at low speeds, but in supersonic mode i can throw the plane around mostly safely (did a huge bank turn at mach 3.2, went perfectly well with not even a minor stall, and this with 100% pitch input). The low speed unstability is a problem for landings, though, so i have to find a solution there. Variable geometry wings are out (no mod to allow that properly, yet).

Thinking of going to diamond-shaped wings with elevons, not sure about mach tuck though without independant mobile surfaces ?

There, my thoughts so far, here are pics of my first trip to Jool with the vertical tail fin design:

Refuel stop in LKO before the big jump to Jool

Aerobraking. Had to transfer fuel to the front tank for stability

I'll post more designs and thoughts if you want. I am having a blast with that mod. I just need more procedural parts

[ferram4]

Your vertical tails are a little close together; one of the common causes of roll instability is actually a lack of sufficient yaw stability: this is because lower yaw stability allows more sideslip; more sideslip increases sweep on one wing and decreases it on another; more-swept wing makes less lift than less-swept wing; plane rolls like crazy. Another possibility is just unequal flexing in the wings, which is caused by a known joint bug; make sure that the parts are strutted to each other well and to the fuselage well to counteract that. If the roll instability isn't prominent in supersonic flight, try making the plane more pitch-stable and see if that counteracts the roll problems; it might just be pitch instability combined with wing flexing.

Consider placing an empty structural fuselage piece in front of your fuel tanks; this will help make the plane more stable as fuel burns by adding more dry mass in front of the fuel tanks, which will help offset the high dry mass at the back due to the SABREs. Alternatively, consider mounting the engines at the wing tips / wing root, similar to the Skylon designs; this will help balance fuel flow, which will prevent you from having to transfer fuel forward during absurd aerobraking.

[Surefoot]

Thanks a lot. The first screenshot shows my revised design: the wing sweep is higher, and the tails are tilted outwards (does that increase separation at all, the root is still around the same spot). Pitch instability is an interesting way i did not explore fully yet: maybe adding canards like on my earlier design (the one with the close vertical tails) would solve the issue ? Sideslip i noticed on my first tests, adding the winglets removed a lot of it, mach 3+ flight data show a sideslip angle of around -0.1° (used to have around 2° of sideslip angle without them). My designs are fully strutted especially the mid-rear part that is under a lot of stress during pitch manoeuvers.

One thing i noticed is the very high wing sweep make for a fantastic supersonic stability. I can do manoeuvers at full pitch without going into a stall, it keeps the AoA tight at all times, but subsonic flight is a nightmare the plane wants to go everywhere but straight (and the 0.22 SAS is completely lost there, makes the situation even worse).

I have no issue with the fuel transfer, it's totally part of the experience of flying a supersonic (and i am aiming for an optimal design, minimal weight and parts) - also the rear positioned airbrakes improve aerobraking stability (got 6 of them, 3 top side 3 under the fuselage).

OK going back to test flights - procedural wings + FAR = infinite possibilities !

Edited October 19, 2013 by Surefoot

[Raven Coldheart]

@Ferram: Is it possible to change the maximum deflection angle of wings (specifically canards) mid-flight? I want to build a high-mobile jet (Eurofighter Typhoon-style), but keep getting problems, when the maximum deflection of my canards is too high during normal flight, but during high AoA-flight I need those high defection angles, so my canards can properly function to reduce the AoA. I know, that FAR allows for limiting the deflection during flight, but I need it for specific control surfaces... In short: I want to pull of a Cobra maneuver, which i need the canards for.

Greets, Raven.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Raven Coldheart

[Surefoot]

Success. Here are the pictures of my latest prototype flight test:

Changes from my previous design are:

* Added another small LFO tank section at the front following Ferram's recommendations (also had to give some extra deltaV, previous design was VERY tight for a Laythe target and had no margin of error). Results in more pitch stability, but seems to increase mach tuck effect at transonic speeds. Still can keep control so not a biggie.

* Added front canards to increase pitch stability (as per Ferram's suggestion, and to mitigate mach tuck effects)

* Added more length to the delta front section of the wings, to increase wing surface area (used a 3rd procedural wing clipped in between)

* negative dihedral on the whole wing area (one small rotation step in the SPH, not sure about the exact angle). The net result is very good stability in most flight situations.

* Move the tail fins a bit apart and gave them a slight tilt outwards, seems it's working (thanks again Ferram !)

* Increased the span of the rear part of the main wing, to account for the increased weight and length (added tank). Increased sweep a bit too.

It handles as beautifully as the looks suggest. Roll is very sensitive (like a jet fighter basically), new v0.22 SAS is totally lost there. Deactivate SAS and the plane flies very nicely. Landed without SAS at north pole, almost lost control just before landing (i use keyboard !!), AoA at low speed must be kept tight to avoid a stall (i guess due to the highly swept wings). It also wants to dutch roll like crazy so yaw inputs have to be very subtle and progressive.. I can now throw it into a stall while supersonic, by giving it too much pitch input, i guess it's a compromise i have to live with (like the real world counter parts, so it's not surprising). Good thing is in most cases it seems to come back to stable / prograde by itself and not go into a spin.

The 3 tank sections allow for more precise fuel balancing (wish i had fuel loaded wings..).

Flight data with unstable SAS roll (but stable normal flight):

Jeb approves this spaceplane and FAR !

Now we are still missing fully retractable ladders and gear bays. And maybe a MK2 docking port section (there is a 1.25m stock part already that does this) as the B9 shielded port is still protruding quite a bit.

Quick questions: do you think that reaction wheels make any difference in flight ? I got 2 of them (one in front just behind the cockpit, one in back just before the engine twin mount) for space, wondering what are their effects at subsonic and supersonic speeds in atmosphere. Also how do oblique surfaces affect flight, i am thinking not only dihedral wings but fuselage mounted winglets ?

Also do you think it's worth giving the same angle to my control surfaces (front and back) ?

@Raven Coldheart: i almost did a cobra with this design (which now that i think of it, is not unlike the SU-27 viewed from top), went to about 60° AoA and back. I guess the front canards helped there. It was not controlled though it was a stall.. (too sudden pitch) for control you would need proper thrust vectoring.

Edited October 19, 2013 by Surefoot

[Taverius]

Nice plane!

We've got some stuff coming the new B9 version that will be useful there

wish I had fuel loaded wings.

Nobody will do them because they really don't work in stock. We tried it out for B9, but any semi-realistic and useful amount of fuel increased the mass and drag of the wing by factors like .. 4/5, which made takeoff way harder than having the same fuel in a fuselage, and then that drag decreased incredibly as you burned fuel.

Even in FAR, an insurmountable problem is fuel is STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH, so you have to put fuel lines going from the wings to the fuselage, and any wing with fuel attached to a wing with fuel needs its own fuel lines, and basically its a horrible mess.

Just fuggedboutit.

[Raven Coldheart]

@Surefoot: Well, sadly we only have minor thrust vectoring in KSP, else Stockplanes with enabled Vectoring would be way too maneuverable for beginning pilots. In reality Thrust vectoring is about +-15° (SU-30), combined with a realistic TWR of 1.1 every beginner (especially, when he/she doesn't have a clue about aerodynamics) would struggle to get their plane under control. And my dream of an realistic Eurofighter will propably never come to live, as flying an unstable aircraft without flightcomputer is a *****.

Although, my first tests with unstable aircraft seem to prove, that you can build an fly them better than conventional aircraft at high AoAs and their maneuverability in supersonic flight is better. In one of the tests, my wings tore off, as I pulled a 20+ g turn in supersonic...

[Surefoot]

@Taverius: hey thanks mate ! Looking forward to that new B9 version. What i missed there apart from a dock port equipped fuselage section and procedural control surfaces, was maybe a bit smaller stabilators. Here i used the smaller B9 stabilator, but i think it's still a bit too big for that plane (fine for the S2W variant though), and my only alternative is the R8 which is too small. And too bad for fuel loaded wings

@Raven: with the v0.21 SAS you could fly an unstable design (not TOO unstable though). v0.22 seems to be over-compensating, instead of using the derivative of the target value it uses it directly, thus applying corrections even to micro changes (such as very small roll axis changes on my plane above), CREATING unstability instead of reducing it ! Only solution until v0.23 is to deactivate SAS especially for landing and use a stick.

[Taverius]

@Surefoot: Well, sadly we only have minor thrust vectoring in KSP, else Stockplanes with enabled Vectoring would be way too maneuverable for beginning pilots. In reality Thrust vectoring is about +-15° (SU-30), combined with a realistic TWR of 1.1 every beginner (especially, when he/she doesn't have a clue about aerodynamics) would struggle to get their plane under control. And my dream of an realistic Eurofighter will propably never come to live, as flying an unstable aircraft without flightcomputer is a *****.

Although, my first tests with unstable aircraft seem to prove, that you can build an fly them better than conventional aircraft at high AoAs and their maneuverability in supersonic flight is better. In one of the tests, my wings tore off, as I pulled a 20+ g turn in supersonic...

I dunno, the B9 F119 engine has +-20 and its not very hard to fly - making the reaction non-instant goes a long way with high-gimbal jets. You can always toggle the vectoring off.

Post-stall maneuvering is another matter entirely. You need computer assistance in real life to do that kind of thing without killing yourself, and you shouldn't expect anything less in KSP. Problem is, there is no flight assistance system that treats planes properly for that kind of thing.

[MAKC]

I was thinking the other day that it would be nice to have configurable FBW for FAR.

[NathanKell]

Is it worth it to try a new JetFuel resource with ALL_VESSEL to get around that?

[Taverius]

You could try but I think a number of things related to fuel flow expect/assume it to be STACK_PRIO_SEARCH. Change it and test it out, though

[Raven Coldheart]

Post-stall maneuvering is another matter entirely. You need computer assistance in real life to do that kind of thing without killing yourself, and you shouldn't expect anything less in KSP. Problem is, there is no flight assistance system that treats planes properly for that kind of thing.

Such a flight assistance system would have to do alot of nonlinear calculations, there is a reason why planes like the Eurofighter use BIG computerhardware for those calculations.

[icecubecookie]

Hey ferram i was wondering if it was possible to have custom mixing of controls for the yaw + roll axis

like assigning 1 degree of roll for every 6 degree of yaw

using rudders were always hell due to the adverse rolling

And there is one more thing i would like to ask

im currently using the FAR v0.9.6.31 on KSP ver 0.22 and i built a stable aircraft (like really stable compared to previous sandbox aircraft i made in older versions of your awesome mod)

and somehow the aircraft just flips upwards instantly even though the Cm is stable and is nose heavy (it behaves like a super tail heavy aircraft)

is this a problem with FAR CoL display or or a conflict with firespitter?

*the parts used are the vanilla wings and only the fuselage is made from firespitter*

some images that might help

Thank you for your time:)

Edited October 19, 2013 by icecubecookie