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

[Temeter]

I've one question:

How can i increase the deployment speed of elevons set to spoilers (aka airbrakes)? They seem to deploy waay to slow and i can't find a way to increase that speed.

IIRC there is an option in the FAR menu of the spaceport view.

[DaMichel]

I've one question:

How can i increase the deployment speed of elevons set to spoilers (aka airbrakes)? They seem to deploy waay to slow and i can't find a way to increase that speed.

That part of the gui is currently broken. Edit: Ninjad.

The setting should/will be in the FARDebugOptions which you access from the KSC screen.

I think it might actually show up if you install Blizzys Toolbar. If you feel adventurous you can also find CustomFARAeroData.cfg and set %ctrlSurfTimeConstantFlap to some lower value, 0.5 or so.

[SkyRex94]

That part of the gui is currently broken. Edit: Ninjad.

The setting should/will be in the FARDebugOptions which you access from the KSC screen.

http://i.imgur.com/jlunTjD.png

I think it might actually show up if you install Blizzys Toolbar. If you feel adventurous you can also find CustomFARAeroData.cfg and set %ctrlSurfTimeConstantFlap to some lower value, 0.5 or so.

Okay thanks for the quick respone. I'll try that.

I need the quicker deployment because the touchdown speed of my current design is ca. 145m/s and i'd like to slow down faster than the brakes are able to

[Wanderfound]

I'm continuing to get weird flight behaviour. Everything, even the stuff that the FAR analysis screens think is good, is pitching and rolling all over the place. It's controllable at low altitude, but gets out of hand at height.

For example, this ship: https://www.dropbox.com/s/oyidqn93lxnegqg/Kerbodyne%20Loftmaster.craft?dl=0

I could probably get that into orbit, but it'd be a fight the whole way. It won't hold a positive pitch or keep its wings level, and the higher you go the worse it gets. That despite the FAR analysis screens looking like this:

That screen is set for low supersonic at moderate altitude, a speed and height at which the plane was rapidly becoming unstable and had a strong tendency to nosedive. It was possible to continue climbing straight, but it required constant attention to roll, pitch and yaw. SAS couldn't handle it, neither could Smart A.S.S..

Although there's one spot of red on the analysis, it's nowhere near explaining the wild behaviour I was getting. I'd be happy to hear that there's just some obvious flaw in my designs that I'm missing, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Same plane, Mach sweep.

Nothing wrong with the weight balance.

FAR version 0.14.2, KSP25, Windows 32 bit.

[Temeter]

Sounds like the same thing i've been experiencing.

Btw, how did you get those shiny textures? Looks pretty cool.

[Wanderfound]

Another test. This time I had continuous uncontrollable porpoising and a determined tendency to nose-tuck unless constantly monitored. From a plane with aero readouts that look like this:

Low altitude, low speed.

High altitude, high speed.

Balanced and plenty of thrust.

Definitely something going on somewhere.

[Wanderfound]

Sounds like the same thing i've been experiencing.

Btw, how did you get those shiny textures? Looks pretty cool.

Kerbpaint: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50008-0-23-KerbPaint-Paint-layering-for-parts-%28September-23rd%29-%28Same-Old-Still-Works!%29

Check the end of the thread for the .25 update, and be sure to delete the zombie ModuleManager from the subfolder of the original app.

[Vectura]

Fun fact: all of the new elevons are always stalled, all the time according to FAR

Edited October 9, 2014 by Vectura

[Wanderfound]

Fun fact: all of the new elevons are always stalled, all the time according to FAR

Screenshot?

That seems likely to explain the behaviour I've been seeing. Also why I didn't see it on the one plane that exclusively used old surfaces...

[Vectura]

It actually says Stalled %:0 At first I thought this meant 0% controlled, stalled. It seems it probably actually means: 0% stalled, 100% working

Edit: I also noticed that the normal SAS does not like FAR. It keeps oscillating between 2 directions, usually pitch up/down

[regex]

Would it be possible to compile, for personal use (non-distribution), a version of FAR that works under x64 under the condition that I never ever ever bug you about anything that might happen from doing so, including, but not limited to, fire erupting from my computer after doing it?

Why wouldn't it be? No matter the license, if you have the source code available for something what you do with it on your own, personal computer is not affected in the least by a license. Licenses cover redistribution and protect source code. Since every mod hosted somewhere on the Kerbal network must be "source available", you can safely compile personal copies of said mods for your own use without asking, no matter the license.

[Temeter]

It actually says Stalled %:0 At first I thought this meant 0% controlled, stalled. It seems it probably actually means: 0% stalled, 100% working

Edit: I also noticed that the normal SAS does not like FAR. It keeps oscillating between 2 directions, usually pitch up/down

The SAS is an old issue. Depends on craft, though.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

Can I have a question? Will I be able to reach higher speeds with jet stages of my spaceplanes while having this mod? Or I mean will it make spaceplanes effectiver?

[StainX]

I just used a stock Kerbal X, everything on the rocket breaks as soon as it loads in. http://imgur.com/a/Da5KO (Did I add the images correctly?(If not they're at: http://imgur.com/a/Da5KO ))

Same/similar problem here! (Linux Mint 15, x64, 0.25)

Load in Vessel (Command Pod Mk1+ RT-10 SRB) -> booom

[Warning]: [Part]: PartModule ModuleAeroReentry at solidBooster, index 3: index exceeds module count as defined in cfg.
Looking for ModuleAeroReentry in other indices...
[Error]: ...no ModuleAeroReentry module found on part definition. Skipping...
[Warning]: PartModule is null.
...
[Error]: Scene::raycastClosestShape: The maximum distance must be greater than zero!
...
[Warning]: [FlightPersistence]: Vessel Untitled Space Craft not saved because it was dead.

Flight Event says that there is a structural failure on linkage between RT-10 and Pod.

Edit: This happens with FAR + Stock x64 (Same Warning/Error but without Pod going poooooof):

Edit2: Log (FAR+Stock KSPx64)

Edit3: Same Errors and Warnings in x86 without the kabooom and freaky numbers on screen, but on launchpad i get this flight Event:

[00:00:00] Joint between RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster and Command Pod MK1 failed due to aerodynamic stresses

Edit4: Aerodynamic Failures disabled (in x86):

Flickering of Surface Speed... seems to want to stick to 0.0ms!?

Edited October 9, 2014 by StainX

[ss8913]

so is the reason that none of the FAR buttons show up in my UI in 0.25, and none of my flight surfaces seem to be generating *any* lift... this is because i'm running x64 on windows? FAR worked fine in 0.24.2 x64, but it doesn't really work *at all* for me in 0.25. definitely a step backward, I have to cut way back on my mods I guess to even get 32-bit to load... crashes with OOM currently. I honestly didn't have much trouble with 0.24.2 x64 after I upgraded to 16gb of ram, but I guess they're not here to make ME happy. In 0.25 x64 i'm also not seeing any control surfaces move as a response to inputs, even though the control position indicators and thrust vectoring on the SABRE engines (B9) are showing correct movement. Not sure if that's a B9 issue or a FAR issue, but I do have the very latest B9 in there.

Or is something else wrong with my FAR install? I did a clean install of 0.25 and reapplied all my freshly-redownloaded mods to it, so I know I didn't forget to delete the old directory.. since it's not there.

[StainX]

Or is something else wrong with my FAR install? I did a clean install of 0.25 and reapplied all my freshly-redownloaded mods to it, so I know I didn't forget to delete the old directory.. since it's not there.

Note: To avoid possibly exacerbating any of the win64 KSP build's instability inherent issues, this mod will disable itself if run on a win64 build of KSP.

10char dangit!

[ss8913]

thanks, didn't see that. Ironically it was working just fine last week on my win64 install in 0.24.2.

[Senior Slaphead]

Quick question that I'm sure has been answered before but... humour me...

Does FAR model ground effect?

[Surefoot]

thanks, didn't see that. Ironically it was working just fine last week on my win64 install in 0.24.2.

As mentioned not too many posts before, 0.25 is quite broken.

Quick question that I'm sure has been answered before but... humour me...

Does FAR model ground effect?

I asked the question before and the answer was no, at the time being.

[ferram4]

@Anyone having structural failure issues on load: : Without a copy of the output_log.txt and reproduction steps, I can't help you. You will also need to verify that you have a FARAeroStress.cfg in your FAR folder in GameData, and that the CustomFARAeroStress.cfg in the same location dos not have any zeroes in it. If the former, reinstall FAR. If the latter, delete CustomFARAeroStress.cfg.

@Wanderfound: For the first one, that little bit of red explains it completely. Sideslip increases yawing motion, which is going to result in rolling and pitching tendencies. That sounds about correct.

For the second one, why are you not considering fuel burn after getting up to that velocity? Also, you've got WAY TOO MUCH dihedral on that design, and that is probably contributing to it. A lot.

I will also note that since you're not looking at the AoA Sweep for the static analysis that you actually have no idea what AoAs your plane is stable at. For the Mach 5 case, the Mw is so low that I wouldn't be surprised if it flipped sign the second you got above ~7 degrees.

[Senior Slaphead]

Cheers Surefoot.

[NoMrBond]

Why wouldn't it be? No matter the license, if you have the source code available for something what you do with it on your own, personal computer is not affected in the least by a license. Licenses cover redistribution and protect source code. Since every mod hosted somewhere on the Kerbal network must be "source available", you can safely compile personal copies of said mods for your own use without asking, no matter the license.

Asking does no harm, even if the licence would permit it. Especially considering I would be doing it for the express purpose of circumventing something the author implemented.

[Drakoflame]

so, dumb question, but uh... is there an archived version for 0.14.1? I looked in the available log that the creator provides, but the newest one that I can find is 13.3... either i'm blind, or it hasn't been logged

[Moistmonkey]

Hey just made an account to check if any one else's SP (now stock) cargo bays are shielding parts placed within. as im having trouble as some of my parts placed within are experiencing upto 15kN of drag.

[Whovian]

Anyone know where I can get 0.14.1.1? I can't find it on the "previous versions" page.