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

[ferram4]

Flap setting should be handled same as any other setting on the part, it uses the same method as anything else.

Flap setting values can be read off by right-clicking the flap.

They're somewhere between plain flaps and single-slotted flaps in performance.

[Alshain]

My bad. I thought that flaps save their last settings because they started as lowered-2 by default.

About indicator: may it's a good idea to add another button to FAR panel - "Flaps"?

With graphical and numeric setting indication and 2 buttons "Rise" and "Lower", affecting all control surfaces with "flaps" flag enabled?

2 is the default because that is take off. You want extra lift to get off the runway, once you start to climb you want a bit less to reduce drag, and once your speed gets up you don't need them at all till you land when you want them on full so you can touch down at the slowest possible speed. At least I think that is how it goes.

[Dr. Death]

Good luck with getting help with that here. I think the general consensus is that if you aren't experienced enough to figure it out for yourself you shouldn't be using a 64 bit version.

How do they relate? i use the 64-bit version because KSP always crashes due to the lack of ram, i dont need to know how to recompile a mod to be able to play KSP 64-bit

There's a thread with unofficial builds somewhere. I don't remember what it was called though.

Yes, there WAS a thread for 64-bit compatible FAR and NEAR, but they are not up to date. And with Up to date i dont mean "its 1 or 2 relases late", i mean "its for 0.25"

[taniwha]

How do they relate? i use the 64-bit version because KSP always crashes due to the lack of ram, i dont need to know how to recompile a mod to be able to play KSP 64-bit

Simple: because while 32-bit Windows KSP crashes due to running out of memory, 64-bit Windows KSP crashes randomly for no apparent reason, breaks un-modded career mode (KSC looks like it's fully upgraded, but is not and cannot be upgraded) and many other mysterious issues. Thus very few modders support 64-bit Windows KSP, and of those that do, very few have major mods.

Essentially, you have to be able to modify and compile the mod yourself because when things go wrong, the only place you will be able to get support is yourself because no modder wants to waste time trying to support a broken platform.

Again, your choices are to build FAR yourself or to install Linux: 64-bit Linux KSP is supported. Or, of course, you could reduce your memory usage and use 32-bit Windows KSP.

[tetryds]

This w64 talk will not lead anywhere, ferram4 stated more times than I can count with all my fingers the reasons for that and what can you do about it.

The knowledge required to recompile a mod is equivalent to the one you need to make a proper bug report, if you can't do one of them it's very likely that you cannot do the other.

So, either pick the redistributed mod version or remove the lock, but that is not going to happen otherwise until the version is stable enough for it.

You can be as mad about it as you want, but it's not going to happen until w64 is stable enough, and this counts for all mods which block themselves on it, not just FAR.

Asking for it over and over even starts to sound like trolling at this point.

[Camacha]

How do they relate? i use the 64-bit version because KSP always crashes due to the lack of ram, i dont need to know how to recompile a mod to be able to play KSP 64-bit

Use a texture reducing mod and/or OpenGL mode. If that still is not enough you might have too many mods Long story short that is a realistic quick way of getting what you want, as playing under windows with KSP 64-bit and popular mods is not going to happen for a while. Linux is your other best bet.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Camacha

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

I really gotta say, this mod and KIDS have improved this game so much, I can't even play without them anymore. Thanks ferram, keep up the good work.

[LameLefty]

Let me Ditto what RobotsAndSpaceships said - I first started messing around FAR around 0.21 or 0.22, mostly with regard to spaceplanes. Tonight I made my first Eve atmospheric entry with FAR - this is the easiest thing in the entire stock game. Just point your butt into the wind and pop a few parachutes. Well, not with FAR. I had to make about half a dozen entries, with a few different entry profiles and finally using the FAR stability assist controls for pitch and yaw, in order to make a long, slow entry that didn't rip my otherwise very-sturdy lander to tiny exploding bits. And then what a rush it was to finally get past MaxQ and pop those chutes - whew!

We don't say it often or loudly enough: thanks, Ferram.

[Dr. Death]

Good luck with getting help with that here. I think the general consensus is that if you aren't experienced enough to figure it out for yourself you shouldn't be using a 64 bit version.

Simple: because while 32-bit Windows KSP crashes due to running out of memory, 64-bit Windows KSP crashes randomly for no apparent reason, breaks un-modded career mode (KSC looks like it's fully upgraded, but is not and cannot be upgraded) and many other mysterious issues. Thus very few modders support 64-bit Windows KSP, and of those that do, very few have major mods.

Essentially, you have to be able to modify and compile the mod yourself because when things go wrong, the only place you will be able to get support is yourself because no modder wants to waste time trying to support a broken platform.

Again, your choices are to build FAR yourself or to install Linux: 64-bit Linux KSP is supported. Or, of course, you could reduce your memory usage and use 32-bit Windows KSP.

Well, i am part of that percentage of people that 64-bit KSP has absolutely 0 problems. Its not something unknown, for some reason like around 1/3 of people has no problems at all with the 64-bit KSP up to the point in wich some say it runs better than the standar 84-bit version.

- - - Updated - - -

Good luck with getting help with that here. I think the general consensus is that if you aren't experienced enough to figure it out for yourself you shouldn't be using a 64 bit version.

This w64 talk will not lead anywhere, ferram4 stated more times than I can count with all my fingers the reasons for that and what can you do about it.

The knowledge required to recompile a mod is equivalent to the one you need to make a proper bug report, if you can't do one of them it's very likely that you cannot do the other.

So, either pick the redistributed mod version or remove the lock, but that is not going to happen otherwise until the version is stable enough for it.

You can be as mad about it as you want, but it's not going to happen until w64 is stable enough, and this counts for all mods which block themselves on it, not just FAR.

Asking for it over and over even starts to sound like trolling at this point.

Would it be as easy as just copypaste a text file i would gladly take my leave and never return to complain about it again. I dont doubt that ferram has his own reasons to block out his mod from 64-bit KSP. However i cannot seem to find anywhere telling me at least the most basic thing like how to recompile a mod. I even searched but again, it seems its not explained anywhere.

[blowfish]

Would it be as easy as just copypaste a text file i would gladly take my leave and never return to complain about it again. I dont doubt that ferram has his own reasons to block out his mod from 64-bit KSP. However i cannot seem to find anywhere telling me at least the most basic thing like how to recompile a mod. I even searched but again, it seems its not explained anywhere.

I can walk you through it if you want. Start by installing Visual Studio.

[Camacha]

However i cannot seem to find anywhere telling me at least the most basic thing like how to recompile a mod. I even searched but again, it seems its not explained anywhere.

That is because it is assumed that you know very well what you are doing if you are going to mess with x64. Otherwise it would just result in people getting into stuff they do not understand and subsequently complaining about the problems they encounter here.

[blowfish]

That is because it is assumed that you know very well what you are doing if you are going to mess with x64. Otherwise it would just result in people getting into stuff they do not understand and subsequently complaining about the problems they encounter here.

Ehh, there are other reasons someone might want to try and recompile a plugin and it really isn't documented very well.

[Camacha]

Ehh, there are other reasons someone might want to try and recompile a plugin and it really isn't documented very well.

That might very well be because most reasons pertain advanced user cases too Besides, people are already spending massive amounts of their own time developing great mods, so I can imagine they are not keen on doing extra boring work - which writing documentation often is.

[BudgetHedgehog]

However i cannot seem to find anywhere telling me at least the most basic thing like how to recompile a mod. I even searched but again, it seems its not explained anywhere.

General tutorial for removing WIN64 KSP Denial of access code from mods.

[*Aqua*]

@ferram4

Could you add an action for control surfaces which allows to enable or disable them? I always think it's silly that they move in space.

I usually design my space planes so that I can switch between atmospheric and space operations using an AG. It would be nice to toogle control surfaces too.

I propose three actions:

• Disable control surface
  This action will move the control surface into it's default position.
  It won't react to human, SAS and FAR flight assistance inputs anymore. It will remember it's state (current flaps level, deployed as spoiler or not).
  
• Enable control surface
  This action will re-enable the control surface again.
  
• Toogle control surface
  Switches between enabled and disabled state.
  

[taniwha]

Well, i am part of that percentage of people that 64-bit KSP has absolutely 0 problems. Its not something unknown, for some reason like around 1/3 of people has no problems at all with the 64-bit KSP up to the point in wich some say it runs better than the standar 84-bit version.

Nobody believes that line any more. Even if there is some truth to it (highly unlikely, stock 64-bit Windows KSP is broken, even for Squad, and mods, any mods, are known to make it worse), nobody cares. Whine about it all you want, all you will achieve is making enemies (ie, people unsympathetic to your plight).

[ferram4]

@Dr. Death: Yes, yes, you somehow have a magical win64 install that has no issues at all. The game doesn't crash randomly, it doesn't have graphics glitches, and career mode isn't broken. I've heard it all before, and I know it's a lie. The only people who have ever come out saying that win64 works fine are the few that decided they had to start showing up in modder's threads to give them hell for trying to keep inaccurate bug reports of stock behavior from burying things that can actually be fixed and to keep the insults, harassment, and demands that we fix someone else's code to a minimum.

Now, I have considered unlocking for win64, since a large number of people are aware that it's broken now, but I'm not going to. Simple reason is that people have gone and demanded, demanded, demanded, as if they paid me for a product rather than getting something for free. They've insulted and thrown harassment at modders, because of course, maybe if you throw hell at the guy long enough he'll crack. At this point, "we don't appease trolls and entitled jerks," has been added to the list of reasons why win64 is still locked. It's not getting unlocked for a long, long time, and you are not doing anything right now to make it happen sooner.

@*Aqua*: They automatically do that. In vacuum, control surfaces will not deflect from control inputs. Flaps, however, will still deflect so there is time to put everything in the right positions for reentry.

[*Aqua*]

They already do that? I didn't realize.

[Forty21112]

Uhh, does anyone know how to fix a black button on where FAR should be?

Screenie will tell you more.

http://imgur.com/UenOG1S

[tetryds]

Uhh, does anyone know how to fix a black button on where FAR should be?

Screenie will tell you more.

http://imgur.com/UenOG1S

I guess that means you have to delete your FAR folder, download and install it again.

[Forty21112]

Tried that two times and attempted a third one with a newly downloaded FAR from Kerbal stuff, and downloaded a new one yet again and changed modes to career.

The kicker? It didn't work.

[kcs123]

@Forty21112, are you using Active Texture Management ? If you do, try to use "basic" version, I got similar issues with agressive version of ATM.

Icon was purple in my case, but I was able to click on icon and open FAR gui.

[LameLefty]

Tried that two times and attempted a third one with a newly downloaded FAR from Kerbal stuff, and downloaded a new one yet again and changed modes to career.

The kicker? It didn't work.

Check to make sure you have the FerramAerospaceResearch.cfg ATM configuration file placed into the right folder with the FAR icons; in my case, I had to set both compression options to "false" to get ATM to stop screwing up my icons (MechJeb, FAR, Trajectories, Chatterer, SCANsat ...)

[Forty21112]

Check to make sure you have the FerramAerospaceResearch.cfg ATM configuration file placed into the right folder with the FAR icons; in my case, I had to set both compression options to "false" to get ATM to stop screwing up my icons (MechJeb, FAR, Trajectories, Chatterer, SCANsat ...)

Okay....? I don't have a config file for FAR in the ATM folder. What then?

[Rebelgamer]

There's one over in the ATM thread, though you may need to dig back a few pages to find it.