Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

I proposed earlier that should be debug option in flight to show voxelization points in the same way as it is shown in SPH/VAB editor. With hope that it will alow us to better detect this kind of bug.

With those things that are so hard to reproduce you are never sure if you actualy fixed them or not with some code change. Every developer hate this kind of thing, but such is life of developer.

Hopefully there is a lot of people in this comunity that are willing to help, so it is just metter of time when someone will be able to provide proper reproduction steps for this bug.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not getting a voxelization debug display in flight because there's nothing to display. The voxel is destroyed within ms of it being created because it's not needed, the debug display is laggy as all hell, and all indications at this point are that that isn't the problem, because none of the reports of aero breaking have been accompanied by reports of log spam, which would happen if the voxel wasn't being built.

Given the fact that the "accepted" reproduction steps seem to be, "play a bit, it'll happen eventually" and that no one ever posts the logs right after they manage that that the true cause is probably never going to be determined; I'm just going to continue fusing with some possible errors and magically hit it and no one will ever know the true cause.

@bartekkru99: If you have matched all parameters (mass, wing area, thrust, distance to neutral point, etc.) the planes will fly nearly identically, with the exception of handling downforce. If you haven't and you've stuck to only aesthetics, you'll have trouble. If you're using mod parts that for some reason don't voxelize correctly due to how the mesh / collider is set up, you'll have trouble (and there there's not much I can do). But other than that last one, it's almost all user error; maybe look at the example FAR crafts, considering that the Firehound M is basically a slightly fat-headed Su-35 / F-18 mix.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe some of it is just me, but no matter how hard i try to replicate a real world design, It doesn't fly half as good as it does in real life or don't work at all. Also straight wing aircraft are unstable or can't even turn. I tried to make A-10 (very, VERY maneuverable aircraft) few times looking excatly like the original and it was crap. My beautifully looking F-16 replica was a crap, my F-15 was a crap, my F-22 was a crap. FAR aerodynamics only work as they should for bulk, arrow shaped design. Center of lift is often found few meters behind the wings.

EDIT: and what do you mean by "lego parts"

Do you have pics of your replicas? I would love to see them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to try the devbuild to get rid of those NRE's being spammed when going EVA. It worked on the last version of FAR ( the devbuild anyway ) So id like to give it another go. I was able to grab it from a direct link someone posted last time. This time i have to grab it off github. And i just want to make sure I got the right one. I went to the link you have in the OP for source. 'Download Zip." Which is the entire archive and just pull out the build in the GameData folder. Is that the correct dev build? Github kinda confuses me because theres nothing indicating exactly what it is im downloading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is some more information on the CoL. I once again installed a fresh copy of KSP them manually installed 0.15.2.

One odd thing I did notice was that the CoL seemed to move more or less aft depending on the engine attached. I can't tell it that's due to the size/shape of the engine or due to the amount of thrust the engine produces. Either way it seems to really move the CoL too far aft in my opinion.

Is this by design? Is there something I'm missing as to the reason the CoL moves aft?

Also. moving the wing further back moves the CoL forward which seems counter intuitive.

I have the output_log just can't figure out how to attach it here yet. :)

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=eeb784222807b23f%211167

Y2XGkED.jpgleiDM9g.jpgAtOuvzn.jpgcIL21It.jpg

Edited by Shaman
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe some of it is just me, but no matter how hard i try to replicate a real world design, It doesn't fly half as good as it does in real life or don't work at all. Also straight wing aircraft are unstable or can't even turn. I tried to make A-10 (very, VERY maneuverable aircraft) few times looking excatly like the original and it was crap. My beautifully looking F-16 replica was a crap, my F-15 was a crap, my F-22 was a crap. FAR aerodynamics only work as they should for bulk, arrow shaped design. Center of lift is often found few meters behind the wings.

EDIT: and what do you mean by "lego parts"

Your beautiful F-16 replica SHOULD have been a crap. If you replicated the location of the CoM and the actual shape of the airframe correctly (which I doubt), then you would find it immediately unstable. One of the key features of that airframes design is Relaxed Static Stability - you need the FLCS to fly the thing.

You might like to hear that when the airframe was being designed, they were not actually sure if they could build such a flight computer. As such, there was a 'backup version' of the airframe designed but not built, for the case where the FLCS didnt work. Its the same overall shape, but the wings are moved rearwards (thus shifting the CoM forwards relative the MAC).

I also wouldnt classify the A-10 as a VERY maneuverable aircraft. The F-16 is very maneuverable. The A-10's best trait that can be called maneuverability is its ability to turn in a tight radius by flying slowly (with a target strapped to it).

Edited by blu3wolf
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your beautiful F-16 replica SHOULD have been a crap. If you replicated the location of the CoM and the actual shape of the airframe correctly (which I doubt), then you would find it immediately unstable. One of the key features of that airframes design is Relaxed Static Stability - you need the FLCS to fly the thing.

You might like to hear that when the airframe was being designed, they were not actually sure if they could build such a flight computer. As such, there was a 'backup version' of the airframe designed but not built, for the case where the FLCS didnt work. Its the same overall shape, but the wings are moved rearwards (thus shifting the CoM forwards relative the MAC).

I also wouldnt classify the A-10 as a VERY maneuverable aircraft. The F-16 is very maneuverable. The A-10's best trait that can be called maneuverability is its ability to turn in a tight radius by flying slowly (with a target strapped to it).

The AoA option is here to simulate a stability-augmentation system, and succeeds in making certain unstable planes fly.

@bartekkru99,

You asked if anyone else thought FAR is broken, the answer seems not. If you want to know why your plane don't fly as you like, there's nothing to do without specific info.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The AoA option is here to simulate a stability-augmentation system, and succeeds in making certain unstable planes fly.

limiting the AoA is one part of the complex beast that makes up the F-16 FLCS. I dont think (based on how Ive seen it work thus far) that it would succeed in replicating the flying characteristics of that aircraft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shaman: Well, apparently it's because the CoL is terrible and inaccurate, because the graphs follow the proper stuff. This is why I tell people not to use the damn indicator because of how inaccurate it always ends up being. The only reason I haven't gotten rid of it yet is because if I did you'd be complaining about how there isn't a CoL indicator. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Replace the COL indicator with a text caution?

They turn it on, and get told flat out:

There is no CoL indicator.

This is not a bug.

Use the graphs.

While I suspect a large number of people would find a way to not read it, or complain anyways, I'd wager the number would be fewer than those that currently complain its not right, or would complain if its missing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone refresh my memory on how FAR identifies cargo bays? I've got a "payload bay" part that doesn't appear to be shielding its contents, so I maybe need to rename it? They're from Modular Rocket Systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can someone refresh my memory on how FAR identifies cargo bays? I've got a "payload bay" part that doesn't appear to be shielding its contents, so I maybe need to rename it? They're from Modular Rocket Systems.

With the new voxelization it doesn't need to identify cargo bays specifically. If parts inside are having aero forces applied to them then something isn't voxelizing properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
With the new voxelization it doesn't need to identify cargo bays specifically. If parts inside are having aero forces applied to them then something isn't voxelizing properly.

Yep. My bad -- I should have checked the messages. It's the Deadly Reentry stuff-in-bays-overheats-for-no-reason issue rearing its ugly head. Guess I'll be removing that for the time-being.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since I had this, so I'd like to ask a question.

Is there a way to completely remove all presence of this mod from the ingame interface, leaving just the modified aerodynamics and whatever changes it does to control surface tweakables? (i.e. controlling the deflection angle, etc, but no aerodynamic data in the panel)

With stock aero being a grossly simplified attempt at the same thing, and without half an engineer's degree's worth of aerodynamics data onscreen, I feel like I could appreciate this mod FAR better if it didn't attempt to put its physics in my face, both at design and flight time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's been a while since I had this, so I'd like to ask a question.

Is there a way to completely remove all presence of this mod from the ingame interface, leaving just the modified aerodynamics and whatever changes it does to control surface tweakables? (i.e. controlling the deflection angle, etc, but no aerodynamic data in the panel)

With stock aero being a grossly simplified attempt at the same thing, and without half an engineer's degree's worth of aerodynamics data onscreen, I feel like I could appreciate this mod FAR better if it didn't attempt to put its physics in my face, both at design and flight time.

Unless you choose to click the FAR button on the toolbar, this mod presents absolutely zero data, either in flight or in the SPH.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless you choose to click the FAR button on the toolbar, this mod presents absolutely zero data, either in flight or in the SPH.

Aha. Okay then. This hadn't used to be the case, the mod kept a status window in flight and dumped aerodynamic data into the right-click menus.

Was probably a long while ago. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is definitely bugs in the drag model. My craft kept accelerating faster and faster until eventually I crashed into kerbin. This is with stock parts...

This is with Far "ferri".

Is this the log you need?

See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92229-How-To-Get-Support-%28READ-FIRST%29 for how to find the logs that are needed.

The zero drag thing is a known bug. Unfortunately, it's hard to squash because it's transient.; it only happens occasionally. If you can find some method of reliably causing the bug to occur, then reporting that here would be helpful (but please follow the steps outlined in the link above if you do so).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a problem with stock Mk2 parts. When I tried to build a simple aircraft using Mk2 parts and viewing the cross section graph, this happens:

rqF7Gj7.jpg

It seems that the Mk2 cargo bay loses voxel, and here is the zoomed in picture:

WwKxIOK.png

I'm not an aerodynamics engineer but as far as I know voxels should form outside of the solid object, instead of inside:

x5mwqMG.jpg

I have TweakScale btw

Edited by Aghanim
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there is a problem with stock Mk2 parts. When I tried to build a simple aircraft using Mk2 parts and viewing the cross section graph, this happens:

http://i.imgur.com/rqF7Gj7.jpg

It seems that the Mk2 cargo bay loses voxel, and here is the zoomed in picture:

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

Another known (but admittedly very irritating) bug. It appears to be fixed in the dev build.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For once I am here to ask for building advice! I've been studying subsonic and transonic flight but I still don't know nearly all I want to. I have a problem with my current aircraft; even after tuckunder, coming up as high as Mach 2 (I lost pitch control at that point) it continually gains more and more of a pitch-down tendency, eventually becoming too much to handle. What could be causing that? I was under the impression the major factor in loss of pitch control was only really a problem between Mach crit and just after Mach 1?

Edit: Could it be crzyrndm's dynamic deflection? So the pitch-down tendency is staying the same, but the pitch authority allowed for my all-moving tail is getting too small to handle it?

Edited by Volt
Link to post
Share on other sites
For once I am here to ask for building advice! I've been studying subsonic and transonic flight but I still don't know nearly all I want to. I have a problem with my current aircraft; even after tuckunder, coming up as high as Mach 2 (I lost pitch control at that point) it continually gains more and more of a pitch-down tendency, eventually becoming too much to handle. What could be causing that? I was under the impression the major factor in loss of pitch control was only really a problem between Mach crit and just after Mach 1?

Repost this to the FAR design thread (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/121176-Official-FAR-Craft-Repository) and there are a bunch of people who would be happy to help you out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...