ferram4

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

Recommended Posts

Just now, Halo305sparts said:

Can anyone confirm if FAR is compatible with the 1.1 update?

It's a prerelease with a lot of breaking changes.  If you're just trying to play, as opposed to find bugs or updating mods, the prerelease probably isn't for you anyway.

FAR will be compatible when ferram4 says it is.  Not before.  And if I had to guess, I'd say that it will be after the real 1.1 release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Halo305sparts said:

Can anyone confirm if FAR is compatible with the 1.1 update?

It isn't and hopefully won't be. The pre release is for modders to prep for the real release not for end users. :)

 

I am sure when 1.1 actually release FAR will be compatible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2016 at 4:01 PM, Motokid600 said:

Yea thank you I'm going to have to post pics because I don't fully understand the intricacies of those graphs. I kinda understand area ruling and I'm really good at making very fast super sonic planes, but heavy cargo jets is a different monster for me. All I know with the data readouts is.. red is bad. Green good, lol. I have looked at real pictures, but that's partly where I get confused. How is it real planes have their flaps on the rear of their wings? Mine are on the middle where the CoM is... hm. Might be that is the issue. To the repo it is.

I've heard that there's problems with the B9 control surfaces acting as brakes/flaps currently (in 1.0.5) Not 100% sure if this is still true.  All of my cargo planes use the stock AIRBRAKES as brakes, and the "Big S elevon 2" as flaps.  Usually tweakscaled to between 150-400% size.  you generally want the flaps right around the CoM.  If you put them too far behind, they act as elevators and force the nose down and you do not want that.  If you use the Big S wings tweakscaled to 400% you can make a glide-able 700t cargo plane with a stall speed below 250kts EAS... far lower if you remove a few hundred tons of weight of course :)

the procedural wings are nice but.. the Big S wings are much simpler to use, are super strong (at least with KJR) and are super effective.  My entire space program is SSTO craft now using these wings and control surfaces, and there's pretty much no mission unaccomplishable with these basic design principles and parts.  (to be fair I'm also using KSPIE, so I'm running antimatter hybrid thermal jets/rockets with hydrazine ejection mass, so that also helps a lot :) ).

And of course it all works with FAR.  I don't even test anything *without* FAR.  I'm not opting in to the beta either, if FAR is not available.  I will wait for the release.  Like some kind of adult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, ss8913 said:

I've heard that there's problems with the B9 control surfaces acting as brakes/flaps currently (in 1.0.5) Not 100% sure if this is still true.  All of my cargo planes use the stock AIRBRAKES as brakes, and the "Big S elevon 2" as flaps.  Usually tweakscaled to between 150-400% size.  you generally want the flaps right around the CoM.  If you put them too far behind, they act as elevators and force the nose down and you do not want that.  If you use the Big S wings tweakscaled to 400% you can make a glide-able 700t cargo plane with a stall speed below 250kts EAS... far lower if you remove a few hundred tons of weight of course :)

the procedural wings are nice but.. the Big S wings are much simpler to use, are super strong (at least with KJR) and are super effective.  My entire space program is SSTO craft now using these wings and control surfaces, and there's pretty much no mission unaccomplishable with these basic design principles and parts.  (to be fair I'm also using KSPIE, so I'm running antimatter hybrid thermal jets/rockets with hydrazine ejection mass, so that also helps a lot :) ).

And of course it all works with FAR.  I don't even test anything *without* FAR.  I'm not opting in to the beta either, if FAR is not available.  I will wait for the release.  Like some kind of adult.

I cannot believe I never thought of Tweakscale.... why.. didn't I think of Tweakscale. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Halo305sparts said:

Can anyone confirm if FAR is compatible with the 1.1 update?

@Halo305sparts I tried this with 1.1 last night with the x64 dll fixer (which allows FAR to work on x64). While I had great success using FAR with 1.05 x64 on Windows. I was not able to get it working on 1.1. Therefore best thing to do is give @ferram4 time to update this when he is ready. We all love this mod but it is important to remember @ferram4 does this in his own time for no money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, oversoul said:

The source code is on github, so anyone with the tools and the talent can modernize it.

and it's licensed under GPL so you can release your own version (has to be also under GPL)

 

I do suggest that then the name be changed to differentiate from the original.

Edited by ratchet freak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And likely in the process break tons of things out of ignorance of how FAR works, as is common when people rush to release "fixes" of open source mods because they're impatient.

You know, for a bunch of people looking at the source code, you're all really terrible at reading the branches that are there.  Maybe one of them is relevant to what you're after.  Maybe it works when you grab all the other updated dependencies.  Maybe it doesn't, and I'm just trolling.  Who knows?  All I know is there's no support for it and you're on your own for putting it together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be some of the 1.1 FAR updates supporting x64 bit architecture? Or will it disable itself like now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Toonu said:

Will be some of the 1.1 FAR updates supporting x64 bit architecture? Or will it disable itself like now?

It's not checked now.  Win64 builds of KSP are now supported by Squad, and all indications are that they are now stable, so it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-04-04 at 2:46 PM, ferram4 said:

And likely in the process break tons of things out of ignorance of how FAR works, as is common when people rush to release "fixes" of open source mods because they're impatient.

You know, for a bunch of people looking at the source code, you're all really terrible at reading the branches that are there.  Maybe one of them is relevant to what you're after.  Maybe it works when you grab all the other updated dependencies.  Maybe it doesn't, and I'm just trolling.  Who knows?  All I know is there's no support for it and you're on your own for putting it together.

Some nice additions there, including the commented-out code. *cough cough* https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/compare/KSP_update 

Edit: this

- string msg = String.Format("[{0:D2}:{1:D2}:{2:D2}] {3} failed due to aerodynamic stresses.", FlightLogger.met_hours, FlightLogger.met_mins, FlightLogger.met_secs, part.partInfo.title);
+ string msg = String.Format("[{0}] {1} failed due to aerodynamic stresses.", KSPUtil.PrintTimeStamp(FlightLogger.met), part.partInfo.title);
   
   

is actually turning out to be one of my favourite changes thus far.

Edited by ola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I'm having some troubles with this mod, suddenly it stop working: In some mission, the atmosphere doesn't generate drag during launch and during reentry (with catastrophic consequence like hit the ground at about 9km/s) with FAR displaying zeros in the flight data. The weird thing is that the heat is still generating even without drag.... o.O 

I had to interrupt two carrier because of this problem, is it a known bug? I'm using RSS with Realism Overhaul 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Darth Batzl said:

Hi, I'm having some troubles with this mod, suddenly it stop working: In some mission, the atmosphere doesn't generate drag during launch and during reentry (with catastrophic consequence like hit the ground at about 9km/s) with FAR displaying zeros in the flight data. The weird thing is that the heat is still generating even without drag.... o.O 

I had to interrupt two carrier because of this problem, is it a known bug? I'm using RSS with Realism Overhaul 

it's a known event that no-one seems to be able to reliably reproduce. If you can reproduce it then detail exactly how you did it (include every single detail and the logs) so ferram can find what exactly goes wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2016 at 3:38 AM, ratchet freak said:

it's a known event that no-one seems to be able to reliably reproduce. If you can reproduce it then detail exactly how you did it (include every single detail and the logs) so ferram can find what exactly goes wrong.

I've had this happen to me after docking and undocking in space.. I go to land and.. THE AIR IS TURNED OFF.  Several mods have this problem - the only one that reliably reproduces it every time is RPM.  So after undocking, go IVA.  If your RPM screens are all gray and broken, you're... in trouble.  Fortunately fixing this is as easy as a quicksave/quickload (F5/F9).  Fixes it every time, at least for me (1.0.5 32-bit Windows version).  Not sure what's CAUSING the problem in your case, but the solution may in fact be the same.  F5/F9 before re-entry, see if that helps.  Even if it doesn't, you can now exit the game, reload it, push ESC -> Load save (at KSC), and load 'quicksave' and now you're fully reinitialized and ready to try the entry again with working air. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2016 at 4:10 PM, Svm420 said:

The pre release is for modders to prep for the real release not for end users. :)

The 1.1 pre-release is actually for crowd sourced bug hunting, some modders with access to the pre-release are using this time to get ready but that isn't the stated purpose.  Pretty brilliant on Squad's part, even if only 1% of the people with access contribute you get hundreds of hours of unpaid QA effort every week by workers enthusiastically hunting bugs and happy to be helping.

I'd like to add that with the twenty-ish hours I've managed to peal out of my current schedule for testing the pre-release, @ferram4 your mod is no less needed.  This may be just a pre-release and not an accurate representation of the final product but stock flight physics feel just as broken as 1.05.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rik said:

The 1.1 pre-release is actually for crowd sourced bug hunting, some modders with access to the pre-release are using this time to get ready but that isn't the stated purpose.  Pretty brilliant on Squad's part, even if only 1% of the people with access contribute you get hundreds of hours of unpaid QA effort every week by workers enthusiastically hunting bugs and happy to be helping.

I'd like to add that with the twenty-ish hours I've managed to peal out of my current schedule for testing the pre-release, @ferram4 your mod is no less needed.  This may be just a pre-release and not an accurate representation of the final product but stock flight physics feel just as broken as 1.05.

I'll just leave this here.  Sounds a bit like one purpose is to allow modders more time to get ready.

Quote

The nature and extent of the changes in the update mean that many plugins and add-ons will require refactoring, updating and at the very least a recompile. Of course modders cannot do this overnight and on the flick of a switch, especially with an update of this scope. Typically a select group of particularly KSP-savvy modders would be given access to the new update to help us find bugs, but the extent of the changes this time around is such that we feel we should open it up to everyone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, goldenpsp said:

I'll just leave this here.  Sounds a bit like one purpose is to allow modders more time to get ready.

 

First thanks I was looking to quote that :) saved me some time. Next even if it wasn't no where does it say end users should ask there favorite modders to update so they can continue to play regularly. Go figure ;). I would also think modders are more than capable of deciding if they need end users to test their mod in the prerelease. So I don't see any need for anyone to ask any modder if they will update. I also think most modders are aware of the users who provide useful feedback and not just noise and seeing those noise generators asking for an update for the prerelease only further proves their not so subtle intentions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the correction but I didn't ask for an update.  This is an amazing mod I simply stated it doesn't appear to be any less needed once 1.1 comes out, stock aero in the pre-release feels just as off as 1.05.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Rik said:

Thanks for the correction but I didn't ask for an update.  This is an amazing mod I simply stated it doesn't appear to be any less needed once 1.1 comes out, stock aero in the pre-release feels just as off as 1.05.

Well thank goodness for your post, so you hear that Ferram? Rik here is giving the go ahead for an update say it is still needed I know you were waiting on bated breath for the go ahead. Lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this turning into an argument? Ease off on the grouchiness, please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Vanamonde said:

How is this turning into an argument? Ease off on the grouchiness, please. 

Agreed. We all like FAR, and there's no reason to expect it won't update, or that Ferram4 isn't already working on said update. Also, keep in mind that Ferram4 is an unpaid game modder, and is not under any obligation to update on a reasonable schedule or at all. In any case, 1.1 isn't officially out yet, so Ferram4 would probably be wise waiting for the release to avoid the hideous amounts of bug reports that come from releasing mods for a buggy, constantly evolving prerelease.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, can you help me out with a basic plane design? Something's not right at all here. I've rarely used FAR before, and only for rockets really, and it seems like for planes many things are very different.

For example here I have a plane, and you can see in the first zoomed-in screenshot that the CoL is lower than the CoM, but I can't understand why. I've already moved my wings to the very top, but that didn't help very much at all, while in stock that would have raised the CoL significantly, so I'm confused what I'm supposed to do in FAR to get the same result. Raising the elevators to the top of the tailfin doesn't produce much change in the CoL either.

The CoM is a bit high because of those massive gears on the wings, but I have no where else to place them, so I'm trying to find a way to lift the CoL.

w3zTCpJ.jpg

0cZk5FK.jpg

Na2Hb3O.jpg

Edited by guitarxe
fix links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With FAR the CoL is shown as close to directly behind the CoM as possible.  The vertical component of the CoL indicator has never had any meaning for forward flight, so FAR removed it to make it easier to get the rest of the meaning out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.