ferram4

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

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Bersagliere81 said:

Where can I find the dev builder (for game version 1.2)? I can't find any link

That's intentional: if you can't figure out how to get the dev version yourself, Ferram doesn't want you using the dev version. This helps ensure that he doesn't get needless bug reports from people who are A, using the dev version, B, don't understand how to make a decent bug report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Akira_R said:

Welp I was hoping for something simple like the right side was voxelizing weird after reattachment, I remember there being some issues way back with symmetry on the procedural wings and maybe that was rearing it's head again but it all looks good... unfortunately I don't have any other ideas...

Part of me wants to say it's probably not an actual issue with FAR itself, I personally  haven't had any issues so far in the dev build, it's been extremely stable and all odd aircraft behavior has been identified as my own design flaws, but this does seam weird. I don't have B9 procedural wings installed so I haven't had a chance to test them. I wonder if you were to readjust the shape of the leading edge after it's reattached so that the leading edge ends up in the same location as before you reattached it if that would fix the problem? It seams like such a small amount of change to cause such a drastic result in flight performance but who knows...

Also no idea RE the rails...

Okay, I remade the wings completely and I had the same problem as before, then I made the outer part of the leading edge flaps moving aswell. So the whole leading edge of the main wing is a control surface. This made it possible for a well behaved cobra to be executed again and even better I was able to reduce the deflection on the ailerons. 30° is way too high for a control surface to deflect.

However as soon as I stick launch rails on the wing tips ... nose goes past 90° and it will flutter its wings that you recover into the horizontal with a 45 or 60° roll angle. It is weird. Those rails must distort the airflow so much ...
I play a lot of DCS World, specifically the SU27 and I know how it behaves there in the cobra. The real plane doesn't do this.
Btw this only happens in a vertical cobra. If I pull the bell maneuver (turn and pull a cobra sideways) the butt doesn't break out this crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

That's intentional: if you can't figure out how to get the dev version yourself, Ferram doesn't want you using the dev version. This helps ensure that he doesn't get needless bug reports from people who are A, using the dev version, B, don't understand how to make a decent bug report.

These comments sound like elite(Arian) BS... please abstain!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, VentZer0 said:

So I am running 1.2.2 and use the dev build for FAR.
I get a weird issue with my plane, a selfmade replica of an SU27, or rather the B9 procedural wings are weird in relation to flight behaviour under FAR.

Here is a little video which shows what I mean:


First part: Notice the gap between leading edge flaps and the main wing.
I have no idea how this came to be, my guess is that it happended from an import from 1.1.3. Never the less, flight behaviour is great, I can pull cobras like nobodies business. The plane is well behaved in this deep stall territory.

Second part: I reattach the wings to close this gap and fly again. Now everytime I pull to 90° the nose veers to the left and never goes straight up. Its hard to regain control.

Third part: I reload the original model and attach wingtip launch rails to the side. Even though the CoL and Com are almost not even affected by this the handling is very different. Not even possible to reach 90° AOA anymore.
And When I up the control deflection, again instable behaviour upon recovery from a cobra.

You can see the lift vector preceeding around everytime when the instable behaviour is shown. I do not know if this is a FAR issue or something else.
It is also not an import issue in of it self. I can modify my craft just fine. Only when I edit the leading edge flaps or add the wingtip rails will I get this deep stall instability.

I know this is off topic of the thread but do you mind telling me what parts pack those parts are from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

That's intentional: if you can't figure out how to get the dev version yourself, Ferram doesn't want you using the dev version. This helps ensure that he doesn't get needless bug reports from people who are A, using the dev version, B, don't understand how to make a decent bug report.

Thank you very much for your help, that was truly illuminating. I am aware it is a dev version (as I stated) but still wanted to give it a try.

In any case, google gave me a better answer, even if I have no idea (and  don't want to) how to make a report

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheUltimateJimbob said:

I know this is off topic of the thread but do you mind telling me what parts pack those parts are from. 

My own. I made them myself.

3 hours ago, Bersagliere81 said:

Thank you very much for your help, that was truly illuminating. I am aware it is a dev version (as I stated) but still wanted to give it a try.

In any case, google gave me a better answer, even if I have no idea (and  don't want to) how to make a report

It is pretty easy to find actually. I got frustrated by all those answers aswell (find it yourself duh!). Tbh though it is really easy to find, if you know anything about github. I didnt at first but then figured it out :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@VentZer0: So I believe that it is a legitimate FAR issue, but I don't know how long it will take to fix because it's heavily related to the way that FAR tries to model lift (which is to say, the model it uses right now is very approximate).  I'm not sure exactly what's being tripped with shifting the leading edge slat around, but I'm pretty sure that what's happening with the launch rail is that the wing is detecting that it is there, but assuming that it is the size of a fuselage bit (like most parts are) and so the wing is being treated as if it's closed on both ends.  So better lift slope, stalls at a higher AoA, much more aggressive stall behavior in general.

I've been trying to work on a replacement, but most of the work has to be spent on figuring out wing geometry.  KSP vehicles are pretty flexible in terms of what they can be which makes separating out useful information difficult to do.  Much more difficult than a flight sim where the geometry data can be input by a human and the most complicated stuff is the aero.  No idea how long this will take, but probably once I get it figured out implementation will be fairly straightforward; I know what I want to do for the aero, I just need to figure out the geometry code first.

[snip]

Edited by Vanamonde
Calming the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@VentZer0 Given @ferram4's above reply I wonder if an interim solution might be to attach the rail under the wing tip and move it using the offset tool out to the tip, would that still cause the wing to think it is closed at both ends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ferram4 said:

@VentZer0: So I believe that it is a legitimate FAR issue, but I don't know how long it will take to fix because it's heavily related to the way that FAR tries to model lift (which is to say, the model it uses right now is very approximate).  I'm not sure exactly what's being tripped with shifting the leading edge slat around, but I'm pretty sure that what's happening with the launch rail is that the wing is detecting that it is there, but assuming that it is the size of a fuselage bit (like most parts are) and so the wing is being treated as if it's closed on both ends.  So better lift slope, stalls at a higher AoA, much more aggressive stall behavior in general.

I've been trying to work on a replacement, but most of the work has to be spent on figuring out wing geometry.  KSP vehicles are pretty flexible in terms of what they can be which makes separating out useful information difficult to do.  Much more difficult than a flight sim where the geometry data can be input by a human and the most complicated stuff is the aero.  No idea how long this will take, but probably once I get it figured out implementation will be fairly straightforward; I know what I want to do for the aero, I just need to figure out the geometry code first.

Thanks for the reply. I hope you will be able to figure out this problem.
What I can tell you is that I made the leading edge into one piece which fixed the weird behaviour after reattaching on the first try. I then tested something different. I made the wing tip into a seperate wingtip piece, instead of attaching 0° deflection control surfaces at the outer end of the wing, so to replicate the wingshape of a SU27. This worked too. I get a lil bit of flutter but it is totally managable. Now if I put rails on the wingtip I still get fluttering while in high AOA.
What is funny, the fluttering is not so great if I do not pull directly vertically. Basically, if you avoid Kerbins normal vector and start a cobra with a bit of roll angle it will not flutter when reaching 90° AOA. It really seems that the Nose is trying to avoid the normal vector of the surface. Without rails, it just pulls through it no problem.

1 hour ago, Akira_R said:

@VentZer0 Given @ferram4's above reply I wonder if an interim solution might be to attach the rail under the wing tip and move it using the offset tool out to the tip, would that still cause the wing to think it is closed at both ends?

Heh, I did that already :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, VentZer0 said:

My own. I made them myself.

They look pretty beautiful. Would you mind to share them with the other plane lovers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[snip]

I think the point you're missing is that you really shouldn't have needed to ask. It's been made pretty clear on almost every page of this thread for the last few months what the deal is with the dev version.

Edited by Vanamonde
Calming the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some posts have been edited or removed from this thread. Please try to be civil to each other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2016 at 11:52 AM, ferram4 said:

Thanks to discussions with @politas, @pjf, @TeddyDD and the rest of the CKAN crew my biggest objection to CKAN is now resolved, and so CKAN installs of FAR are now supported again. [insert rejoicing]  As of this writing (June 27, 2016) the debugging and diagnostic tools that I hope CKAN to have soon have not been created yet, so I will not be able to easily tell if it is a CKAN metadata issue solely from logs.  If after providing debug logs and repro steps I still can't create your issue, please try a manual install if you haven't already to see if it was a CKAN metadata issue.  If that fixes it, the issue is possibly CKAN-related in some way, and the CKAN guys would like to hear about it in their thread or their github so they can investigate.

@Vegetal: Sorry about the delay, I'll get to looking at that soon.  Things have been happening, as you might have guessed from above. :P

I can't find your mod on CKAN, ferram.  Is something wrong? :( 

-Duxwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Duxwing said:

I can't find your mod on CKAN, ferram.  Is something wrong? :( 

-Duxwing

Unless you are using a 1.1.3 KSP install, CKAN won't show FAR, because it's not released for 1.2.2 yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, lordcirth said:

Unless you are using a 1.1.3 KSP install, CKAN won't show FAR, because it's not released for 1.2.2 yet.

Thanks!

-Duxwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When will FAR come back? I want it and if the guy is gone I will ask him if I can continue it or just take over it and rename it SDAR, Sgt Doomball Aeronautics Research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sgt Doomball said:

When will FAR come back? I want it and if the guy is gone I will ask him if I can continue it or just take over it and rename it SDAR, Sgt Doomball Aeronautics Research.

Try reading the thread. There is literally a status update by Ferram on the page before this one.

Edited by Starman4308

Share this post


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

When will FAR come back? I want it and if the guy is gone I will ask him if I can continue it or just take over it and rename it SDAR, Sgt Doomball Aeronautics Research.

The in-development version is in the bugfixing stage and is being actively worked on.

 

EDIT: Ninjaed.

Edited by Volatar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10/10 would spend half an hour looking for Dev version and succeed again.

As an actual pilot and a longtime fan of this mod I have to say I appreciate everything you do and think you are awesome for it. Remember when I used to make content for another game and feeling like I'm doing a lot of work for not a whole lotta benefit and wanted to give out the good word :cool:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Warkeeper said:

10/10 would spend half an hour looking for Dev version and succeed again.

As an actual pilot and a longtime fan of this mod I have to say I appreciate everything you do and think you are awesome for it. Remember when I used to make content for another game and feeling like I'm doing a lot of work for not a whole lotta benefit and wanted to give out the good word :cool:

 

 

As another rl pilot, I want to second Warkeeper's sentiments. FAR makes KSP so much more enjoyable.  Hats off to Ferram4!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2017 at 9:49 AM, Volatar said:

Are physicsless parts included or excluded from FAR's voxel calculations?

So uh, anyone know the answer to this one? Got kinda passed over there.

Edited by Volatar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Volatar said:

So uh, anyone know the answer to this one? Got kinda passed over there.

As far as I know, there aren't physicless parts in KSP anymore, not after the 1.0 update.

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.