ferram4

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

Recommended Posts

Anyone else have a CKAN version of Ferram installed and getting the AVC blip that it is out of date, even though there are no available updates?
Ferram is still on CKAN right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2017 at 6:54 AM, G'th said:

I have a humble request following much frustration, hair pulling, and choice curse words.  Can the flight assistance toggles be made to either be non-functional when in space or to automatically turn off once you hit space?

My understanding is that the answer to this is "no, because it is useful to be able to engage and use the assistants while still in space prior to reentering". On top of that, I usually take advantage of that when entering the atmosphere with my planes.

The solution is to always check FAR's toggles and disable them if necessary when in space, especially if you notice your ship acting strangely. I learned to do this long ago ("eh? why is my ship dancing when I turn off SAS... oh, FAR" (actually, it took me about a week to figure it out)).

Share this post


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

My understanding is that the answer to this is "no, because it is useful to be able to engage and use the assistants while still in space prior to reentering". On top of that, I usually take advantage of that when entering the atmosphere with my planes.

The solution is to always check FAR's toggles and disable them if necessary when in space, especially if you notice your ship acting strangely. I learned to do this long ago ("eh? why is my ship dancing when I turn off SAS... oh, FAR" (actually, it took me about a week to figure it out)).

Indeed and I've incorporated checking the toggles into my reentry procedures for my shuttle, but even so its a bit annoying as at least for me and the things I've made, the toggles do nothing for me until I'm well into the atmosphere anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone. I am currently trying to add FAR module definition to mod parts that do not have included FAR patches. The Readme file supplied with FAR is rather vague on what should be removed and what should be added.

My understanding is that, for wings/control surface and any parts that have  "ModuleControlSurface" or "ModuleLiftingSurface" you need to do the followings:

A -  Remove stock module.

B - Replace with FARWingAerodynamicModel or FARControllableSurface module with adequate parameters.

C - Set all of the following to zero: maximum_drag, minimum_drag, angularDrag, dragCoeff, deflectionLiftCoeff

Is this a complete list?

 

Other questions:

1 - What happen when a wing/control surface does not receive proper FAR definitions?

2 - Do I need to worry about defining this?

Spoiler

 

MODULE[GeometryPartModule]
{
     forceUseMeshes = True

or

     ignoreForMainAxis = True
}

 

3 - What about airbrakes and spoilers? Any special procedures?

4 -  What about non wings/control surface? Should any special steps be taken?

 

Thanks.

Edited by Galenmacil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, aluc24 said:

after the last update the FAR is producing extreme lag spikes when making sharp turns with the plane, and the log is full of errors and warnings. Here's the log, maybe you can make some sense of it:

https://ufile.io/stgnh

Do you have Trajectories installed?  If so, try removing it.

Share this post


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

Do you have Trajectories installed?  If so, try removing it.

It seemed to fix it. Should I report this to the creator of Trajectories?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question.
I build a KC-10 plane wich flew perfectly with FAR. (100% Gravity etc.)
up until a point where all of my planes started to show different flight caracterstatistics.
Now even with 70% Gravity all Big planes show their struggle to overcome Gravitational forces and can't, or barely can't, take off.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, battlemaster1994 said:

I have a question.
I build a KC-10 plane wich flew perfectly with FAR. (100% Gravity etc.)
up until a point where all of my planes started to show different flight caracterstatistics.
Now even with 70% Gravity all Big planes show their struggle to overcome Gravitational forces and can't, or barely can't, take off.

 

Um, what do you mean "up to a point"? Do you mean that this plane used to fly in an an earlier version of KSP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 2:08 PM, aluc24 said:

It seemed to fix it. Should I report this to the creator of Trajectories?

Trajectories never seems to calculate things right with FAR anyway, at least for me.

 

Side note - does the current version of FAR work with 1.3.1 or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ss8913 said:

Trajectories never seems to calculate things right with FAR anyway, at least for me.

Haven't tested extensively with 1.3.x, but it worked a treat in 1.2.2.
So far no performance issues to report with KSP 1.3.1 / Trajectories 1.7.1 / FAR 0.15.9 either, but again, not used in anger.

3 minutes ago, ss8913 said:

Side note - does the current version of FAR work with 1.3.1 or no?

Flying with it now. No problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

Um, what do you mean "up to a point"? Do you mean that this plane used to fly in an an earlier version of KSP?

well, i found out that it had to do something with eighter Fuel Wings mod, or B9 parts mod

but thanks for the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2017 at 4:44 PM, ss8913 said:

Trajectories never seems to calculate things right with FAR anyway, at least for me.

You have to give it good information, such as a 180 degree AoA when reentering. Main problem is that Trajectories won't help much when you have to stage between setting up the trajectory and entering the atmosphere.

While it was back in KSP 0.24 or 0.25 (I don't remember what FAR version), I found that Trajectories was spot-on for my plane when I ran out of fuel, told it 3 degrees AoA, and made sure I flew at 3 degrees AoA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to work on KSP 1.3.1

Anyone having difficulty running the 0.15.9 FAR on 1.3.1? It seems to work as intended for me.

I did use the ModularFlightIntegrator that comes with Kopernicus 1.3.1-2 though, as Galileo must have enough confidence in it to bundle it with the 1.3.1-2 release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do parts having the stock aero module in their config break far in any way or is does it just ignore it? I imagine the latter otherwise it would be a huge compatibility issue and a couple of mods add lift even to cockpits. Still, it would be nice to have it be confirmed by someone who knows what they're talking about.

Share this post


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

If I understand correctly Xu represents drag effect, and so it should never be greater than 0. If it is so, than what is exactly wrong with my plane(at mach 0.35):

https://imgur.com/kbhtJvZ

 

Also, how can I fix Lr?

Maybe you need more lift, LifttoDrag seams not enough than.
For Lr:
Higher Center of Lift, your wings need to go up a little. It looks like the Center of Lift is under the COM

Nice FAR Tutorials about everything you need to know:
 

Spoiler

 

 

And here:

 

Share this post


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

If I understand correctly Xu represents drag effect, and so it should never be greater than 0. If it is so, than what is exactly wrong with my plane(at mach 0.35):

https://imgur.com/kbhtJvZ

 

Also, how can I fix Lr?

The red Mw is what jumps out at me; you've got static pitch instability, i.e. a tendency to nose up and be flip-happy. Usually happens when your CoM is aft of your CoL, but the same thing can happen if the CoL is below the CoM along the vertical axis. Try raising the position of the main wing on the fuselage. Barring that, add some dihedral.

What's the takeoff weight of your plane? Not that it has any bearing whatsoever on the plane's glaring main issue (the aforementioned instability); I'm just curious. Also, what kinda job are you intending to do with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, capi3101 said:

The red Mw is what jumps out at me; you've got static pitch instability, i.e. a tendency to nose up and be flip-happy. Usually happens when your CoM is aft of your CoL, but the same thing can happen if the CoL is below the CoM along the vertical axis. Try raising the position of the main wing on the fuselage. Barring that, add some dihedral.

What's the takeoff weight of your plane? Not that it has any bearing whatsoever on the plane's glaring main issue (the aforementioned instability); I'm just curious. Also, what kinda job are you intending to do with it?

That CoL definitely needs to be raised. I guess the current dihedral angle(around 5 degrees) is too small.

Regardless of CoL I fail to understand why Xu is positive. From my understanding positive Xu means that that drag will accelerate your plane instead of slowing it down, which makes no sense. To quote FAR wiki: "If Xu is incorrect, you have summoned the Kraken and should file a bug report." So my main concern is whether this is a bug or working as designed.

As for plane characteristics: it is a heavy SSTO to lift 100-150k tons to low Kerbin orbit. The unloaded wet mass is 750k(dry - 350k) tons. To be honest, the plain flies relatively well at supersonic speeds(1-4 machs) and have slight problems(tendency to stall) at takeoff and reentry. I do not worry too much about values in the picture, as those are during take-off stage and happen only for a brief moment. All of the derivatives become green once the plane takes off at around 0.5 mach.

Share this post


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

Regardless of CoL I fail to understand why Xu is positive. From my understanding positive Xu means that that drag will accelerate your plane instead of slowing it down, which makes no sense. To quote FAR wiki: "If Xu is incorrect, you have summoned the Kraken and should file a bug report." So my main concern is whether this is a bug or working as designed.

As for plane characteristics: it is a heavy SSTO to lift 100-150k tons to low Kerbin orbit. The unloaded wet mass is 750k(dry - 350k) tons. To be honest, the plain flies relatively well at supersonic speeds(1-4 machs) and have slight problems(tendency to stall) at takeoff and reentry. I do not worry too much about values in the picture, as those are during take-off stage and happen only for a brief moment. All of the derivatives become green once the plane takes off at around 0.5 mach.

The only time I ever see Xu go in the red is when Mw is in the red as a rule, and usually taking care of the Mw will take care of the Xu. You really only need to file a bug report if it's just the Xu that's gone red, because you're right (cue the Chewbacca defense - THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!!).

750 tonnes at takeoff / 659 m2 wing reference area = wing loading of 1.138 tonnes per square meter at takeoff (and 0.53 at landing). I'd wager the plane handles better at landing than at takeoff, am I right? Planes with high wing loading will have very good supersonic/hypersonic flight characteristics but lousy low-speed flight characteristics, including higher stall speeds. Increasing your wing area might help there; I'm not entirely sure that it wouldn't help with the Mw issue either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the characteristics/stats/whatever of parachutes that influence their effectiveness in FAR? I'm having a hard time figuring out how I could use MM to create a rescaled radial chute (for instance) that's both bigger and more effective. When I create one and modify the stats in the config file, it seems to have no effect on how well the chute actually works... In fact, the rescaled version with upped stats works worse because of its increased mass. This is with Modular Flight Integrator 1.2.4 and FAR 15.9 on 1.3.1.

(Took out ModuleTestSubject from following configs for brevity.)

Or, for another example, the stock radial chute :

Spoiler

PART
{
    name = parachuteRadial
    module = Part
    author = NovaSilisko
    mesh = model.mu
    scale = 1
    rescaleFactor = 1
    node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0
    buoyancyUseCubeNamed = PACKED
    sound_parachute_open = activate
    sound_parachute_single = deploy
    TechRequired = survivability
    entryCost = 2800
    cost = 400
    category = Utility
    subcategory = 0
    title = #autoLOC_500930 //#autoLOC_500930 = Mk2-R Radial-Mount Parachute
    description = #autoLOC_500931 //#autoLOC_500931 = A parachute comparable to the Mk16 chute, but which is placed radially instead of attached on top of something.
    attachRules = 0,1,0,0,0
    mass = 0.1
    dragModelType = default
    angularDrag = 3
    crashTolerance = 12
    maxTemp = 2500 // = 3100
    emissiveConstant = 0.7
    breakingForce = 100
    breakingTorque = 50
    bodyLiftMultiplier = 0
    stageOffset = -1
    bulkheadProfiles = srf
    tags = #autoLOC_500932 //#autoLOC_500932 = arrest blue canopy chute decel descen drag entry fall landing re- return safe slow
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleParachute
        invertCanopy = true
        autoCutSpeed = 0.5
        capName = cap
        canopyName = canopy
        semiDeployedAnimation = semiDeployLarge
        fullyDeployedAnimation = fullyDeployLarge
        stowedDrag = 0.22
        semiDeployedDrag = 1
        fullyDeployedDrag = 500
        minAirPressureToOpen = 0.04
        clampMinAirPressure = 0.04
        deployAltitude = 1000
        deploymentSpeed = 0.12
        semiDeploymentSpeed = 0.5
        chuteMaxTemp = 650
    }

    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleDragModifier
        dragCubeName = SEMIDEPLOYED
        dragModifier = 1
    }
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleDragModifier
        dragCubeName = DEPLOYED
        dragModifier = 58
    }
}
 

Actually works BETTER than this one from LETech:

Spoiler

PART
{
    name = parachuteRadial
    module = Part
    author = NovaSilisko
    mesh = model.mu
    scale = 1
    rescaleFactor = 1
    node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0
    buoyancyUseCubeNamed = PACKED
    sound_parachute_open = activate
    sound_parachute_single = deploy
    TechRequired = survivability
    entryCost = 2800
    cost = 400
    category = Utility
    subcategory = 0
    title = #autoLOC_500930 //#autoLOC_500930 = Mk2-R Radial-Mount Parachute
    description = #autoLOC_500931 //#autoLOC_500931 = A parachute comparable to the Mk16 chute, but which is placed radially instead of attached on top of something.
    attachRules = 0,1,0,0,0
    mass = 0.1
    dragModelType = default
    angularDrag = 3
    crashTolerance = 12
    maxTemp = 2500 // = 3100
    emissiveConstant = 0.7
    breakingForce = 100
    breakingTorque = 50
    bodyLiftMultiplier = 0
    stageOffset = -1
    bulkheadProfiles = srf
    tags = #autoLOC_500932 //#autoLOC_500932 = arrest blue canopy chute decel descen drag entry fall landing re- return safe slow
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleParachute
        invertCanopy = true
        autoCutSpeed = 0.5
        capName = cap
        canopyName = canopy
        semiDeployedAnimation = semiDeployLarge
        fullyDeployedAnimation = fullyDeployLarge
        stowedDrag = 0.22
        semiDeployedDrag = 1
        fullyDeployedDrag = 500
        minAirPressureToOpen = 0.04
        clampMinAirPressure = 0.04
        deployAltitude = 1000
        deploymentSpeed = 0.12
        semiDeploymentSpeed = 0.5
        chuteMaxTemp = 650
    }

    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleDragModifier
        dragCubeName = SEMIDEPLOYED
        dragModifier = 1
    }
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleDragModifier
        dragCubeName = DEPLOYED
        dragModifier = 58
    }
}
 

What am I missing?

Edited by AccidentalDisassembly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@frozenbacon: rather than deleting the contents of your post, it would be far better to leave it there with the solution you found so that others with the same problem know how to fix 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.