ferram4

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

Recommended Posts

My problem may or may not be related to FAR.

 

I have an issue with KSPI radiators deploying regardless of the option, which checks if a radiator is shielded by a fairing or not. Here is the issue on github: https://github.com/sswelm/KSP-Interstellar-Extended/issues/125

The reason I post in FAR thread is because of this  code in KSPI radiator module:

if (preventShieldedDeploy && part.ShieldedFromAirstream)
                return;

As I understand FAR changes ShieldedFromAirstream attribute of a part, so it might be responsible. Besides I have just noticed that FAR causes some exceptions in my log, but I have no idea how bad that is:

Spoiler

 NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
    FerramAerospaceResearch.FARAeroComponents.FARVesselAero.SimulateAeroProperties (UnityEngine.Vector3& aeroForce, UnityEngine.Vector3& aeroTorque, Vector3 velocityWorldVector, Double altitude)
    FerramAerospaceResearch.FARAPI.InstanceCalcVesselAeroForces (.Vessel vessel, UnityEngine.Vector3& aeroForce, UnityEngine.Vector3& aeroTorque, Vector3 velocityWorldVector, Double altitude)
    FerramAerospaceResearch.FARAPI.CalculateVesselAeroForces (.Vessel vessel, UnityEngine.Vector3& aeroForce, UnityEngine.Vector3& aeroTorque, Vector3 velocityWorldVector, Double altitude)
    System.Reflection.MonoMethod.Invoke (System.Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, System.Reflection.Binder binder, System.Object[] parameters, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture)
    Rethrow as TargetInvocationException: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation.
    System.Reflection.MonoMethod.Invoke (System.Object obj, BindingFlags invokeAttr, System.Reflection.Binder binder, System.Object[] parameters, System.Globalization.CultureInfo culture)
    System.Reflection.MethodBase.Invoke (System.Object obj, System.Object[] parameters)
    Trajectories.FARModel.ComputeForces_Model (Vector3d airVelocity, Double altitude)
    Trajectories.VesselAerodynamicModel.ComputeForces (Double altitude, Vector3d airVelocity, Vector3d vup, Double angleOfAttack)
    Trajectories.VesselAerodynamicModel.ComputeReferenceDrag ()
    Trajectories.VesselAerodynamicModel.isValidFor (.Vessel vessel, .CelestialBody body)
    Trajectories.Trajectory+<computeTrajectoryIncrement>d__47.MoveNext ()
    Trajectories.Trajectory.ComputeTrajectory (.Vessel vessel, Trajectories.DescentProfile profile)

I would appreciate if anyone could help me troubleshoot this problem.

Edited by Mine_Turtle

Share this post


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

@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.

Yea, you're correct. It was just a problem with launching rockets. I thought the lift was way off, with the center of pressure always being ridiculously high up, but I suppose that is somewhat realistic. It just forces you to keep your rocket close to the pro-grade vector or it will flip out once you get to a high dynamic pressure.

However I did notice that the mod seems to put a lot of lift on certain parts, like probe cores. You can exploit this by placing these parts on the bottom of the craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The link on the last update is downloading the wrong FAR version I think. The title says 1.15.9 but when you download it it says version for 1.2.2, and it reads 0.15.8.
Also, I am having problems with recognition of air intakes in the editor, and no readouts on ker about delta V.... Also, the CoL is represented like stock, with an arrow pointing upwards. This shoudn't be the case if I installed FAR, right?

Ok, installed from the master link on github, now the file says the correct version and it all weights different. I'll test it later, now I can't.

EDIT. EVerything kind of works, but the CoL has an arrow pointing upwards. This shouldn't be right? That's stock like. I am afraid I am seeing the wrong information on these...

 Ksp 1.3....

Edited by Agustin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking for a short guide on different tail configurations for SSTO planes in regards to the effects that FAR models. So far I have found that simple T-tail is the easiest to design to satisfy stability derivatives. But I feel that it may not be the best solution in terms of induced drag and overall mass. 

Share this post


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

I am looking for a short guide on different tail configurations for SSTO planes in regards to the effects that FAR models. So far I have found that simple T-tail is the easiest to design to satisfy stability derivatives. But I feel that it may not be the best solution in terms of induced drag and overall mass. 

This is a question that probably belongs over on the Official FAR Craft Repository

The optimal tailform for your plane is going to depend entirely on what you're going to be using it for. My own self, I tend to stick to a standard flying tailplane design (i.e. fuselage mounted but with a full-motion horizontal stabilizer) to fight Mach tuck; pretty much all the craft in my Auk spaceplane series have that setup. The exception - the Auk V - is a tailless delta, and its pitch characteristics suck.

So, what kind of plane are you wanting to build?

Edited by capi3101
forgot to ask an important question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, capi3101 said:

This is a question that probably belongs over on the Official FAR Craft Repository

The optimal tailform for your plane is going to depend entirely on what you're going to be using it for. My own self, I tend to stick to a standard flying tailplane design (i.e. fuselage mounted but with a full-motion horizontal stabilizer) to fight Mach tuck; pretty much all the craft in my Auk spaceplane series have that setup. The exception - the Auk V - is a tailless delta, and its pitch characteristics suck.

So, what kind of plane are you wanting to build?

Indeed. Countering Mach tuck with an all moving tailplane (or Canard) is essential. Exactly like on real supersonic aircraft.

One thing I've noticed is that once your Mach number goes above about 4, directional stability (yaw axis) becomes a problem. Adding a couple of fixed vertical fins (I use the tail fin part with movement set to zero) as far back as possible helps a lot. If I have a delta wing, putting fixed vertical fins at the wingtips also helps.

Share this post


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

I am looking for a short guide on different tail configurations for SSTO planes in regards to the effects that FAR models. So far I have found that simple T-tail is the easiest to design to satisfy stability derivatives. But I feel that it may not be the best solution in terms of induced drag and overall mass. 

I like a small T-tail and dihedral delta wingtips (dihedral = turned up) . Dihedral acts as both vertical stabilizer and roll stability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't suppose anyone can help me figure out why FAR 0.15.9 has greatly reduced the strength of wings, or alternatively increased the likelihood of aerodynamic failures?

I posted about this problem twice over a month ago (here and here) but didn't get any replies. I'd really appreciate it if someone could tell me whether this is a bug or an intentional change. If it's a bug then I'll stick with 1.2.2 for now, but if it's intentional then I can start rebalancing all my craft for 1.3.1.

Edited by Elmetian

Share this post


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

I don't suppose anyone can help me figure out why FAR 0.15.9 has greatly reduced the strength of wings, or alternatively increased the likelihood of aerodynamic failures?

I posted about this problem twice over a month ago (here and here) but didn't get any replies. I'd really appreciate it if someone could tell me whether this is a bug or an intentional change. If it's a bug then I'll stick with 1.2.2 for now, but if it's intentional then I can start rebalancing all me craft for 1.3.1.

Happened to me, but was mostly noticeable on ailerons. I tried to look through config diffs and code in that part that calculates stress and found nothing. So far I sometimes increase mass-strength modifier from 0.4 - 0.5 what I have used in KSP-1.2 to 1.2 - 2.0. Luckily, ailerons don't weigh much, so this happened to be a minor issue. Wings were apparently ok.
Failed parts not showing up in the log window should be reported as GitHub issue, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whale_2 said:

Happened to me, but was mostly noticeable on ailerons. I tried to look through config diffs and code in that part that calculates stress and found nothing. So far I sometimes increase mass-strength modifier from 0.4 - 0.5 what I have used in KSP-1.2 to 1.2 - 2.0. Luckily, ailerons don't weigh much, so this happened to be a minor issue. Wings were apparently ok.
Failed parts not showing up in the log window should be reported as GitHub issue, I believe.

It's really weird that there's nothing to account for this in the code. I'll try adding it to Github this afternoon but I'm a bit clueless with the site (other than downloading stuff from there).

I've found that I'd need to significantly increase the mass of the wing pieces to regain the performance my aircraft had in 1.2.2, not just the ailerons. This isn't always a good solution though as it shifts the CoM much farther backwards, meaning I've got start rebalancing the fuel and potentially moving the fuselage and engine parts around to compensate. No me gusta :(

Share this post


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

It's really weird that there's nothing to account for this in the code. ...

This probably means that something else has changed, perhaps somewhere in the game core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just created one or two aircrafts for KSP 1.3.1. and I can't recall any significant difference regarding aerodynamic failures. Blind guess is that old craft designs from previous KSP versions might become broken between KSP versions. Noticed in IR parts from old subassembly that were no longer attached in same way as in older KSP. As whale_2 said, it might be some change in KSP core code.

Building aircraft from strach might help to narrow down issue, although it might be difficult to replicate exact steps on more complex crafts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kcs123 said:

I just created one or two aircrafts for KSP 1.3.1. and I can't recall any significant difference regarding aerodynamic failures. Blind guess is that old craft designs from previous KSP versions might become broken between KSP versions. Noticed in IR parts from old subassembly that were no longer attached in same way as in older KSP. As whale_2 said, it might be some change in KSP core code.

Building aircraft from strach might help to narrow down issue, although it might be difficult to replicate exact steps on more complex crafts.

I thought that might be the problem. I built a simple aircraft from scratch in the new install and in 1.2.2 to compare them. There was a significant drop in the wing strength. Where my aircraft might be able to pull 11g at 1000m altitude in 1.2.2, it would fail somewhere from 5g to 7g in 1.3 with the same wing mass/strength settings. I checked FAR's settings as well just to make sure that they were the same in both installs.

Edited by Elmetian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi!

I've caught some weird stuff. Today my Mun Tanker Truck persistently refused to go to space. It turned out to be a hilarious voxelization of flexible docking port jr.

9qim1bh.jpg

I've also left a message in DMagic's thread.

Edited by Psycho_zs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Psycho_zs said:

Hi!

I've caught some weird stuff. Today my Mun Tanker Truck persistently refused to go to space. It turned out to be a hilarious voxelization of flexible docking port jr.

9qim1bh.jpg

I've also left a message in DMagic's thread.

Verifying that I've seen this same behavior between Flexible Docking Ports and FAR. In my case, it was a pretty pretty voxel fountain. Been happening since at least 1.1.3...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am having some really fps killers null reference messages from FAR. Here is the LOG: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lq9jcl4o4m72yiw/KSP.rar?dl=0
 

Also, Some other weird kraken excrements started to come, like visual flashlights on map view and terrain glitches, then reloaded a quick save, and the scroll of the camera was working the other way around. (?)
I'll keep on trying and edit the post with more info...

I removed trajectories and I didn't have the problem again. I think there is something between both that is breaking something or maybe it's my faulty install I don't know.

Edited by Agustin

Share this post


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

I am having some really fps killers null reference messages from FAR. Here is the LOG: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lq9jcl4o4m72yiw/KSP.rar?dl=0
 

Also, Some other weird kraken excrements started to come, like visual flashlights on map view and terrain glitches, then reloaded a quick save, and the scroll of the camera was working the other way around. (?)
I'll keep on trying and edit the post with more info...

I removed trajectories and I didn't have the problem again. I think there is something between both that is breaking something or maybe it's my faulty install I don't know.

Thanks for this tip. I removed FAR since I too was getting crazy null ref messages. Guess I will reinstall and remove Trajectories, since FAR is much more important to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any ideas on the parachute issue I mentioned earlier? Properties of parachutes in CFG files don't seem to make any difference to how they perform. What is FAR looking at to determine what kinds of effects parachutes will have? Is it possible to make modded chutes compatible with FAR?

Share this post


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

Any ideas on the parachute issue I mentioned earlier? Properties of parachutes in CFG files don't seem to make any difference to how they perform. What is FAR looking at to determine what kinds of effects parachutes will have? Is it possible to make modded chutes compatible with FAR?

If I remember correctly, FAR embeds a simplified version of RealChute.

Share this post


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

If I remember correctly, FAR embeds a simplified version of RealChute.

Right, but what does that mean in terms of the properties of a parachute that FAR recognizes? I've tried manipulating cfg files in order to produce parachutes that do more/less, but it has no effect. RealChute's (full version) own scaling method doesn't seem to have much effect in FAR either.

Share this post


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

Right, but what does that mean in terms of the properties of a parachute that FAR recognizes? I've tried manipulating cfg files in order to produce parachutes that do more/less, but it has no effect. RealChute's (full version) own scaling method doesn't seem to have much effect in FAR either.

Use full version of RealChute. It does provide additional tweak menu for chutes available when you open action group page in SPH/VAB.
Light version of RealChute seems have only "info" page without options to tweak parachute (number of parachute, weight, desired vertical speed..).

With that menu available there is no need to tweak config files at all. I don't recall if light version should or not should have that additional menu, though.

EDIT:

Just checked, in KSP 1.3.1 you need RealChute and additional custom config patch:

After that, you can properly pick chutes from therir custom chute category and additional manu is available on action group page as soon as you click on parachute. It does not pop up with light version of real chute that comes with FAR.

 

Edited by kcs123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Use full version of RealChute. It does provide additional tweak menu for chutes available when you open action group page in SPH/VAB.
Light version of RealChute seems have only "info" page without options to tweak parachute (number of parachute, weight, desired vertical speed..).

With that menu available there is no need to tweak config files at all. I don't recall if light version should or not should have that additional menu, though.

EDIT:

Just checked, in KSP 1.3.1 you need RealChute and additional custom config patch:

After that, you can properly pick chutes from therir custom chute category and additional manu is available on action group page as soon as you click on parachute. It does not pop up with light version of real chute that comes with FAR.

 

Or you could just download and replace this DLL done by ElectroStar https://www.dropbox.com/s/2hm12n0tvo0r07e/RealChute.dll?dl=0

more info here: https://github.com/StupidChris/RealChute/pull/73

Edited by Agustin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a way to export FAR graphs and numbers into anything readable externally? I want to calculate optimal ascent trajectory using some numerical optimization but I need aerodynamics data for that.  

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.