DYJ

[0.90] Procedural Dynamics - Procedural Wing 0.9.3 Dec 24

Recommended Posts

So does Pwing .8 work in .23.5? Or is it a strict .24 thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's compiled against .24 but it might still work in .23.5. Don't think it relies on anything from .24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the new wings. I hope you'll be able to get them textured soon. :)

Also, I think we could really use a procedural "wet wing", maybe even using the Mk4 model. Fuelled wings should become feasible in the near future with RealFuels, and aren't a bad idea in stock, either (but you have to forgo fuel in the fuselage if you're using podded jets).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's compiled against .24 but it might still work in .23.5. Don't think it relies on anything from .24

May have to test it out on my RO install. But really don't want to break that install, as it is the only version of KSP I have currently that works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
May have to test it out on my RO install. But really don't want to break that install, as it is the only version of KSP I have currently that works.

Please do let us know how it goes if you decide to try. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FAR models wings as thin surfaces (i.e. only area is taken into account by FAR, other parameters are assumed). No information about thickness is passed to FAR, either, since there's no way *to* pass that to FAR.

Ahhh. I just made a post about that on the FAR thread, actually.

Any chance that you and DYJ and some other people experienced with the internal workings of FAR and/or Procedural Dynamics could get in touch with Ferram, and work that out? I would *REALLY* like to see wing thickness properly-modeled in KSP, since this is one of the most important parameters of a craft in real life.

If thickness is in no way modeled, then thinner wings are strictly, 100% superior to thicker wings when running FAR, if Procedural Dynamics in no way alters the meta-data it passes on to FAR. This is in no way the case in real life, where thicker wings have superior lift, and are thus often preferable in subsonic conditions (in supersonic conditions, lift:drag ratio becomes more important- and thinner wings have the advantage there... A wing twice as thick might generate twice the drag, but only 1.5 times the lift, to use arbitrary numbers...)

Even in stock aerodynamics, thicker wings have some advantage- since the stock aerodyamics model uses mass as a multiplier on wing lift (it in no way actually calculates the cross-sectional area of wings, and "lift rating" is actually a coefficient that mass is multiplied by) and thicker wings generally have higher mass than thinner wings of comparable size/shape, both in B9 Aerospace and Procedural Dynamics...

It would be a shame to see stock aerodynamics actually have a realism ADVANTAGE over FAR on something so simple as wing thickness as it relates to lift potential...

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was mentioned earlier in this thread.

Where? A link to the post would be helpful...

I thought you were talking about KSP with pwings - not real life.

Since when does anybody describe KSP with Pwings as "in real life"? You'd have to get VERY obsessed with KSP to start thinking this was actually REAL... :)

IF FAR is installed (and only IF), then it might "scale" the metadata that FAR gets (check the cfg files - the default FAR values are in there). It does however not take wing thickness into account. Your ugly looking plane in the screenshot will fly just fine! I'm familiar with this in my own games.

That wasn't MY plane- that was somebody else's. But any chance you (or somebody else) could actually check/confirm whether there's any difference in the meta-data Pwings passes along to FAR corresponding to wing thickness and root-to-tip thickness ratio?

So, either you're suffering from a different bug, or you're reporting a placebo effect.

It wasn't placebo. I was using MechJeb for and stock SAS for the control- there was no human input (that could have been biased by expectations), so there was definitely SOMETHING going on there- my planes were consistently ending up in a ditch on the side of the runway whenever the asymmetrical control surfaces actuated. This didn't happen when the control surfaces were disabled, or replaced with non-Pwing versions.

Could just be the mass-asymmetry, if wing thickness affects mass-distribution. Remember, this was with stock aerodynamics- which multiplies mass by lift coefficient to generate lift, and mass by drag coefficient to generate drag. So even without a change in the displayed Center of Lift, a change in Center of Mass off the centerline would actually generate an asymmetry in terms of not only gravity, but also lift and drag... There's no avoiding that, based on the way stock aerodynamics works- a difference in the loading of two outboard fuel tanks would have the same effects on drag, despite the incredibly unrealistic nature of this...

My planes were VERY carefully-engineered, and even a small change is symmetry could cause them to lose control- so it's quite possible it was simply an asymmetry in the stock pea-soup drag model, and gravity, based on asymmetry of the mass distribution with the improperly-mirrored control surfaces, that was causing my issues...

I did.

Where? A link to where you discussed how Procedural Dynamics is balanced for Budgets in 0.24 would be EXTREMELY helpful...

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since when does anybody describe KSP with Pwings as "in real life"? You'd have to get VERY obsessed with KSP to start thinking this was actually REAL...

Ya don't say - that was my point, because YOU were argueing just that >.>

Not going to reply to your other questions - you seem a bit too confused for my taste (i don't even know where to start correcting all your wrong assumptions in your post.... mass assymetry? Did you even check if thickness influences mass? (It doesn't, heh) And even if it would - what makes you think that parts can have their CoM elsewhere than at their center? *grin*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhere in this thread there is even a picture of the MK4 wing in wetwing configuration, so it's planned. But like you'all might have guessed I've been somewhat busy with IRL work lately so I haven't had much time to tinker with this, but an upcoming holiday should fix that !

Having the cost depend on the size of the wing to make them useful in the career mode will be implemented as soon as the game supports that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having the cost depend on the size of the wing to make them useful in the career mode will be implemented as soon as the game supports that.

I see. So what's the cost at right now? Is it something that's at least reasonable for larger aircraft?

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ya don't say - that was my point, because YOU were argueing just that >.>

No I wasn't.

what makes you think that parts can have their CoM elsewhere than at their center? *grin*

Haven't you ever looked at the Mk 2-3 fuselage? It is very well known to have its Center of Mass far off from its center.

Also, I know thickness affects total mass because I've played with it with the MechJeb vessel info screen open to confirm this.

So, while I haven't confirmed if changing thickness on one end of a control surface changes the location of its Center of Mass, I *DO* know for a fact that thickness affects mass, and mass doesn't have to be at the center. That an asymmetric CoM might be causing my issues was just a theory.

Doing a little more research, it actually looks more likely that the crashing was due to a bug with units flexing more/less based on the order in which they were placed, that has been around for years now (it's the reason so many spaceplanes end up in a flaming ditch on the side of the runway- because one wing flexes more than the other). My guess is that what was ACTUALLY happening is that the control surfaces were flexing awkwardly, and actuating them was exasperating the control issues- hence why disabling them fixed the issue. Stock/B9 control surfaces are smaller, so the flex is less noticeable- but I was using control surfaces the length of much of the trailnig edge of a wing (real life planes often have flaps and spoilers this long- but apparently trying to do that in KSP was a mistake). The thickness was varied to attempt to match the change in thickness of the wing itself (but was ending up asymmetric like shown), but the REAL cause of the crashes was the large control surfaces flexing like large wings do, and the SAS logic not being able to adapt to that...

The asymmetric control surfaces are still a bug that needs to be fixed. And now that I'm running FAR, they actually *DO* affect the aerodynamic properties- since they will stick out causing drag at different places (even if FAR doesn't include thickness in its lift calculations, it uses a vector approach for drag calculations- which is part of why cargo bays and fairings work in FAR).

Regards,

Northstar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any plans to add fuel to the wings so that fuel scales with wing size and thickness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any plans to add fuel to the wings so that fuel scales with wing size and thickness?

you can add fuel in the wings manually....but the thickness is hard to calculate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw the update, this is still alive! Woo!

Any plan to use the KSP API Extensions like other procedural parts do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While root and tip chord, span, and sweep angle at leading edge would be great, the current system works pretty well. Although that *would* solve the issue with tweakables where you can't select < 0.36 thickness and it jumps to .1; swamp_ig rewrote that for KAE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I write here to you DYJ, because I haven't your Email.

Well, First I must thank you for this awesome mod. For me procedural dynamics is the best mod for KSP.

I would like show you several constructions builded by me with these fantastic wings:

Panzerkampfwagen 4

p><p><img src=

B-17 Flying Fortress

p><p>Simply talking I need procedural gl

These glasses from this mod have good color, good opacity, but they aren't procedural...

My base is under contruction, and for now I stay and can't make any more step:

p><p><img src=

p><p><img src=

I can't come to the end build this base with full interior because

I haven't these glasses...

The same situation with Science Rover for this mission:

p><p><img src=

p><p><img src=

This amphibious rover needs these glasses too.

Please, if you could, I really need procedural glasses,

and I'm sure not only me, can you make it? Please, please, please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was trying this out but I think I'm not understanding something with the controls. I change the size of a wing but if something else is behind it, that ends up getting changed when I don't want it to. I was putting a tail on, and when I moused over the tail to change it's size, the wings behind it which I had already gotten exactly how I wanted changed size to something else. That's one problem I can't seem to figure out but it also brings me to another point, is there not an "Undo" button?

Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-SNIP-.

Hoooooly **** man, those are some seriously impressive builds o.O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are some absolutely brilliant looking replica vehicles, guess I should have a look at making a " Procedural panels" extension pack thing and see if I can find a nice glass shader.

Regarding the cost issue, I have literally no idea what the cost of the parts is set to and can't fix it properly until the devs make the cost parameter less hardcoded.

I'm on a plane right now but when I get back home I'll have a look at potentially adding optional API Extensions support if that's been updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really amazing building skills. But I don't ask for the part counts :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are some absolutely brilliant looking replica vehicles, guess I should have a look at making a " Procedural panels" extension pack thing and see if I can find a nice glass shader.

Regarding the cost issue, I have literally no idea what the cost of the parts is set to and can't fix it properly until the devs make the cost parameter less hardcoded.

I'm on a plane right now but when I get back home I'll have a look at potentially adding optional API Extensions support if that's been updated.

Yeah, procedural panels sounds cool. Though moving from the RTG control scheme over to use of tweakables would make things a lot more precise.

And I have to wonder with the improvement of the other procedural components and support for dynamic tank sizes and/or real fuels, what's keeping wing-bladder fuel tanks from making an appearance here? Something in the code for wings in general, or just lack of time? Answer's probably buried somewhere in the thread. I've done some minor glancing around, but I didn't see anything. So don't take this as me being demandy-pants as much as just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you look into making procedural wet wings then? I've made some realistic plane designs with PWings, but they don't quite fly like I'd like them to, and I'd love to put fuel into the wings. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will you look into making procedural wet wings then? I've made some realistic plane designs with PWings, but they don't quite fly like I'd like them to, and I'd love to put fuel into the wings. :)

Great suggestion, I know someone in the Realism Overhaul thread did just this a while a go with Real Fuels and FAR.

My request is an end piece for the new wing design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kadaf those look just incredible. I can't imagine how much patience and care those needed but the results make it seem worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.