Jump to content

[1.2] Procedural Fairings 3.20 (November 8)

e-dog

By e-dog
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Perry Apsis

Perry Apsis

Posted
Posted

Well, I was going to make a go of not using PF, part of my 1.0 resolution to cut down on the number of mods I was using. Then I saw what you had to do to emulate interstage fairings:

...and here I am, Jonesing for my next fix.

That's why I'm glad I never started smoking.* No willpower.

Anyway, I'm off to build myself a nice Apollo-style mission. Thanks for supporting this mod.

*not counting two times when I was actually on fire. Ah, youth!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
futrtrubl

futrtrubl

Posted
Posted
What are the blue parts?

Procedural Parts.

- - - Updated - - -

Interstage fairing adapter still has massive frame lag when in gui editing. Also I used to be able to invert these and create protective shrouds around my engines much like the delta medium and heavy rockets. Now it seems even if I set crossfeed on or off It will not work. :(

If the engines think they are shielded they won't activate. Is that the issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dermeister

Dermeister

Posted
Posted
That is a very short and fat rocket, with two very draggy things (the nose itself, and that very abrupt diameter change) quite high up. I'm not at all surprised it's highly unstable.

That is just the upper stage Nathan I can get it to launch straight fine when I add a lower stage with fins. but as soon as I separate that stage it flips over while I'm going side ways. I tried adding find to it but it dosent help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
futrtrubl

futrtrubl

Posted
Posted
That is just the upper stage Nathan I can get it to launch straight fine when I add a lower stage with fins. but as soon as I separate that stage it flips over while I'm going side ways. I tried adding find to it but it dosent help.

"While I'm going sideways"? Why are you going sideways?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carsaxy

Carsaxy

Posted
Posted

I finally made it! Almost...

UiDJwYB.jpg

I had to make some little changes to the nodes in the '*.cfg's to obtain something good:

fairings:

node_stack_connect = 0, 0.5, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0
//previous node_stack_connect = 0, 0.5, 0, 0, -1, 0, 0
node_attach = 0.065, 0.5, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0
//previous NONE

attachRules = 1,1,1,1,1
//previous attachRules = 1,0,0,1,1

bases:

node_stack_connect08 = 0.5, 0.1, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0

//previous node_stack_connect01 = 0.5, 0.1, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

But I don't know how to make the adapter working properly XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hyomoto

Hyomoto

Posted
Posted

When it comes to any sort of ascent profile, you can think of basically the air is going one way, you want to go another. So let's say your ship is travelling perfectly vertical, the air isn't moving relative to the planet but it is moving relative to you, in the opposite direction. When you pitch over you are pushing your nose into the downstream which creates a force against the rocket which will want to rotate it around the center of mass. Any significant deviation is going to cause you problems without some sort of counter balance for stability. For example, if your center of mass is dead center on your rocket, you'll have equal force pressing against both sides of the rocket during the turn, creating stability. Adding things like fins increases the surface area, and therefore drag, of the end on which you place them, which also promotes stability when used right.

There is another issue to keep in mind. If your rocket is flipping end over end on a vertical ascent, it might be that you are simply going to fast. Air can only get out of the way so fast before drag begins to climb more rapidly than acceleration, and at the tipping point you are basically trying to push your rocket through a solid wall of air. That extreme drag at one end means the top will essentially weigh more than the bottom and the resulting action is the rocket flipping.

If you put these two ideas together it should be pretty easy to solve any ascent issues. When in doubt, add fins or perform your 'gravity turn' later. Once you get above 23km or so the atmosphere rapidly becomes to thin for even drastic changes in direction to affect your vessel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dermeister

Dermeister

Posted
Posted (edited)

- - - Updated - - -

When it comes to any sort of ascent profile, you can think of basically the air is going one way, you want to go another. So let's say your ship is travelling perfectly vertical, the air isn't moving relative to the planet but it is moving relative to you, in the opposite direction. When you pitch over you are pushing your nose into the downstream which creates a force against the rocket which will want to rotate it around the center of mass. Any significant deviation is going to cause you problems without some sort of counter balance for stability. For example, if your center of mass is dead center on your rocket, you'll have equal force pressing against both sides of the rocket during the turn, creating stability. Adding things like fins increases the surface area, and therefore drag, of the end on which you place them, which also promotes stability when used right.

There is another issue to keep in mind. If your rocket is flipping end over end on a vertical ascent, it might be that you are simply going to fast. Air can only get out of the way so fast before drag begins to climb more rapidly than acceleration, and at the tipping point you are basically trying to push your rocket through a solid wall of air. That extreme drag at one end means the top will essentially weigh more than the bottom and the resulting action is the rocket flipping.

If you put these two ideas together it should be pretty easy to solve any ascent issues. When in doubt, add fins or perform your 'gravity turn' later. Once you get above 23km or so the atmosphere rapidly becomes to thin for even drastic changes in direction to affect your vessel.

YEa I used to not have that problem in 0.90 with far. I thought I understood the basics and I was able to easily make stable rockets..but now when I apply what I knew my rockets still flip ect so I thought perhaps something had changed with fairings since it's new to 1.0 so I thought maybe I wasn't shaping them right ect....(I'm using Procedural fairings and procedural parts.) but apparently faring's don't matter? What you're saying is it's my whole design who's flawed? I mean I don't know what I can do it's a cylinder ... Usually I have no problems making rockets.... There's something I'm not understanding.. It can be a bit frustrating. I'm a visual person to learn...Does any 1 know of a Tutorial rocket video with nufar? I looked on Youtube but they are all in 0.90 and it's all stuff that don't seem to apply anymore? Or does it?

And also as additional Info so you don't think I'm one of those guys who force the turn. I know that when you launch you have to pitch over only a few degrees with a TW of about 1.30 and then let the nose with out SAS just naturally follow the Flight path marker and do a proper gravity turn... In other words keep as low of an angle of attack as possible and let the rocket's aerodynamics ease it into the turn. I've flown countless rockets b4 and I rarely had problems like this... in fact i found rockets to be super simple compared to planes ect.... but since I got nufar ect I feel like stuff don't behave like b4.... I'm thinking it's most likely me who's rusty or not grasping new features added ect.

To be CLEAR it's not the first stage that gives me issues it's as soon as first stage separates and I'm at high altitudes but still in atmosphere a little bit and in inclination due to being in the gravity turn.

So any 1 who knows of a good tutorial ect Don't be shy to refer me to it. Or if you know of anything I can do to help the rocket fly straight after first stage SEP....Because I can get them to launch right but no matter how much Fins I add to the second stage ect it flips over itself. Could it be procedural parts causing this? Or that my rocket doesn't have enough mass at the top?

I can't seem to find the issue. because i cant make that COL move behind that COM. But some 1 said that was irrelevant so what tools can I use instead? I don't understand the fancy graphics all that much for rockets. What should I be looking for number wise In the graphics for rockets? I know this is a lot but as you might understand this is quite frustrating for me... I'm not angry at any one or anything other than my own inability to quickly master all the new aerodynamics ect.Any how Thank you for your help in advance :) much appreciated!

Edited by Dermeister
Link to comment
Share on other sites
funk

funk

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's probably the value of AoA which causes your rockets to flip out. If you build a "standard rocket" (thin and long, streamlined) you won't need fins. Just have a look at your initial TWR at the ground. I'm using around 1.5-1.6. For the second stage after boosters have separated it used something around 2, but can be even lower.

Immediately after launch you can throttle back to the desired TWR if it's too high. The higher your TWR the lower you start your gravity turn, around 30-80m/s vertical speed. Just turn of SAS, turn a few degrees and hold prograde.

I haven't done many launches yet, but my experience is that a 2,5m diameter rocket with boosters needs about 3200m/s dv to LKO. Record so far is 3059m/s with the same rocket. In this case I used a very flat ascent path around 50° at 10km and nearly levelled at 30-35km. A trick regarding flipping rockets during coasting is, to reduce thrust if the apoapsis reaches around 50-55km to have more control due to gimbaling. Then you can easily climb to the desired AP.

Edited by funk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted

Let me also add that gimbals are way too gimbally in 1.0.*

I invariably reduce mine to 15% - 30%

And if I have boosters then the core stage has the lowest amount of gimbal. (I'd lock that gimbal if I thought I could remember to unlock it when staging all the boosters away)

One of these days I have to make myself a MM patch to just globally patch them all

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hyomoto

Hyomoto

Posted
Posted

Dermeister: It sounds to me like you are following the rules of thumb for a good ascent path, the best thing I can recommend is putting your turn off until 13km or later if your rocket is having trouble. There are other things that may contribute, but in your case it might be that the top of your rocket is too light. It might not contribute to the rocket's stability very much, coupled with a huge TWR coupled with a low payload can flip you as well. You can try throttling back and see if that makes a difference, or put the smaller fins on your upper stage and see if that helps.

Starwaster: As I'm sure you probably already know, the latest stock patches mod treats gimbals like flight control surfaces should help with any excessive gimbal and reduce sharp movements by a lot. Have you tried that, and did it work out for you? nuFAR also boosts the gimbal ranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
smunisto

smunisto

Posted
Posted

There's heavy lag on editing the fairings with nuFAR again. Maybe Fanno broke something related to the vortex calculations again? Getting 700-900 ms of vortex calculations when the PF fairing menu is open, while the normal is about 100 ms.

Also, the latest version of DRE seems to be unexplicably ignoring PF? Or maybe it's something on PFs side. I have a satellite inside the fairing, and it's burning up before I even reach 200 m/s after launch.

Output log: https://bg3.biz/cloud/index.php/s/aUmtubT9mwmo09c

Link to comment
Share on other sites
futrtrubl

futrtrubl

Posted
Posted
Let me also add that gimbals are way too gimbally in 1.0.*

I invariably reduce mine to 15% - 30%

And if I have boosters then the core stage has the lowest amount of gimbal. (I'd lock that gimbal if I thought I could remember to unlock it when staging all the boosters away)

One of these days I have to make myself a MM patch to just globally patch them all

Interesting, because Ferram increases them in FAR and they do deflect more in real life. Responce time is much higher in KSP (instant) but there is a stock bug fix module for that, though that tends to cause issues with any autopilot, MJ, RT and sometimes SAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
Posted

nuFAR has much larger body lift and body drag than oldFAR did (in part because the shape of parts is finally correctly recognized, not just assumed to be conic frustums), so you need much more control authority to counteract aero forces on unstable vessels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
I can't replicate it, and there are some strange errors there (like "failed to call OnVesselUnpack") which I don't get in my install.

What do you mean by "can't revert"? What does exactly happen?

Can you make a stock+PF craft to replicate the issue?

I'm also seeing the error

Failed to call function OnVesselUnpack of class KzFairingBaseShielding

Calling function OnVesselUnpack with no parameters but the function requires 1.

I suspect also that it's interfering with some of Deadly Reentry's functionality as I get a null ref error trying to access the PartThermalData of anything that has KzFairingBaseShielding in it. (reverting to launch helps and I don't get errors with the part after that)

I tried removing DRE and its dependencies to see if there was a conflict between the two mods but I still get that error.

In fact I removed all plugin related mods but still got that error

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skarllath

Skarllath

Posted
Posted

Hey e-dog, I really love this mod, the stock fairings just aren't quite good enough.

But in the 1.0 tech tree unlocking fairing bases up to 4 meters is in the Supersonic Flight node, instead of the Advanced Aerodynamics node that the stock 2.5m fairings are in.

Because further upgrades to fairing base size are in Heavy Aerodynamics and Experimental Aerodynamics, it seems to me like the 4m upgrade would fit better in Advanced Aerodynamics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bloodbunny

Bloodbunny

Posted
Posted
There's heavy lag on editing the fairings with nuFAR again. Maybe Fanno broke something related to the vortex calculations again? Getting 700-900 ms of vortex calculations when the PF fairing menu is open, while the normal is about 100 ms.

Also, the latest version of DRE seems to be unexplicably ignoring PF? Or maybe it's something on PFs side. I have a satellite inside the fairing, and it's burning up before I even reach 200 m/s after launch.

Output log: https://bg3.biz/cloud/index.php/s/aUmtubT9mwmo09c

This.. not sure what the issue is here, but I have the same problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ClLaw

ClLaw

Posted
Posted
There's heavy lag on editing the fairings with nuFAR again. Maybe Fanno broke something related to the vortex calculations again? Getting 700-900 ms of vortex calculations when the PF fairing menu is open, while the normal is about 100 ms.

Also, the latest version of DRE seems to be unexplicably ignoring PF? Or maybe it's something on PFs side. I have a satellite inside the fairing, and it's burning up before I even reach 200 m/s after launch.

Output log: https://bg3.biz/cloud/index.php/s/aUmtubT9mwmo09c

Same problem here too. My solar panels seem to burn up on launch

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snafu225

Snafu225

Posted
Posted

Oh I thought you tried to decouple the fairing base from the rest of the rocket... that is supposed the way it is (you need an extra decoupler), but you can't detach the fairing walls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wuwuk

Wuwuk

Posted
Posted (edited)
Oh I thought you tried to decouple the fairing base from the rest of the rocket... that is supposed the way it is (you need an extra decoupler), but you can't detach the fairing walls?

Yes.

I use decoupler, but fairing walls don't decouple.

Ipa0SwA.jpg

1. No decouple button.

2. No decouple icon.

Interstage adapter have decouple icon, but don't decouple and don't have decouple button.

Edited by Wuwuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
futrtrubl

futrtrubl

Posted
Posted
Yes.

I use decoupler, but fairing walls don't decouple.

http://i.imgur.com/Ipa0SwA.jpg

1. No decouple button.

2. No decouple icon.

Interstage adapter have decouple icon, but don't decouple and don't have decouple button.

Are you sure you are using a fairing or a fuselage fairing? Fuselage fairings don't separate.

Ninjas. Gotta be ninjas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...