Sign in to follow this  
ferram4

[0.90]NEAR: A Simpler Aerodynamics Model v1.3.1 12/16/14

Recommended Posts

That is either:

A) Mod wing parts that were not correctly configured

B) Not actually symmetrical plane design

C) Uneven flexing caused by the physics engine that cannot be fixed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like llanthas, simple planes tend to turn more and more to the right and SAS is completely overwhelmed and makes things worth and without it, control didn't even respond, plane seems to be lost when it's happened (and it's happened fast, just when it reach ~ 1000m altitude and various speed from 150 to 400 m/s)

By the way, the documentation, derived/coming from FAR, talk about "a static analysis tab in the FAR GUI" in plane design, NEAR may be a bit too much "FAR lite" as it looks like such tool is not included so... what we could do to design a better plane without tools ? Usual (endless) trial & error promoted by stock game ? :rolleyes:

For sure it's not the B reason, C is ... C like craken, a smaller Kraken maybe or its tiny bro/sis, and A... I tried with stock delta wings with a deluxe delta as tail, so if it's the reason, it means provided MM config is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I gave NEAR a shot after I was overwhelmed with FAR for a couple of weeks... and I love it :)

Exactly how I feel about NEAR :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone talking about the planes veering one way or another: to prove that it's this mod, you're going to have to provide a craft file where removing a single part from it causes the issue to disappear, with a few unnecessary parts as possible and with no flexing occurring at all. If flexing can't be removed, then it's caused by that, as has been documented many times in the stock game.

@Justin Kerbice: Yeah, that should be removed from the docs. You're stuck with trial and error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not adding it as an optional module (maybe, if it's not too much work for too few benefits) ? NEAR is quite too much FAR lite, or we may need an "heavier NEAR" or NEAR with some FAR tools :).

By the way, it's quite a bit of my bad cause the major instability may have been caused by disabling MM (2.2.1) for some test, I guess the bare plug-in without its base config files is quite a bit confused :).

But with the full plug-in + configs + MM, it's quite tricky with planes, without mentioning this really dumb SAS, I'm sure it's a spaceball'brain (:confused:) put in a nice box and sold at an expensive price.

It may be possible some trouble comes from config-less wings (I mean not tuned for FAR) like the one from Tiny_Cat_Co._Plane_Parts mod.

I'll try with only stock parts to get something useful to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not adding it as an optional module (maybe, if it's not too much work for too few benefits) ? NEAR is quite too much FAR lite, or we may need an "heavier NEAR" or NEAR with some FAR tools :).

MEDIUMDISTANCE will be hard to make an acronym out of :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MEDIUMDISTANCE will be hard to make an acronym out of :P

Mechanism for Elucidating Dynamic Inter-Utilized Markers that Determine Inherent Stabilities and Teach Aerodynamically Nuanced and Centralized Effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@5thHorseman: you're just crazy :D, congratulations to have found one !

It can also be Middle (NEAR-MIDDLE-FAR) or THERE or even HERE.

@Ferram4: using stock planes, Aeris3 is ok, Aeris4 have some trouble, I get to a bit higher than 20000m, 800 m/s, then it became completely crazy and can't do too much except waiting, finally get control back near the water (below 500m), where it calm down. Albatross turn right on its own and became crazy less than 30s after take-off, not so bad as others, but roll didn't really works, with or without SAS roll right do nothing and it goes down left instead !

The Ravenspear mk1 seems to be good but near 6000m, pitch down makes it crazy too. It just fall down turning in circles :/.

All SAS on with default fuel amount in tanks.

And I got something playable by moving backward the center of lift (close to CoT and behing CoM) and removing a bad canard I use as tail on one of my small plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need for MIDDLE, INBETWEEN, NOTTHATFAR or SOMEWHERE.

You can either ask/make 3rd party tools or move on to FAR.

It's not that hard, just nerf down your engines and you will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mod reduce the delta-v required to get into low kerbin orbit with a rocket, like FAR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does this mod reduce the delta-v required to get into low kerbin orbit with a rocket, like FAR?

Yup, and from what I can see it does so by about the same amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saturn V gravity losses: ~1800m/s.

Saturn V drag losses: ~100m/s.

Imagine just what kind of TWR you would need (and what kind of unobtainium-shielded rocket) to manage to equalize those two and survive.

Sorry it's been a pretty busy weekend that stretched into a midweek. I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying here.

If I'm playing with DRE and NEAR, and my guys survive to orbit, I never reached that perfect efficiency of launch? Like if my TWR is 8 or so on the pad so the guys experience 9 Gs for the entire launch and my ship is on fire Whackjob fashion (if it would even get to that point, I've not tried this) 100 meters off the ground, but the guys don't die (and I can control the ship, of course), I've actually saved fuel from a nice quiet 1.6 TWR or even a more aggressive 2.5 or so TWR?

Now that I have time, I think I need to test this :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By more, actually, since mach effects are removed in NEAR.

Use KIDS, if it bothers you.

KIDS? Which one is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with that mod and the "Far to Stock KSP, atmosphere only" I still need the same rockets I do in stock to get to orbit but rocket behavior in vacuum remains the same? How about other bodies with atmospheres?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5thHorseman:

No, I'm saying that that maxim may only hold in soupodynamics. I'm not exactly sure how to find the optimal trajectory with real aerodynamics (let alone semi-real no-mach-effects aerodynamics). You'll just have to test things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Naming of semi-FAR, semi-NEAR versions ... I'd name the MIDDLE one just.. "MID". Assuming such a thing ever came to be.

If I'm playing with DRE and NEAR, and my guys survive to orbit, I never reached that perfect efficiency of launch? Like if my TWR is 8 or so on the pad so the guys experience 9 Gs for the entire launch and my ship is on fire Whackjob fashion (if it would even get to that point, I've not tried this) 100 meters off the ground, but the guys don't die (and I can control the ship, of course), I've actually saved fuel from a nice quiet 1.6 TWR or even a more aggressive 2.5 or so TWR?

Now that I have time, I think I need to test this :D

I did some realllly basic testing with FAR and a sleek, single-stage rocket that went straight up (for testing consistency). I tried out various things, but I got some pretty good results by limiting Q to 30kPa, although the max TWR launch was still the best. The rocket's launchpad TWR was something like.. 5 or so. Not sure where I put my results so can't print 'em out in detail.

Saturn V gravity losses: ~1800m/s.

Saturn V drag losses: ~100m/s.

Imagine just what kind of TWR you would need (and what kind of unobtainium-shielded rocket) to manage to equalize those two and survive.

Wow, I knew it was a lot less, but those drag losses are almost non-existent. It's what, 8-9km/sec to orbit on Earth? So like it's a .. whole percent or so?

I think you'd run into a bigger problem that raising the TWR past a certain point would increase the mass of the engines too much, and thus then need more fuel to do the same delta-v, needing a larger, costlier rocket. Not really worth shaving off 500 m/sec of required delta-v if the rocket costs nine times as much..

I don't think this addresses my original question though (it's very good information to have though, so thank you!). I've always run under the assumption that the terminal velocity = optimal velocity in KSP is just a product of there being "mass" in the aero equation and that it cancels out with the mass in the gravity equations. In real world aero, there's no mass in the aero side, so it doesn't cancel out or have any real direct relationship with terminal velocity end of things...right?

(All hail the Souposphere with mass=area nonsense!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think this addresses my original question though (it's very good information to have though, so thank you!). I've always run under the assumption that the terminal velocity = optimal velocity in KSP is just a product of there being "mass" in the aero equation and that it cancels out with the mass in the gravity equations. In real world aero, there's no mass in the aero side, so it doesn't cancel out or have any real direct relationship with terminal velocity end of things...right?

(All hail the Souposphere with mass=area nonsense!)

My understanding was that tracking terminal velocity balances drag and gravity losses and is the most efficient way to do a vertical ascent as long as drag is mostly proportional to v^2 throughout the speed range of interest. It's not necessary for reference area to be proportional to mass. That result just becomes a lot less useful if you can pitch over early instead of slowly climbing straight out of the soup first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I feel is lacking from NEAR (which I love by the way) is the control smoother thingy from FAR that stopped the crazy oscillation when changing pitch and stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know how much Dv is required to get into Eve orbit from its surface with NEAR installed? Trying to plan a voyage to the surface and back but I want to know how much Dv to pack along. :sticktongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I shied away from FAR due to its seemingly complicated install procedure, but I still want my stations to break up during deorbiting, something that NEAR seems to not have. Is there a way I can get that while avoiding FAR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

Sign in to follow this