Jump to content

HoneyFox

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    938

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by HoneyFox

  1. HoneyFox
    If the control surface is installed on a zero-sweep-angle wing, it should be. (thought I'm not completely sure whether it will always deflect to the correct direction so perhaps in some cases you would need to set +100% instead of -100% for AoA%)
  2. HoneyFox
    It's of course based on aircraft's AoA (which is shown in FAR's flight data window as well), not control surface's local AoA. Talking about whether the AoA% should be positive or negative, well you can always change the sign if you find that it's deflecting to the opposite side.
  3. HoneyFox
    You don't need other axis set to non-zero if you simply want a control surface to auto deflect due to AoA. Two usages for normal aircrafts would be: LeadingEdgeFlap/Slat that can imcrease the critical AoA of the main wing it's installed onto. and a way to make pitching up milder so that you feel smooth when you hold the S key for a period of time during flight. What I said in your quotation is for unstable aircraft design, which is unusual design in KSP though, so don't care about that too much.
  4. HoneyFox
    I set the flaperons of that F-16 to deflect up a little bit when AoA increases. This might make the entire aircraft a little bit more unstable but these flaperons won't stall as easily as they were so I can have slightly better lift and still have sufficient roll control when at medium-to-high AoA. Other than that kind of usage, perhaps there's no other.
  5. HoneyFox
    Ah, I'm not arguing. Just want to provide more supplementary references for people that are interested. For your aircraft, is it an static-unstable one? (Judging from your screenshot it seems not) if it's not, usually the eleverons won't stall when you are pulling a high AoA. But if it is, eleverons might need to deflect downwards instead of upwards to compensate the increasing nose-up moment due to increasing AoA and thus will stall easily.
  6. HoneyFox
    Actually they should be dropped when their local TWR is lower than the entire rockets' TWR (which should be at least slightly higher than 1.0 during early stages of rocket's ascent). i.e. they are not pushing the rocket but being dragged by the rest of the rocket instead, if we really want to achieve higher efficiency.
  7. HoneyFox
    Currently only on pitch axis. The utility of positive setting is, well... First, you might need it because sometimes the deflection is on the opposite side as you want, you then need to negate that value. (@ferram4: I guess we need to calculate an "AoALocation" instead of using "PitchLocation" for AoA% because it shouldn't be affected by whether the control surface is in front of or behind the CoM.) Second, for unstable aircraft, you would need positive setting for the elevator so that it will deflect to increase more local AoA increment than aircraft AoA's increment in order to provide more nose-down moment to create artificial pitch stability.(just like the F-16 I posted) Although that will make the elevator stall earlier and more quickly than the wings of the aircraft.
  8. HoneyFox
    Here is the reference: http://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/content.php?149-Flight-Model-(FM)-Developer-s-Notes-Part-4 Check page 4 of the pdf, the graph is for F-16 at low speed. Should be lower than the corner speed of F-16 (corner speed should be somewhere between 350 and 400knots I think) The max deflect angle of the eleveron is 25 deg according to that material.
  9. HoneyFox
    Made an aircraft that tries to resemble F-16. Yes, it's negative static stable. With improved flight control system it can still do maneuver like this. Watch the elevator deflect angle when doing a high-G turn. Of course the brakes are installed too. Some issues (at least I guess they are) I found: 1. The flaperon of this aircraft will stall very easily... It will stall even if we simply set the FLAP setting to 2 when doing a level flight. I don't know if it's because the flaperon is considered as a wing with small sweep angle and high aspect ratio but is not considered as part of the main wing. 2. The elevator stalls easily when under a medium AoA. AFAIK the downwash effect of the main wing is not simulated in FAR currently right? So that would be expected. In RL, according to some material written by BMS (a high-fidelity simulation game for F-16) developers who have been studied F-16's FLCS a lot, its elevator will stall when the aircraft has ~25 deg AoA + its deflect angle 25 deg (i.e. local AoA if we don't consider the downwash will be ~50 deg). That's quite a big difference compared to the current FAR case. 3. The leading-edge slats doesn't seem to increase the critical angle of the main wing, but that might be because it's just a subtle change or perhaps it's because they are all procWings and might have some glitches somewhere?
  10. HoneyFox
    Normally, all engines have 100% ignition success rate if all conditions are met: fuel stability, ignitor count & ignitor resources. if stability is not high enough or ignitor resources are insufficient, you do get possibility that ignition will fail, and the lower the stability/the fewer ignitor resources you have for an engine, the higher possibility.
  11. HoneyFox
    The third one looks like F-101 Voodoo.
  12. HoneyFox
    I use EI with RSS and that requires even more dV to achieve orbit (~9000m/s) or to go to Mun(12000m/s for Mun flyby, 15000m/s for Mun landing and 18000m/s for Mun return), even so I've found that it's very rare that I need that many fuel tanks considering that I use Procedural Parts plugin which can provide fuel tanks of adjustable diameter (10m or even larger) and adjustable height (30m or even higher). Really recommend you to use it. It's super awesome.
  13. HoneyFox
    Currently it's already only checking tanks that are connected via KSP stock interface. But yes, it will be more optimal if I cache the tanks connected (and also their tank types because they are immutable during flight) and I just check if it still exists and is on the same vessel as the engine before other logic runs.
  14. HoneyFox
    Use capslock to enable precise control mode which will slowdown your keyboard pitch input. Another method to try is to activate the FAR's AoA Limiter, but you need to setup its coefficients carefully, with Up limit set to 0~5 and K set to around 0.1 it should help a lot to avoid see-saw issue.
  15. HoneyFox
    One note, the way I calculate the aircraft's current AoA for the new AoA% controll coefficient is not optimal at all. Every control surface calculates that value itself, although the results are all the same no matter which control surface does the calcuation. If possible, I would like to get FARControlSys of the entire aircraft and read its AoA value directly but I don't know if there's a simple way to do it. Though normally there won't be too many control surfaces on an aircraft and the calculation of AoA is not too expensive. EDIT: I didn't add AoA% control response logic in the "Static" Sweep AoA/Mach function of the FAR Editor GUI yet. But guess that it's not very hard to implement it.
  16. HoneyFox
    With these new tweakables, I usually set rudder's control coefficients to Pitch 0%, Yaw 100% and Roll -30%. Here Roll -30% works as a simple Aileron-Rudder-Interaction mechanism to reduce sideslip angle when doing a roll maneuver.
  17. HoneyFox
    Yes! Yes! And Yes! Finally somr landing gear that can retract into the aircraft fuselage.
  18. HoneyFox
    Nope... it doesn't include trim. Another case that you might see pitch damper working is, after you have pulled your stick and get a big AoA, you suddenly release the stick and the AoA starts to reduce, with pitch damper enabled, this reducing process will be slower and milder.
  19. HoneyFox
    Leveler is a PD controller for 0/180 bank angle, with no Integrate portion it wont be able to handle your case perfectly. It will generate roll command base on your current bank angle and your roll rate, but if your aircraft is not balanced, it will finally stabilize itself at a bank angle at which the roll torque generated by P portion roll command just equals to your aircraft's imbalance roll torque. Adding Integrate portion (which is not implemented in current FAR) and it will gradually 'trim' your aircraft, though it might take some time. Pitch damper is a D controller for AoA. it will calculate AoA rate and generate a pitch command base on it and it only works when you are not pulling your stick. It is just a damper so asking for pitch angle stabilizing is a bit too much for it.
  20. HoneyFox
    Hi ferram. I've just sent a pull request to your git repo. See if you feel interested in those ideas.
  21. HoneyFox
    Oh my... finally we can have more accurate wing parameters based on mesh's vertices data directly. One thing BTW, I hope that those flight helper can be improved a bit and I might do that on my side and send you some pull request later. Perhaps I will need some help on how to get some certain values inside FAR, hope that you can offer me some help in case.
  22. HoneyFox
    Check protoVessel and protoPart.
  23. HoneyFox
    Oops... you mean vertail... Well just replace AOA with Sideslip angle in my previous post and pitch-down/up with yaw left/right and that's it.
  24. HoneyFox
    When wing is put at a position after the CoM, it will automatically provide pitch stabilization. Reason simple: when under certain positive AOA, the lift generated by the wing will be higher than that when AOA is zero, since the lifting force is after the CoM, it will generate an additional pitch-down moment and the AOA will then tend to reduce. When negative AOA, the lift will be smaller or even negative, and will generate an additional pitch-up moment, change the pitch rate and finally AOA will increase.
  25. HoneyFox
    Wow... 20+ engines and 100+ fuel tanks... that's quite a lot... I don't feel strange then... Each engine will need to check all fuel tanks it's connected to (directly and indirectly) and check the fuel state/boil-off rate per frame... so that's nearly an O(M*N)... which means if you have 20 engines and 100 tanks, the computation will be 20*100 times bigger than the amount if you only have 1 engine and 1 fuel tank... (this is assuming you are using SSTO design, if your rocket is multi-staged, the computation should be much less than 20*100). I really recommend you reducing engine/fuel tank count per stage. Even if playing under RSS + RF + RO, you do not need that many engines & tanks to achieve orbit, unless you want to achieve some goal that is too big with just the starting technologies...
×
×
  • Create New...