Jump to content

ferram4

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,132

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ferram4

  1. ferram4
    Alright, and with that, FAR v0.15.5.3, "von Helmholtz" has been released. Should fix the water issues, includes code changes to RealChuteLite thanks to stupid_chris, some control surface and voxelization weirdness, a fix to one of the example crafts and a new example craft thanks to tetryds. I was hoping that I could have von Helmholtz be the codename for the first update with the wing overhaul, given that Helmholtz's theorems are important in the analysis of vortex filaments (and thus, wings), but unfortunately, things didn't pan out that way.
  2. ferram4
    @iospace: I cannot reproduce the first issue. The second issue is not exactly as you describe. Following your directions exactly, the window appeared exactly where I had moved it. I suspect that you have something interfering with properly saving data. The menu you are talking about is only to set it to act as a flap. It will automatically deploy to the 2nd flap setting (takeoff), however flaps deploy slower than regular control surfaces to make deploying / undeploying flaps less severe on the vehicle's flight characteristics, especially considering the large deflections they will often move to. However, due to errors on my part if the control surface is changed from being a flap while it is still deployed it will not return to 0, which I will fix.
  3. ferram4
    @iospace: Everything is saved properly so long as you exit the scene normally and without reverting. ALT-F4 and clicking the X on the window prevent data from being saved; I haven't found an efficient way to hook into KSP's save system so that I can save certain data to the save file whenever I want and without being removed by a revert. @Kerbmav: Nothing that will break anything. Biggest failure will be that control surfaces will have to be re-labelled.
  4. ferram4
    This is the problem with silent updates. Everything was fine back in 1.0.5.1024, but with 1.0.5.1028 things are broken. Don't worry, I've got fixes almost ready, I just need to be certain they actually work.
  5. ferram4
    No. Many of its dependencies need to be updated. Consider every mod not-working until there's actual confirmation from their developers that it is working. Unless you want to risk corrupting your saves, in which case, go have fun, and please don't complain if everything is borked.
  6. ferram4
    The first thing is that you don't do anything until all the mods that you use have been updated to be compatible with 1.0.5. Assume all KSP updates will break mods, just for the purposes of safety (previously this wasn't the case, and we could assume that something like 1.0.4 -> 1.0.5 wouldn't break mods, but they've been reluctant to increase the 2nd version number for awhile). So leave all your mods behind for now. Copy over your save file by copying the save folder from your modded install into the new vanilla install. Then, go and download new versions of the mods that you had, if and only if they are marked as compatible with 1.0.5. Any that aren't may not work, and you're better off waiting than diving in and hoping things don't break and corrupt your save.
  7. ferram4
    The engines gimbals are not like Hobbes. Under full control input, yes, they do go to full control, but under smaller in inputs they do not. Even though many of them do not have response speeds set up for them, the Vector engine does to try and damp things out. In fact, as any of the Realism Overhaul modders will point out, too slow a gimbal speed actually makes things worse with SAS as it is currently; it simply does not know how to handle it because it is too set on getting the problem fixed instantly. And that's before we get to handling wobble, which it has no idea it can cause. The obvious solution is to make SAS less aggressive or to give it a better tuned / better self-tuning control system.
  8. ferram4
    God people. Read the thread; I already acknowledged that there's an error in the CoL calculation back on page 1132 that will be fixed in the next update. Surprisingly, people asking if there are errors are burying the answer that yes there is an error, wait until I get a fix together.
  9. ferram4
    Another method for getting altitude and speed in an SSTO is to take advantage of the fact that the Panther, Whiplash and RAPIER increase in thrust as they gain speed, especially at high subsonic speeds. You can actually reach altitude and top speed faster with a low altitude race to high Mach followed by a steep, but steady, climb up to altitude. As an example, one of my flight profiles (using an SSTO powered by 4 Whiplashes and a pair of Vectors, yes, it's that heavy) involves climbing up to 2 km (for not-crashing-into-the-ocean-safety), then accelerating up to Mach 0.9 (~306 m/s). At that point, I put it into a climb at about 35-40 degrees pitch or so, ensuring that I maintain around 300 m/s, steadily reducing the pitch angle as the engines lose thrust with altitude. After it's at ~11 km, I let it go through a shallow dive to 9 km as it picks up beyond Mach 1, and then once it reaches that altitude I put it back into a shallow, accelerating climb until it reaches around Mach 4.5 (1350 m/s, or whatever I can get it to top out at), while still keeping the altitude maybe a bit lower than expected. At that point, it's a zoom climb with the Vectors powering it to above the atmosphere and then coasting to circularize. Incidentally, fans of the F-104 will recognize this as the minimum time to Mach 2 in that plane.
  10. ferram4
    Yes, obsolete. A mod should probably lock this.
  11. ferram4
    If your camera is losing focus on the rocket during ascent at the 6 km mark, that indicates an issue with another mod. It is likely breaking lots of other things. Remove all of your mods from pre-1.0.5 and only reinstall them once they have been updated to be compatible or confirmed compatible. NEVER assume that mods will be compatible between KSP updates.
  12. ferram4
    ...All of the 2.5m parts have gimbals on them, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that there's a good comparison to added weight for them there. As for the rest of the stuff, keep in mind that this engine is a non-clustered version of the 4x KS-25 Mammoth cluster... which has a stupidly high TWR and is ultimately a better engine to bring along for most heavy-lift situations. And as for aerodynamics, they're so much weaker than they were prior to 1.0 that there's no reason to even consider them during a launch. The dV losses to drag are going to stay around 100 m/s at most. Frankly, I agree that its smaller size is a benefit. I wish all stock engines could do away with the tankbutts; the Mainsail could be half as wide, as could the Skipper. The LV-909 should also be able to be fitted in more places. The problem is that you're attacking it from the wrong angle: all engines should be that flexible, not the other way around.
  13. ferram4
    Simple: he was able to surface attach multiple engines to the bottom (without needing the cubic octag most engines need for surface attach) and didn't need to clip anything (like on engines with large tankbutts). The obvious proposed solution is to increase the diameter of the model unnecessarily in ways that people don't care about, and people will simply ignore it as they always did once part clipping gets involved. Clipping of tankbutts never stopped anyone from clustering engines before, it only really stopped when the clipping involved the nozzles, which would be incredibly stupid. Ultimately, people are distracted more by looks than by stats. Note that OP doesn't mention the mass of the Vectors, nor their TWR (which is the same as the Mainsail). OP doesn't consider the engine's cost. OP uses the thinnest rocket he can manage to display this to make it look as tall and ridiculous as possible. Hell, it's even in the title, "A visual criticism." The engine is somewhat better than the existing engines, but it is not overpowered to the extent that people claim or that it is trying to be portrayed as. They just can't get around the idea of an engine that doesn't have a massive tankbutt on it.
  14. ferram4
    Okay, so good news: I know what causes the CoL issue, and it's just an inconsistency with wings. It is accurate for anything without wings, with wings it underestimates their effects. The graphs are still correct though, so make use of that if you can.
  15. ferram4
    @S1gmoid: I don't see anything particularly wrong with that, though perhaps the smoothing function is too generous near the back of the rocket. I see that you haven't activated the CoL though, so I don't know what you're complaining about; everything looks fine. @Kagame: Thank you for repeating what has already been acknowledged. I supposed you have some extra info on the issue that you'd like to share?
  16. ferram4
    Yes, I'm aware the CoL is wrong initially, I don't know what causes it. The CoL after the reload is correct though. Considering that it will be automatically taken care of when the vehicle is updated by attaching / removing parts, I'm not too concerned. In addition, as already noted, CoL is less accurate than the graphs; use the damn graphs, that's why they're there. randman2222, as for you, you need to provide reproduction steps and logs. I haven never been able to cause any issues like that in the current build, which means that something you're doing is different so you have to tell me or else there's nothing I can do. I think you just installed it wrong, tbh.
  17. ferram4
    That's exactly how big jet engines are mounted; fully forward of the wing. Prevents the engine cowling being in close proximity to the wing (squeezes air tight, increases airspeed there, increasing drag). Keeps the intake well clear of any boundary layers from the rest of the aircraft (increases thrust and efficiency). Lets the engine be mounted higher so a larger-diameter engine can be fitted with the same landing gear. Engine is in good position for quick inspection from inside the aircraft (if needed to see if something really has gone terribly wrong with it). So if you're swayed by real-life arguments, the engine is about as perfect as you could ask for, and it does it all in the stock-alike aesthetic. Honestly, seeing where the engines for the 737-100 models were mounted (where it was directly under the wing) looks wrong, compared to its 707 contemporaries. I mean, look: 737-100 and 707. That much forward-mounting on the pylon is necessary to make it look right.
  18. ferram4
    It works out fine. Also, KJR doesn't read from the version file, that would be silly; the compatibility is hard-coded into the file, but it is rather lenient for KJR given how stable it tends to be. So... consider this functional.
  19. ferram4
    Alright, so FAR is back to working with v0.15.5.2 "Helmbold". Now, as with all KSP updates, make sure that you're only using guaranteed-compatible mods if you're going to make a bug report. Chasing down bugs that can't be fixed because they're just because of an out-of-date mod is not fun and delays other bugfixes and features.
  20. ferram4
    Except this isn't a problem with gimbaling engines itself. This is really the result of 4 problems interacting in very nasty ways: Gimbals don't generally have response speeds, though the coding exists for them. This leads to the thrust vectoring snapping instantly to what's been commanded, creating sudden torques on the vehicle under manual player control or aggressive SAS control. Joints still flex too much, particularly between parts with very large mass ratios. The extreme flex between the fuel tank-decoupler-engine-fuel tank group between stages is still there, and while it isn't as bad as it was before the first batch of joint passes, it is still bad. SAS has no idea how to handle gimbal response speeds (uncommon), nor does it know how to handle flexing (very common). This means that if it starts oscillating because of one of those it will cause the vehicle to lose control. SAS starts off controlling way too aggressively, ensuring that it runs into problems with the above. Less aggressive initial controls would make things function better. Fixing those issues would remove all the issues with "too much" gimbaling. The problems are never about having too much control authority, but instead the controller being unable to make good use of it.
  21. ferram4
    The heat on engines is not controlled by FAR, that is stock behavior. At the same time, the Wheesley is capable of supersonic flight, allowing planes to top out around Mach 2, but not at SL. Planes that attempt to fly much above Mach 1.2 at SL will have engine overheat issues.
  22. ferram4
    Because the turbine is the compressor, people are simply identifying it incorrectly because that's how people are. As I understand it, the intake parts are intended less as "here is a hole and the compressor is right behind it" as on most planes and instead as "here is the opening to this duct that makes its way to the engine further down, like the S-duct on a 727 or the intakes on a modern fighter." In that context, especially given that the intake parts are almost never placed right where they should be if they're smacked right on the compressor with no ducting, the compressor portion should stay with the combustor and turbine that are attached to the nozzles that we're all used to seeing.
  23. ferram4
    @Van Disaster: That would have no affect on the physics whatsoever. They are either running other mods that they are not telling you about or vice versa. Make sure that mod sets are identical or else you're going to have a very hard time replicating any issues. @Jagzeplin: Well, then you need to provide logs and full reproduction steps for causing the issue. I have never seen this behavior, but constant reports of it leads me to the conclusion that it probably exists, but people need to tell me how to cause it.
  24. ferram4
    1.0 did not do anything to break the type of fairing that you're talking about. They behave as they did in 0.90 and prior: they do nothing. They don't implement the features of the stock game, but nothing has been broken and no previously-available behavior was removed from those fairings during the update to 1.0.
  25. ferram4
    Well, considering intakes aren't exactly the lowest drag part to use, it's probably that. Most important thing to do is to make sure it floats high in the water to minimize water drag, and then you should be able to get up to decent speeds; I've managed 100 m/s on the surface, though granted that was with 4 engines pushing me along, so with one or two you should be able to max out around 50 to 80 m/s, which should actually be near the expected top speed of a seaplane, tbh. Takeoff at 30 m/s should certainly be possible.
×
×
  • Create New...