Jump to content

ferram4

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,132

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ferram4

  1. ferram4
    Z is vehicle-relative vertical, pointing downward. It turns out to be very close to the angular values if you multiply them by the current velocity. I know that sarbian has been working on FAR integration for MJ, but the current MJ ascent guidance won't be able to work in FAR at all. Ignoring the thrust control component, it does pitch angle as a function of altitude, completely ignoring velocity except for getting you into a circular orbit, which is a pretty good way to make a rocket pitch out of control with FAR. Then the landing / aerobraking guidance is going to be even more complicated, given that it will have to simulate the drag, lift and the changes in those as the craft tumbles through the atmosphere. So take from that what you will.
  2. ferram4
    That shouldn't happen in the most recent version of the mod, since it overrides a lot of the part's breakForces now. You're using v1.6, right?
  3. ferram4
    @Zatie12: Known issue, have it fixed in my dev version. So as soon as I track down what I think is a bug involving fairings I'll have v0.12.5 out that fixes it. @steakbbq: Yeah, that bug is also being fixed. As for the stability derivatives, Xw being wrong means that pitching the plane up slightly will reduce your drag slightly, which generally seems wrong, so it's marked red when that happens. If nothing bad seems to happen it makes sense to ignore it. Zu being wrong means that your plane will produce less lift as it goes faster, which is also a little bit strange, but it's quite possible if you're at the proper Mach Number. @mdapol: I'll look into making the options saving their current number.
  4. ferram4
    FAR doesn't deal with the mass of the object at all, only its shape when calculating drag parameters. I actually just did a nice Mercury-Atlas mission with the settings in my earlier post and it works fine; nice and stable the whole way.
  5. ferram4
    Yeah, I'm aware of that. It's part of the reason that the CoL is wrong in the editor and (in theory) it can cause errors in flight. I've got it fixed in my current build, and as soon as I'm sure there are no terrible errors I'll release v0.12.5.
  6. ferram4
    @Eadrom: Well, glad to know that's fixed, at least. Remember to look in the zip before copying things over. @7499275: If you have SAS active when you turn on the wing leveler SAS will override the wing leveler, preventing it from doing anything. Also, if you're plane has a severe roll tendency the wing leveler might not be able to counteract it on the default settings. The default wing leveler settings are slightly low to prevent it from over-controlling like SAS tends to do, but it will balance most planes, it just takes time. The FAR control systems are nowhere near as twitchy and crazy as SAS is, since planes generally require a more restrained control system than rockets seem to.
  7. ferram4
    @firstpirlo: So basically you're having the rocket change from a large-diameter tank / interstage fairing to a small-diameter engine to another large-diameter tank? It sounds like you'll need to attach struts between the tanks manually, although that shouldn't be necessary since KJR should already do that. You'll need to produce a picture of what you're doing for me to figure out what's going on, if it's actually a bug. @Shogun Gunshow: Using FAR v0.12? If so, upgrade it; the bug is there, not in KJR. Otherwise, you'll need to post a list of all the mods you're using and their version numbers so I can figure out what's wrong.
  8. ferram4
    @dewin: First I'll need to know the version number for each of those mods. The first issue sounds like a bug caused by something that duplicates the vessel and then the telefrag each other; it has been caused on installs that don't have KJR, so it's likely not the culprit. I'm not aware of any "stuck at 0 meters altitude" bug at all, but if you're getting exception spam the output_log.txt should tell you exactly what started the issue. In that case, you'll need to go through there, find the first relevant exception, then go make sure that you're using the most up-to-date version of that mod, and if the bug still occurs in the most up-to-date version, post a bug report to that thread with the entire output_log.txt. Honestly, neither of these sound like KJR bugs. @firstpirlo: That's news to me. I just launched a 50 tonne space station in real solar system that used a procedural fairing connection between the payload fairing base and a ring halfway up the station to support most of the aerodynamic upper section. The lower section collapsed when I tried detaching the payload fairing while still under 1 g of acceleration; perhaps you're using an out of date version of KJR? Or perhaps you could elaborate more on your problem, since procedural fairings auto-struting does work in the situations that I've tested.
  9. ferram4
    Yeah, looking at the output_log it looks like the issue is that the game is choking on loading the dlls for some reason. I just tried adding TACLS and Toolbar v1.4.0 to my install and didn't have any issues. I'll also note that KER isn't loading for you as well, and you're having some errors with Kethane too... Hmmm... It looks like it's breaking on the parts that directly reference Toolbar stuff. Try this: download FAR, KER and TACLS again, as well as Toolbar v1.4 in case any of that got corrupted. Delete the Engineer, FerramAerospaceResearch, ThunderAerospace and 000_Toolbar folders from your GameData folder and reinstall all of them. See if that fixes it. I don't know what could be causing the issue here, and I haven't been able to reproduce the problem, so you're going to have to do some bugfixing yourself. Make sure that KSP has full permissions in the folder that it's situated in and try removing and reinstalling mods until the issue is fixed. It might just be an odd conflict somewhere.
  10. ferram4
    Delete the toolbar-settings.dat in the GameData folder and try running both FAR and TACLS with Toolbar 1.4. Make sure there are no other copies of any toolbar stuff lying around that might be causing the issue. There's no reason why it shouldn't work; if you can't get it to work you'll need to post an output_log.txt (from KSP_Data) so I can see what's going wrong.
  11. ferram4
    It's an issue involving the strange strap-decoupler that the Mercury capsule uses; basically it acts like it has a lot more drag than it should. The solution is to manually define a FARBasicDragModel module for it, using a surface area (S) of ~0.254 and setting the CdCurve, ClCurve and CmCurve to be zero at all points. I'm going to add this to the ferramaerospaceresearch.cfg to fix it, but you can manually copy it over for now: @PART[FASAMercuryDec] { MODULE { name = FARBasicDragModel S = 0.254 CdCurve //Drag coefficient at various angles { key = -1 0 //backwards key = 1.0 0 //forwards } ClCurve { key = -1 0 //Lift coefficient key = 1 0 } CmCurve //Moment coefficient { key = -1 0 key = 1 0 } } }
  12. ferram4
    That pod also needs to have slightly more offset. It only gets ~8 degrees angle of attack and it should have ~15. I'd say shifting it ~0.3m - 0.5m more should make it right.
  13. ferram4
    Confirmed. Thanks for the report; not sure what's causing it yet, but I'll track it down.
  14. ferram4
    Okay, it sounds like the leading edge shock / expansion fan is where things are freaking out. I'll see if I can fix it.
  15. ferram4
    I've launched things using a Delta IV M and a Delta IV M+ 5.4... yeah, you need to hop up to ~350 km at least to get some of those really heavy payloads up there. And for reference, I was doing this to send stuff on a GTO, so I was able to get away with pushing apoapsis really high while burning to raise periapsis. Trust me, you want to let the first stage throw it high more than send it sideways compared to higher TWR stages, since that gives it time to get into orbit. On one occasion the second stage actually dipped back below 105 km into the upper atmosphere for a bit. Fun times.
  16. ferram4
    I'm not entirely sure where it comes from to be honest. Since you're apparently really good at causing it, can you test two cases for me? The first one is to just fly along between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 (closer to Mach 1 the better) and see if the twitch occurs; that will just see if it happens at transonic speeds as well. The second one is to try and keep a wing at 2.8 or -2.8 degrees angle of attack at a few different Mach numbers; that will test if the error is in the switch between a shock on the upper surface and an expansion fan on the upper surface of the airfoil, right behind the leading edge, like so. Otherwise I'm not sure what could be causing it to happen.
  17. ferram4
    How much thrust do you have? If you're not trying to land it, you don't need a TWR greater than 1, and lower thrusts reduce the stress on weak connections.
  18. ferram4
    What? You should be able to click on them just like any other part and set the action groups for them. I just tried it in my install and it worked fine. You're not getting any errors in the output_log, correct?
  19. ferram4
    You have to set them manually now using action groups.
  20. ferram4
    Because SAS is not designed to deal with lots of aerodynamic control authority. Try upgrading to v0.12.4; I've increased the mechanical lag of the control surfaces to be closer to what stock has. People have reported that it reduces the wobbling, but I'm not exactly sure why, since it should cause more control problems. Nevertheless, upgrade and see if that fixes it. If it doesn't, get rid of some roll control surfaces.
  21. ferram4
    Regular stretchies have fixed radii; I believe the main intent there is to be able to ensure that the tank is a given width exactly / limit use in career mode. The difference between regular super-stretchies and cryo-super-stretchies isn't relevant without RealFuels; the cryo tank is just better mass-wise for LH2 + LOX since the entire thing is insulated to prevent boiloff. So you can ignore those. The difference between balloon super stretchies and the regular super stretchies is that the balloon stretchies aremuch weaker; they'll break easier and can't handle stuff being radially attached to them, but you'll get a better structure ratio out of the booster. The service module stretchy is more intended to provide the pressurized tanks needed to restart engines that would be needed for a space tug or OMS on a spacecraft, and so it's less efficient mass-wise, but it does allow you to use some of the space for internal batteries, so that's nice. They have uses outside of RealFuels, but they're somewhat limited in that regard.
  22. ferram4
    More info on the symmetry tank-teleporting in orbit: In my tests, if the tank hasn't had any fuel drawn from it the bug occurs; if fuel has been drawn from it, it loads fine. A RemoteTech relay that was headed for lunar orbit was (unfortunately) sacrificed for this information, so I hope it's helpful. Edit: Nope, nvm that's not it. It does seem like a satellite that has no more stages is unaffected, but one that does have more stages is... basically, I didn't have that bug if I switched to a relay that had separated from its upper stage, but if the upper stage was still attached the bug occurred. Not sure what to make of that.
  23. ferram4
    Yeah, it looks like you're running out of memory. Time to go and look for what you're not going to use in those mods and get rid of them and install the texture reduction packs.
  24. ferram4
    Mirror symmetry has never worked the way you seem to think it did. It never mirrored the parts themselves, only their placements.
  25. ferram4
    KSP is a 32 bit application; it can only use up to 4 GB of RAM. Trust me, you're probably running out of memory, it's the only type of crash that ever happens in this game.
×
×
  • Create New...