Jump to content

ferram4

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,132

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ferram4

  1. ferram4
    Yeah, that makes sense; the I-beams are relatively small, but they're expected to have very high breaking strengths. This is why I didn't want to override breaking strengths initially. Just go into the config.xml and set breakStrengthPerArea to zero and that will remove the modifications of breaking forces. I'll have to come up with some way to handle this that; probably just have it set the breaking forces to be the maximum of the stock breaking force and the one calculated for the area. Unfortunately, that leaves things like KW Rocketry having stupidly large breaking forces for no reason, but there's probably nothing I can do about that.
  2. ferram4
    @Andrewmacor: Picture of the vehicle please? Maximum g-forces? There is no part smaller than 3m between the space station and the launcher, correct? Struts to stabilize the load? Running KJR v1.5 in KSP 0.23? Component isn't a gigantic tank of fuel with lots of parts between it and the connection to the launch vehicle, right? Like I said initially, a picture would be nice, since it's more revealing than mere words. @PlasmaDynamics: Yes, but it will still be a weaker connection than between a parts connected by decouplers. If you're intending to build an interplanetary ship with this it will make the flexing easier to deal with but it won't let you get away with 5 g acceleration on a spindly ISS/MIR-looking thing.
  3. ferram4
    Are you sure you're using the most recent version of FAR? Because I just played around with docking and undocking and i couldn't reproduce the issue. Could you provide more detail about how to cause the issue?
  4. ferram4
    I have attempted to reproduce the wobbling issue with Fustek and couldn't; the parts seem as rigid as they should be. In order to attempt to fix the many complaints about this version "not working" I've re-uploaded it to spaceport and mediafire using the file from my save. If it doesn't work for you you will have to turn on debugging in the config.xml and provide a full output_log.txt in order for me to figure out what's wrong. As far as I can tell, all of the complaints are missing important information necessary to reproduce the issue, such as the exact circumstances the issue appeared in and a full mod list (including versions).
  5. ferram4
    The atmoshpereTemperatureMultiplier does weird things. It seems to scale around 0 degrees Celsius, so increasing the temperature multiplier decreases the temperature in the upper atmosphere. Which is why Jool's upper atmosphere is made of unphysical temperature. Also, the name makes more sense if you imagine Sean Connery saying it.
  6. ferram4
    @Zyglrox: The control surface time constant defines how long it will take for a control surface to properly deflect, modelling the servo controlling it as a first-order system where the time constant is used to determine how much to change the control deflection every frame. If the control input changes from one constant to another, the system will reach 67% of the commanded deflection 1 time constant after the command is initially issued, reaching ~98% of the commanded deflection 3 time constants after the deflection occurs. It's selected not because the modelling is simple, but because it makes modelling the control surface response in a more advanced control system (say, a more intelligent SAS) far, far simpler. Every time I tried increasing the time constant, SAS became far, far worse at controlling my planes in every case. Every time I tried decreasing it SAS has had an easier time handling the issue. The problem is when you have a not perfectly balanced plane, and SAS commands a deflection that should be enough to bring things under control, but the control surface hasn't reached that deflection yet. So it commands more deflection, and when the control surface blows past the balance point the plane starts heading in the other direction. The reason it's hard mode is that it makes SAS far less forgiving. And since SAS got fixed in 0.21 and "fixed" further in 0.22, people have assumed that SAS will be perfectly fine with whatever they throw at it. And that will never be the case. @gallexme: If you're having fps drops caused by turning on SAS then that sounds like you either have background applications interfering with KSP or something else. I seriously doubt FAR is causing the fps issues if they're that intermittent. @Tharios: No, that's not what I'm talking about. Your issue is caused by uneven flexing in the plane / a lack of sufficient yaw stability and is a perfectly realistic and intended behavior. What I'm talking about is getting a plane up to supersonic speeds and the computation freaks out and causes a single frame of larger-than-realistic lifting force on one wing, causing the plane to suddenly start rolling, but the force causing it disappears the next frame.
  7. ferram4
    @DaMichel: Those will fly much better once I get the v0.12.4 update out. It looks cool, but needs a nice texture to really look good awesome. Nice work. @jrandom: I don't see a FAR icon on his screen, so I'm assuming he's not using FAR and this is an effect of stock aerodynamics. I think the stock winglet code applies forces at the part origin, so there's nothing to be done in his case.
  8. ferram4
    @Thorbane: You would have to find out what the PartModule or Part "type" is, and then add the appropriate exemption to the config.xml. I don't use KAS, so I don't know exactly what you would want to add, but look at the exemptions that are already there; once you figure that out, come back and post what you found and I'll add the exemption to stock KJR. @AveXx: I dunno it seems fine: You are using KJR v1.5 in KSP 0.23, correct?
  9. ferram4
    An expansion of this challenge so that they can attempt to do rover racing without dealing with infinigliding nonsense. I specified some terms, they agreed, we'll see how it goes.
  10. ferram4
    First post; the link that says "older versions"
  11. ferram4
    Why are you trying to make FAR 0.12+ work with KSP 0.22? It isn't compatible with that version of KSP due to the new tweakbles system; you'll have to use the mediafire mirror to download v0.11 if you're unwilling to upgrade to KSP 0.23.
  12. ferram4
    As soon as I am sure that the current changes haven't broken anything. Got a few trips to nullspace while testing the lifting body changes.
  13. ferram4
    That's getting tweaked in the next release. You'll be able to set them in half-degree increments instead of the current mess.
  14. ferram4
    @luckyhendrix: I need more information, and probably a picture of the vehicle before I can diagnose what's going on. And what do you mean by "everything goes crazy?" Does the plane become unstable in pitch and flip out? Does it sideslip until it crashes? Does it dance on the runway and then crash out? @Short Circuit: Make sure you don't have multiple copies of ModuleManager floating around, since that might cause an issue, but other than that, I don't know if I can help you. FAR doesn't touch anything near the tech tree, so it's something else causing the screw up. Especially since I have my own career mode working perfectly fine. All of your other mods are up to date, correct? What versions are they? Can you provide an entire output_log.txt (from KSP_Data; don't post KSP.log, it's useless, and don't cut it short; people who do that tend to leave out important information in the process) from when you managed to cause the issue? I suspect that all of the other mods aren't actually working "fine and dandy" but are just appearing to, and adding FAR simply exacerbates an existing issue in your install. Oh, and for everyone who likes lifting bodies: It's actually quite good looking except for the cockpit-fueltank-engine tumor on it's back, set up that way so no thrust angles downward. But it flies quite nicely with wings only to add stability and produce a pitch-up tendency. So lifting bodies shall return, if not in the crazy form they were previously.
  15. ferram4
    What are you trying to launch? I need more information than "it doesn't work," since from everything I've seen, it does work. I need a picture of the problem to even have a chance of figuring out what's wrong.
  16. ferram4
    Well, what is the connection between the payload and the rocket? If you're trying to get a tiny docking port to support a huge payload under high loads it's going to break.
  17. ferram4
    You're using FAR. But you haven't updated to the most recent versions of FAR. This was a notable issue in v0.12, where decoupled parts would feel one physics frame of sea-level density, causing nasty things to happen in space. Update your mods regularly, and when asking for help on a modded install, list all mods, including version numbers. It helps tracking down the possible issues.
  18. ferram4
    @jrandom: Try boosting the Linear "Soft" Movement Limit values; look in the readme for documentation. Just don't reduce the linLimit value too much or weird jumpiness will happen. I honestly don't know if anything can be done for it, since boosting stiffness values further tends to cause Kraken attacks. @Garloth": You're launching at 4x physics warp with 2.5 g's of acceleration and haven't shown any pictures of the craft or told us what happened when it failed. It sounds like you're just trying to break the physics simulation.
  19. ferram4
    You mean, you will turn your back on the cult of Moar Boosters and turn to the cult of Moar Engines, replacing every Mainsail with 50x 48-7s', which have a higher TWR and better Isp. And through this you shall achieve greater Isp. Embrace the lessons learned by the designers of the N1; it is better to have more engines than to have bigger engines, for it allows greater Excess and Awesome.
  20. ferram4
    I went and changed some things, and when version 0.12.4 comes out body lift will be more viable than it is currently. I did some math and it turns out that body lift at low angles of attack isn't quite high enough, so I'm boosting it back up a bit; pure structural part lifting bodies won't be quite as effective, but one with a pair of tiny wings attached should be doable. Pure structural part lifting bodies will need some thrust behind them to counteract the large amount of drag on them (which is what kills them now), but with tiny wings a glider will be possible. Other than that, the solution to making a lifting body is always to just go faster. At high enough speeds, even barn doors make significant amounts of lift. Also, I think I narrowed down and squished the "supersonic roll twitch" bug. So that's something nice.
  21. ferram4
    You mean trim? ALT + WASDQE? Been in the game stock for many versions now?
  22. ferram4
    They will. Which means that any slight deviation from vertical will be more noticeable, since instead of the rocket continuing to try to fly almost-straight-up-but-not-quite it will aim down the velocity vector, which is going further off of straight up every second. Fins make the rocket more stable with respect to the velocity vector. If the velocity vector is off of vertical, it'll bring the rocket off of vertical.
  23. ferram4
    It probably doesn't start going straight up, and that leads to the effect of a very early gravity turn.
  24. ferram4
    @SnappingTurtle: Not to my knowledge. Ideally the ones without casings would be broken on ascent if they weren't in fairings, but I can't really change that. @Donziboy2: Yeah, there's a bug that makes the Static Analysis tab less accurate this version. You can probably fix that plane by using smaller wings much further back; what happens to the CoL if you try tilting the plane up? @Fred9001: Are you leaving SAS on? SAS overrides everything. @illectro: Yay! More videos!
  25. ferram4
    I'll add some more issues with mod packs: 1. A mod included in a pack has a serious bug; the mod author pushes an update to fix the bug, but the "packer" doesn't update the pack; people continue to suffer from the bug and continue to send bug reports, complaints, etc. to the mod author. 2. The "packer" loses interest in maintaining the mod pack, but leaves the download up; all of the mod authors have to deal with more and more complaints from users suffering compatibility issues because they downloaded an out-of-date pack. 3. Users are less focused on the mods as individual elements and are more focused on the pack as a whole; this means they are less likely to keep track of all of their mods and what versions those mods are, meaning that trying to provide support for them will be more difficult, since they will be less likely to provide enough info for a diagnosis. Really, the issues with mod packs come down to the fact that for a mod author, it turns into more complaints, more issues to fix, more irritating support, all while someone else makes things harder or easier for you depending on how often they update the pack, and then they get all the credit too.
×
×
  • Create New...