4plains

Hi Guys Here's (https://youtu.be/qQOtCFAK7wo) me doing some Air Racing. I managed to do a 2:21.9 and a 1:56.0. Mods used: Tweak Scale, nuFAR (Full Drag, strict Area Ruling; aka the hardest settings), BDArmoury (part essential for the aerodynamics on the craft), B9 pWings (Ballast Weight), on KSP 1.0.2. The 1:56.0 was hard to fly, but with a joystick and a bit of course knowledge it aint so hard. Greets 4plains

Finally made a nuFAR tutorial. Hope you'll all enjoy it. 4plains

Yes long and thin craft need to follow a specific reentry profile. Have you checked your transsonic design graphs for your reentry vehicle? If it produces a lot of drag at the front (the side facing into the airstream) of the vehicle and not at the back you have a instable craft at high speeds. sweeping the AOA in the design tools tab at high mach values is a good method of checking that. With Aircraft what I usually do is that I try to elimiate all the stuff that causes high drag at the front and IF I do have high drag stuff like airbrakes it's at the rear; for reentry vehicles I build a high drag assembly at the back (usually out of structural parts) to counteract the instability problem at high speed. Your Airbrakes idea isn't bad but If you don't have 'em at the start, a 1x1 structural panel is as good if put between pod and parachute. Greets 4plains

Yes at the moment intakes and engines add to the wave drag area. (Unless changed and I've missed it in the changelog) This is still like it because it would be a lot of work to code this feature and as I understand Ferram4 is currently busy squashing bugs that are still in the aero model before implementing more features. I mean look at the source code on github. I learn programming at university (2nd semester) and I'm awed.

Visual Mesh is fine. It also displays the scale correctly when right clicked. nuFAR treats the part as having 100% scale instead of usually having 400% in my case as I'm upscaling smaller wings because of their smooth shaped meshes. nuFAR just updated from 15.0 "Euler" to 15.1 "Fanno". I'll test if I can reproduce the bug there too. I'll further test if quicksaving/loading messes up things too as well as loading a vessel with scaled parts in the editor. Results will be posted here when I have them. [Testing finished] Restults: I have not been able to reproduce the bug as of yet. I've pulled all the strings: -quicksaving/quickloading -using CTRL + Z for undoing changes -wildly scaling parts If I can still reproduce such a bug in the future, I'll post here again, but for now this bee is squashed. (phew, I'm so happy)

I have to report testing progress of tracking a down a bug/bee of using TweakScale together with nuFAR: I have found out how to trigger it. It happenes when CTRL + Z is used to revert changes to a craft. From that point onwards nuFAR doesn't know what to use to calculate lift. From behavior I presume it uses the 100% scale part as reference even though I have it rescaled at a different size. I'm at a loss what would cause such behavior. On Ferram4's thread I posted about that too today. nuFAR gets the correct mesh, but having a scaled part on the craft and then using CTRL + Z revert changes to it makes the lift calculation go bonkers. I'll test this further to see whether or not I can track this bug/bee down further. 4plains

I have a progress report on the wierdness that I've found out happenes when using nuFAR with TweakScale. I had posted earlier (page 890 thereabouts) that when scaling and moving parts sometimes the game would glitch and nuFAR wouldn't calculate the correct values and work correctly. The trigger is using CTRL + Z to revert some changes done to the craft. After that all scaled parts are displayed with the correct visual mesh and the stats are correct, but the lift calculation works on the part being at 100% scale. It also seems to go wierd overall. I've built 20t aircraft without scaled part on them and 100m^2 wing surface area. It needed to go 120m/s at 10° AoA to get off the runway... The bug is gone after I reload the game. If I open any craft with bugged wings it persists. FAR works together well with B9 pWings (havent tested the other variety pWings, couldn't get them to work). I use the up to date version of Tweak Scale. I don't know whether this can be fixed from your side Ferram4, the developer of Tweak Scale (Pellinor) says that from his side using the scaling function it should return the correct size of mesh and visual mesh to the game for FAR to work with. I have posted on this on the tweak scale thread too. Thank you for looking into this. 4plains Edit: If KSP is not closed and reopened the bug gets progessivly worse with calculating lift. I know how to reproduce the bug, but I'm at a loss which part of the code it would come from. What kind of variable are you using for storing the value for lift in your code Ferram4? Integer or Floating point number? Could that be caused by a variable overflow? Bug is gone as of updating to nuFAR 15.1 "Fanno". Good Job Ferram4

I will look into the fixed/moving mesh thing and test that. Never considered that. nuFAR works by approximating the shape of the aircraft with voxels (hence VoxelAeroPort) and calculating the aerodynamic forces thereof. It only goes by the meshes the parts. It ignores all the stats that parts usually feed the game for the aerodynamics. If the rescaling glitches and nuFAR doesn't get the information that the part mesh is scaled up/down, the aerodynamics go all sorts of crazy. I'm not familiar if changing the visual model also changes the hitbox mesh, which is what nuFAR uses for aero calculations. Steps 1. - 8. described by me earlier are the way to reproduce this bug. Place part, scale it, move it, rotate it, scale/move..., launch the aircraft and revert or recover triggering the game to reload the craft in the editor and now the aerodynamics are all kinds of wierd. Wierdest thing is I only have this issue with your version of tweak scale. Biotronics TweakScale for 0.90 does not produce these bees. In the FAR Thread someone has said that this needs to be in the code for nuFAR to correctly interact with TweakScale. I'm not sure though if that is correct information. Greets 4plains

@Bakase: 2 things to make clear: 1. This is a response thread for Ferram4 to get feedback for Bugs in the code of nuFAR. Posting reports on bugs that don't have the correct dependencies installed and ensuring that you as a player are on the newest version of nuFAR, Module Manager and Flight Integrator will not help Ferram4. So if you want to have a bug free version of nuFAR out as fast as possible, make sure your issue still persists in the newest release of nuFAR before posting. 2. If you take it as rude when rules are being stated to clarify how we're supposed to interact here, chill out bro. Test it, play it, when you find a bug, see if it's the newest version you're on. If not, then update, try to reproduce it, if you were able to, make a post on how exactly to reproduce your bug. Sincerily 4plains

Hello Ferram4 Since upgrading to the 1.0.2 compatible version of TweakScale I have been getting odd behavior together with nuFAR. I have posted about this on the TweakScale development thread too. FAR seems to get confused when I change the scale of parts as to the hitboxes and meshes it's supposed to use. This is a particular problem since it gets most confused when changing the size of the small Tail Fin, Standard Canard, and the 2 Small Winglets (AR-2 and AR-69 I think is their name). FAR calculates with the correct cross section of the wing, but lift calculated therefrom seems odd. I had a standard canard each side of the plane at 400% scale as main wing (a bit larger than a Big-S Delta Wing), plane weighs 20t. It needed 155 m/s to get off the runway at a AoA of ~10°. (I use Full Real Drag setting, the plane has a max crossection of 8 m^2 and wave drag area of 1.35 m^2). Steps to reproduce: 1. Place a small wing (Standard Canard, Tail Fin, ...) 2. Scale up 3. Move it and other parts with the Offset building mode 4. Sweep AoA with the nuFAR build helper 5. Rescale 6. Repeat 1. - 4.; 1. and 2. not required; (Graphs don't really change, and sometimes the game thinks my part is at 100% scale)# 7. Launch, Revert/Recover craft 8. Graphs updated and part now seems to work (as it should) or: Graphs update but parts are now treated by nuFAR as being at 100% scale and therefore producing not the results desired. As of yet I have been able to repoduce this bug with the Standard Canard, the Tail Fin, The AR-68 Winglet, and the standard winglet. The new Big-S and FAT-455 parts seem to be immute to this as well as the Elevons(haven't tried rescaling either). Thank you for looking into this. Greets 4plains - - - Updated - - - You seem to be using P-Wings or B9 P-Wings. 1. How are you getting them to work, I can't. 2. Have you looked at using the transsonic design tools that Ferram provides us in the FAR-window. Try so smooth out the yellow graph that appears when clicking on "Toggle Cross-Section Area Curves". The yellow graph is a representation of how much supersonic drag you have. Also it's displayed in a window as "Mach 1 Wave Drag Area" (my frikkin' part descripion window is masking that part of the FAR-Tab). You want that so be as small as possible and your yellow graph to be as close to 0 as possible. The yellow graph is the 2nd derivative of the green graph displayed. In laymens terms this means that the yellow graph is a representation of how thight the curves on the green graph are. Picture below shows the 2 graphs and the FAR window.

Greeting to the developer of TweakScale. My TweakScale behaves wierdly together with nuFAR (VoxelAeroPort). I'm not sure it's because I use the development version of FAR, the voxelAeroPort, or it's TweakScale itself. Or because I have an incorrect/incomplete install of TweakScale (What's it dependent on if it is?). When I rescale parts, their ingame stats are changed, but nuFAR seems to get confused over the size/hitbox/mesh of the part I use. Since nuFAR ignores any kind of aerodynamicly relevant stats of parts and goes by a voxelized approximation of the Aircraft's or Rocket's shape this posts quite the problem. Steps to reproduce: 1. Place a small wing (Standard Canard, Tail Fin, ...) 2. Scale up 3. Move it and other parts with the Offset building mode 4. Sweep AoA with the nuFAR build helper 5. Rescale 6. Repeat 1. - 4.; 1. and 2. not required; (Graphs don't really change, and sometimes the game thinks my part is at 100% scale)# 7. Launch, Revert/Recover craft 8. Graphs updated and part now seems to work (as it should) or: Graphs update but parts are now treated by nuFAR as being at 100% scale and therefore producing not the results desired. As of yet I have been able to repoduce this bug with the Standard Canard, the Tail Fin, The AR-68 Winglet, and the standard winglet. The new Big-S and FAT-455 parts seem to be immute to this as well as the Elevons. Thank you for looking into this. I'll post a similar post at the FAR Thread. Greets 4plains

Seems alright. I've been doing acrobatics at the mountains west of KSC. I can do 25G and my wings don't snap off at wing strength setting 1. So solid andamantium used there. I'd say I can get away with 0.5 strenth wings.

I've been playing around with with nuFAR and have made a "single engine" Black Bird. It doesn't look amazing, but it works. I can get it up to 400m/s (Mach 1.15) at sea level. Flying higher than 4000m it an accelerate until the new heating mechanics combust it. I have been getting it up to 1200 m/s at 5000m, before it exploded due to overheating. It uses a standard turbojet (not the basic jet). It has no modded parts, so it would work as a stock craft. You can get it here: http://www./download/40n2zu43g64e6ka/Sonic+Hunter+III.craft. As you see I went 740m/s in the last image and I was still accelerating at 10m/s. PS: The landing gear sticking out the top of the fuselage underneath the elevator isn't there to look funny. I had to place it there to smooth out the derivative of the cross section area graph. It reduces the mach shock wave drag area by 0.2m^2 from 1.85 m^2 to 1.65 m^2. So it reduces the supersonic drag by ~10 % (!). Now some pictures:

@ferram4: I havent seen any mention of this subject. Everybody seems to be going CRAAAZY about the changes to supersonic and transsonic aerodynamics (that I love to bits, btw.) Yesterday I've tried gliding an airplane built for supersonic testing of the new FAR aero and the nuStock heating mechanics back to base. I managed to maintain Mach 0.8 with a dive angle of 2° (!). Craft weighs about 20t and has 8.1 m^2 max crossection area and 2.5 m^2 Mach 1 wave drag area. Is nuFAR supposed to have such low subsonic drag if the aircraft is built correctly? (Flight data tells me I have a terminal velocity of 700 m/s at 2000m altitude). Another thing I noticed is that the indicator for the center of aerodynamic forces isn't where it's supposed to be. The plane shown in the pictures (imgur album: http://imgur.com/a/FspgS) has it in front of the CoM indicator and it flies stable subsonic and supersonic. I can further confirm that the voxelbased aero works together with TweakScale. The elevators are the resized small tail fins. On the stock turbo jet I can get it up to mach 3.6 (where it combusts because of the new heat mechanics). It has a range of 13000 km according to the FAR flight data. Greeting 4plains

@ferram4: All this discussion about nuFAR, oldFAR, nuStock and stuff has me ask myself a couple of questions: -Will oldFAR get updates for KSP 1.0 and following versions? Because I REALLY like oldFAR. -With the fact that nuFAR now does things based on a voxel based approximation of the aircrafts shape. That could approximate the leading edge of the wing to be rounded. Round airfoils have problems at supersonic speeds with shock waves and have very high drag. So will there be a option that allows us to configure the simulated airfoil shape for supersonic flight. Of course having the simulated wing optimised for supersonic airflow conditions will mean worse sub sonic handling than smooth wings designed for subsonic flying conditions. Just a bunch of random questions. Thanks for answering in advance.