[1.8-1.12] Ferram Aerospace Research Continued: v0.16.0.5 "Mader" 03/04/22

[dkavolis]

3 hours ago, Critter79606 said:

Thanks for the explanation dkavolis.  At least I understand why it's not working.  Looks like I have 109 parts that don't have configs.  Is there any documentation on calculating conversions?  Maybe I could take some time and try to convert some of them (If my pea brain can figure it out).

Check https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Deriving-FAR-values-for-a-wing-using-Blender-2.7

[Critter79606]

3 minutes ago, dkavolis said:

Check https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Deriving-FAR-values-for-a-wing-using-Blender-2.7

Thanks.  I'll give it a try while on vacation, see how bad I can crack up some aircraft!

[dkavolis]

The debug voxel display performance has been fixed, you can get the latest version of FAR from master branch of https://github.com/dkavolis/Ferram-Aerospace-Research

[Jonathon594]

So I'm using this on 1.4.5, installed via CKAN. On the github page explaining stability derivitives it says if Xu is ever wrong, something is broken in my game and I have it display red occasionally at low speeds, IE runway takeoff. I find it pretty hard to make a plane fly stable at all, I can get them to fly but take off they sometimes just spin out on the runway and I know they are not just plain badly designed. Is something broken in my install?

[Drew Kerman]

7 hours ago, Jonathon594 said:

take off they sometimes just spin out on the runway

That’s likely a wheel issue. To confirm, select the auto friction button on all the wheels and set the friction to 0. Now see if you can takeoff okay

[Beetlecat]

On 1/4/2019 at 9:38 AM, Drew Kerman said:

That’s likely a wheel issue. To confirm, select the auto friction button on all the wheels and set the friction to 0. Now see if you can takeoff okay

Finally trying FAR out during a rebuild of 1.6 and holy cow -- it's a different experience. This was happening to a favorite craft of Raptor9's (the "skyhawk") until I realized it was an old version built in 1.1. Loading up the newer one worked fine, if not for the craft performance. FAR is pretty unforgiving. I'll need to relearn nearly everything!

[AloE]

On 12/24/2018 at 12:08 AM, dkavolis said:

It seems that those parts are missing configs for FAR. FAR replaces ModuleLiftingSurface with FARWingAerodynamicModel (you can see it in FerramAerospaceResearch.cfg). In addition, kerbalEVA and a couple new parts are also missing configs. Just find all the parts that have ModuleLiftingSurface or ModuleControlSurface in your MM cache.

at GITHub:

Quote

dkavolis commented 14 hours ago

Voxels are used for computing properties that depend on the cross section. FARWingAerodynamicModel is still required for FAR to function.

@dkavolis sounds like I may need to dig through parts...if am i understanding correctly now that FAR will still place voxels around a part even if it has no FARWingAerodynamicModel ?  ( In other words, even if the debug voxel view while building the craft in SPH for example looks great around a craft, I still may have used parts using ModuleLiftingSurface rather than only ones patched to have the proper FARWingAerodynamicModel so i can not use the voxels as an easy check for making sure all the parts I am using have the FARWingAerodynamicModel config ? )

 

 

On 12/23/2018 at 4:59 PM, theonegalen said:

@kcs123

I have some FAR configs for APP wings, but they're on my computer at home. I won't be back there for about a week.

@theonegalen Such APP wing configs sounds very helpful...i would be grateful to try those out!

[AloE]

On 12/24/2018 at 11:14 AM, dkavolis said:

I agree with ferram and won't add a highly inaccurate feature that very few people will use anyway. Unless anyone can find a CPU cheap implementation that will be at least approximate, ground effect is not planned.

indeed I very much appreciate your current improvements thus value your focus there instead...very much looking forward to your & @Booots work leading to FAR support in Kerbal Wind tunnel!

Quote

Kerbal Wind Tunnel 1.2.2  Still no FAR support, just a little more work to do.

Still I find amusing just imagining what some of those 'few' might actually do with a ground effect model even if was 'contained' to be only active in a very flat  'test' location like a pole ice field...one day far in the future:

Spoiler

 

 

[dkavolis]

1 hour ago, AloE said:

@dkavolis sounds like I may need to dig through parts...if am i understanding correctly now that FAR will still place voxels around a part even if it has no FARWingAerodynamicModel ?  ( In other words, even if the debug voxel view while building the craft in SPH for example looks great around a craft, I still may have used parts using ModuleLiftingSurface rather than only ones patched to have the proper FARWingAerodynamicModel so i can not use the voxels as an easy check for making sure all the parts I am using have the FARWingAerodynamicModel config ? )

Yeah, voxels will only setup cross-sectional properties, I think only colliders are needed to place the voxels which most parts have. You will still need FARWingAerodynamicModel modules to provide lift and drag which will be affected by the cross-section.

[AloE]

On 12/23/2018 at 12:51 PM, kcs123 said:

strange things is that even if you use only cockpit and fuselage parts it also breaks FAR somehow. Anyhow, that was issue few KSP versions ago, haven't tried yet if same things happen with your forked version of FAR and latest KSP.

First sign that something is wrong when you use those parts is that in SPH/VAB editor you get stock balls for lift with arrow. You should see just blue ball without arrow with FAR. Another issue is that while you still can fly crafts with those parts, drag is not properly calculated, you got NaNs in FAR data window while in flight

 

2 hours ago, dkavolis said:

You will still need FARWingAerodynamicModel modules to provide lift and drag which will be affected by the cross-section.

OK...Thank you...so I will use DebugStuff to look for parts missing FAR modules...especially will keep an eye out with regards to APP parts:

DebugStuff used to check a part's FAR modules

FAR DebugStuff

 

[dkavolis]

2 hours ago, AloE said:

OK...Thank you...so I will use DebugStuff to look for parts missing FAR modules...especially will keep an eye out with regards to APP parts:

Or you can just search for ModuleLiftingSurface in MM cache.

[kcs123]

I should correct myself, you get NaNs in flight if there is no other parts involved that have proper lift/drag calculations. But, without proper data you would definetly get wrong calculation of lift and drag, though not always noticable as it become totaly broken with NaNs.

[AloE]

15 hours ago, kcs123 said:

without proper data you would definitely get wrong calculation of lift and drag, though not always noticeable

thanks for the clarification...indeed also a concern of mine that I am looking forward t understanding & figuring out how to assess...how do we check up on a given part's effect on the over all lift & drag, etc data...for example,  ZLM-Master has some interesting craft at KerbalX useful for testing purposes with FAR &  APP...in particular the Rafale B - Demo Edition uses 4 of a single connector part from AirplanePlus that shows up using ModuleLiftingSurface rather than FARWingAero...the part is mostly embedded into the wing ...so is it just ignored by FAR as if it does not exist from a lift & drag perspective or does having the ModuleLiftingSurface module called by any part in the craft break something much more serious & thus the associated symptom question what does having even a single part that uses a ModuleLiftingSurface change the blue aero overlay ball to one with arrows really mean...i.e. is the approximation made just a bit less good or does it make a big change to the FAR calculations...my questions emerging from the interesting insights from the related conversation at GitHub:

https://github.com/dkavolis/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/issues/19#issuecomment-451737783

https://kerbalx.com/ZLM-Master/Rafale-B-Demo-Edition

FAR & AirplanePlus Connector that uses MLS rather than FARWingAero

 

Edited January 7, 2019 by AloE
added links

[New Horizons]

I have a question to the latest release. Is this usable for RO especially or even only?

[AloE]

15 hours ago, dkavolis said:

Or you can just search for ModuleLiftingSurface in MM cache.

yes, thank you...that appears good for the bulk parts approach especially by mod pack...note that MM does not produce a cache if it logs an ERR  (also, I use KSP 1.4.5 but for anyone using 1.6 there seems to be some trouble with MM & parts & mods due to a Squad change/issue: proposed workaround )

The FAR wiki has some very interesting descriptions, but I have not found a discussion of 'parts' or what happens when they fall off a craft, etc which in part reinforced my recently popped 'voxels are everything bubble'...lol...thus I would greatly appreciate your current assessment regarding how FAR handles:

• a part that uses ModuleLiftingSurface, but is mostly or completely 1) inside fuselage or 2) mostly surrounded by parts that use FARWingAero?  e.g. FAR ignores the lift/drag of the part, or SQUAD lift/drag values mess with FAR calculations, or otherwise makes the FAR approximation less good, or completely breaks FARs calculation process? or?
• heavily overlapped parts that both use FARWingAero...I frequently see this when people create a specific shape from squad or other fixed shape parts...such that literally 3/4 of one wing shape may be inside of a 2nd or 3rd wing shape (i.e. not a B9 'procedural wing')
  • related is how does tweakscaling a part affect FAR calculations?
• when heat or aero stress break off or explode off a part of a FAR craft, conceptually, how does the FAR model for that craft change in flight...new voxel craft shape?  plus removal of the lost part(s) FARWingAero influence on the overall craft FAR calculations? or?

at the moment my focus is on the few parts most commonly used in our environment that have the ModuleLiftingSurface module.  I needed a way to easily identify these few parts while building (or deconstructing) craft in SPH.  DebugStuff works very well for that so that is why I described & offered that as another option.  i am hoping that more & more FAR users become interested in making & sharing corrections for at least their most frequently used/favorite parts so that at least the best/most useful parts in various mod packs work well with FAR's 'calculation process'.

(I use many mod parts packs so the MM cache is full of parts that still use ModuleLiftingSurface but at the moment most of those parts are not used for FAR projects since I have found changing mods packs for different projects to be too time consuming. I already manage 4 different 'project environment' GameData folders: Trappist -1, RSS/Principia, Stock KerbalEDU lessons, & FAR projects...my hope is to work out a process by which when I identify a part we really need with FAR, I can do whatever is needed to get that part working better with FAR...so more of a 1x1 approach which is likely all I will be able to handle for now....)

Thanks for your insights & efforts!

[Bla Bla]

Hi,

First, thank you so much for your hard work keeping this mod alive, and even improving it !

Also, I'd like to report a bug with v1.6 : when FAR is installed, the engines in editor will have a flame coming out of them, even when creating a new craft (which is not too annoying), and the inflatable heat shield will always start open in editor, and can't be retracted (no button, which is much much more annoying). Not sure though if it is due to FAR itself or one of it's dependencies (Module Manager and Modular Flight Integrator), but it is definetly one of these mods causing the issue with the inflatable heat shield, so I thought I should try to report it here.

I really look forward to being able to use FAR again with certain ships with this part...

[dkavolis]

22 hours ago, AloE said:

a part that uses ModuleLiftingSurface, but is mostly or completely 1) inside fuselage or 2) mostly surrounded by parts that use FARWingAero?  e.g. FAR ignores the lift/drag of the part, or SQUAD lift/drag values mess with FAR calculations, or otherwise makes the FAR approximation less good, or completely breaks FARs calculation process? or?

I think FAR simply ignores those parts that haven't got any FAR modules attached, so the part will generate stock lift and drag which will be different to FAR values. Such parts will not affect FAR calculations but also won't be taken into account so you will get something in between stock and FAR.

 

22 hours ago, AloE said:

heavily overlapped parts that both use FARWingAero...I frequently see this when people create a specific shape from squad or other fixed shape parts...such that literally 3/4 of one wing shape may be inside of a 2nd or 3rd wing shape (i.e. not a B9 'procedural wing')

• related is how does tweakscaling a part affect FAR calculations?

 

I don't think FAR even bothers will calculating parts overlapping but it does take into account the relative positioning of the parts with respect to each other. I'm not sure how much the values are affected by parts overlapping or even if they are vaguely accurate. Tweakscale is supported in FAR.

 

22 hours ago, AloE said:

when heat or aero stress break off or explode off a part of a FAR craft, conceptually, how does the FAR model for that craft change in flight...new voxel craft shape?  plus removal of the lost part(s) FARWingAero influence on the overall craft FAR calculations? or?

Voxelization is redone but that takes a few frames usually, depending on the size of the craft. This also triggers an update on the active FAR modules in the craft.

 

8 hours ago, Bla Bla said:

Hi,

First, thank you so much for your hard work keeping this mod alive, and even improving it !

Also, I'd like to report a bug with v1.6 : when FAR is installed, the engines in editor will have a flame coming out of them, even when creating a new craft (which is not too annoying), and the inflatable heat shield will always start open in editor, and can't be retracted (no button, which is much much more annoying). Not sure though if it is due to FAR itself or one of it's dependencies (Module Manager and Modular Flight Integrator), but it is definetly one of these mods causing the issue with the inflatable heat shield, so I thought I should try to report it here.

I really look forward to being able to use FAR again with certain ships with this part...

That's a known issue with MM in KSP 1.6, there's nothing I can do.

[AloE]

9 hours ago, Bla Bla said:

the inflatable heat shield will always start open in editor, and can't be retracted (no button, which is much much more annoying). Not sure though if it is due to FAR itself or one of it's dependencies (Module Manager and Modular Flight Integrator)

you can try the workaround & follow the active discussion about it at the MM forum topic

[Bla Bla]

Thank you !

[theonegalen]

On 1/6/2019 at 4:48 AM, AloE said:

@theonegalen Such APP wing configs sounds very helpful...i would be grateful to try those out!

Here you go! I wasn't able to figure out how to do the leading Edge flaps or the Krueger flaps, but this should be the other APP Wings and elevons.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lzlkz02002bun3f/APP-FAR.cfg?dl=0

[Picard]

Hi guys

I was hoping you could assist me. Running 1.6 and this FAR edit (thanks for keeping alive because I love this mod) and I'm having an issue with the lift generated off vertical stabilisers.

It appears that the wings that make up the rudders produce life only on one side and causes the craft to yaw. I have an image but I don't know how to attach it (first time post).

Has anyone else come across this?

 

EDIT

On further inspection it only appears to affect craft launching from the main KSP runway. The other runways don't appear to be affected by this Yaw artifact. Go figure.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Picard

[AloE]

14 hours ago, theonegalen said:

Here you go! I wasn't able to figure out how to do the leading Edge flaps or the Krueger flaps, but this should be the other APP Wings and elevons.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lzlkz02002bun3f/APP-FAR.cfg?dl=0

Excellent...Thank you...I will try these out & also these configs as an example make it so much more clear the part config instructions...& I will attempt to do the process on some other parts. Thanks again!

14 hours ago, Picard said:

I have an image but I don't know how to attach it (first time post).

I am curious to see your images of what you are observing...so the easiest way I have found to post & image is to upload the image to imgur.com & then copy the "direct link"...then paste that link into your post...this forum automatically converts it to an image...you can use a 'spoiler' to hide it like i do below or make a 'table' to limit the picture's size in the post (it goes full size when people click on the image)... click to see example in image below:

Spoiler

 

 

[Picard]

Hi there AloE

 

Thanks for the guide

 

The image is below. It's a strange artifact that occurs whether I've one or two vertical stabilizers. I know it's difficult to see, but the left and right vertical stabilizers are identical in the pressure they're imparting. Instead of mirroring eachother and offsetting, it's like both are contributing force to same direction. My crafts automatically yaw and roll to the left. It's odd.

[AloE]

3 hours ago, Picard said:

the left and right vertical stabilizers are identical in the pressure they're imparting. Instead of mirroring eachother and offsetting, it's like both are contributing force to same direction. My crafts automatically yaw and roll to the left. It's odd.

are you willing to share your .craft file for this vessel (either via a google drive or drop box or KerbalX link) ?

you may already know where to find the .craft file, but just in case not, it is likely located in the SPH folder in your game save in the main Saves folder = KSP-->Saves-->[your named save]-->Ships-->SPH (rather than in the main Ships-->SPH folder). 

I would like to see this behavior in action & study the parts in use so easiest for me to do that if I have the .craft file...thanks!

[byong614]

I used SM Marine with FAR and the boat was very unstable. SM said that it had to do with how FAR changes boyancy and drags in game and he is not prepared to retune all the parts to work within the changed non stock  buoyancy and drag system. Is there a way to stabalize boyancy at your end or maybe if I could tweak cfg file or something to make only boyancy stock profile?