[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18

[MAKC]

Baah!! Crossing fingers for an editable updating in the cfg/UI someday

Go to the KSC, click the FAR icon in the toolbar and from there you can enable any debug option you want. You can also turn off things like high Q disintegration.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Might be a nice idea - "Show detailed drag/lift values" checkbox in the settings menu. Ferram, get on it!

EDIT: I should probably check what FAR actually contains before I start suggesting features for it..

[federally]

Why oh why do I regularly have control surfaces tear off aircraft after the update?

[BudgetHedgehog]

Why oh why do I regularly have control surfaces tear off aircraft after the update?

Because the update made destruction-by-high-dynamic-pressure possible. Basically, if you're going too fast for your control surfaces to cope, they'll break off. To fix it, you need to change your craft and/or your piloting skills.

[somnambulist]

@ferram4 Turns out that the Delta Deluxe Winglets were responsible for introducing the roll. Replacing them with Structural Wings solved the problem. But I don't get why these winglets would cause such an extreme roll for no apparent reason.

I've had similar roll issues if the fins weren't attached *exactly* at a right angle to the rest of the rocket.

[PGHampton]

Ferram: I had a control problem with FAR. I used FAR before and it worked fine. This time though, when I went to launch the roll, yaw and pitch controls were not centered.

I am still using .23 with the following mods: 6s Service Compartments v1.1, Connected Living Space v1.0.3.0, Engineer Redux v0.6.2.3, Epicsharks Hollow Space Station Parts, FAR v0.12.4, FusTek Station Parts, Kethane v0.8.4, FusTek Station Parts Expansion r0.03.5a, SDHI SMS v1.6, KSPX v0.2.6.1, LLL v12, LLL Extra v12, MechJeb2 v2.1.1.01, NovaPunch 2.03a, RealChute v1.1.0.1, RemoteTech2 v1.3.3, ScanSat vb5, SXT alpha v13, Universal Docking Ports v2, Module Manager 1.5.6.

[ferram4]

What do you mean, the controls were not centered? Did you accidentally turn on trim? You can hit ALT + X to turn that off.

Also, many of your mods are out of date, you should update them. For example, your version of FAR was 8 versions ago.

[PGHampton]

Can those updated mods work with .23 instead of .23.5? The versions which I installed are for .23 not .23.5.

And I did not turn trim on, if it was on it started that way. The problem went away when I removed FAR.

Edited May 3, 2014 by PGHampton

[phoenix_ca]

Can those updated mods work with .23 instead of .23.5?

If you're referring to your list, probably not, no. If they were compiled for 0.23.5, you should use them with 0.23.5.

[draeath]

Does this plugin make payload fairings and cargo bays work properly?

It is set up to identify parts labelled "fairing" or "cargo bay" and apply the proper effects to them and the other parts the affect. Since all of these parts are 3rd party mods, incompatibilities may occur; if you find an issue like this, bringing it to my attention along with the craft file suffering the problem can go a long way to fix it.

How exactly does one do this? (eg what parameter in a part .cfg should contain "cargo bay?")

(using the build for .23 if that matters, several of my "critical" mods are deliberately waiting for .24 so I won't be updating to .23.5)

Edited May 3, 2014 by draeath

[undercoveryankee]

Can those updated mods work with .23 instead of .23.5?

Whether a mod compiled against 0.23.5 runs on 0.23 depends on what it interacts with. If it touches parts of the game that didn't really change between versions, you may be able to get away with it.

The last FAR that was compiled against 0.23 was FAR 0.12.5.2. Even if you can't run versions that were compiled for 0.23.5, you can at least update that far.

RealChute has been compiled against 0.23.5 since RealChute 1.04. Seems to be one of the lucky ones.

[undercoveryankee]

How exactly does one do this? (eg what parameter in a part .cfg should contain "cargo bay?")

(using the build for .23 if that matters, several of my "critical" mods are deliberately waiting for .24 so I won't be updating to .23.5)

The key words ("fairing", "cargo bay", and a few others are recognized) should appear in the title of the part.

The complete list of recognized keywords appears in GameData/FerramAerospaceResearch/FARPartClassification.cfg. You can edit this if you need to recognize a title that isn't already in it.

Edited May 3, 2014 by undercoveryankee
Added detail on what keywords are used.

[BudgetHedgehog]

(eg what parameter in a part .cfg should contain "cargo bay?")

I'm guessing the 'title' line. It's something that the KW fairings and B9 Cargo Bays have in common (B9's bay just contain the word 'cargo' in the name line, but KWs fairings title line contain the word 'fairing' and B9's bay's title line contain the words 'cargo bay' which are both strings recognised by FAR).

I could be entirely wrong though.

[draeath]

Cheers, thank you guys!

EDIT: you know, i could have found this myself...

If anyone wants to see the specifics, check out GameData/FerramAerospaceResearch/FARPartClassification.cfg

Edited May 3, 2014 by draeath

[Drew Kerman]

so things are breaking on my aircraft now thanks to the high dynamic pressure feature. I have no idea how to plan for this. As in - stick a hardpoint under my wing with science instruments and know how fast not to go so it doesn't rip off. Any tips? I'm playing a career story (see sig) so I don't do "sim flights" or anything like that to test what breaks under what conditions - I have to stick a kerbal in it and hope he doesn't die. So I try to do the proper maths and aerodynamic design as close to perfect as I can in the SPH.

[Motokid600]

so things are breaking on my aircraft now thanks to the high dynamic pressure feature. I have no idea how to plan for this. As in - stick a hardpoint under my wing with science instruments and know how fast not to go so it doesn't rip off. Any tips? I'm playing a career story (see sig) so I don't do "sim flights" or anything like that to test what breaks under what conditions - I have to stick a kerbal in it and hope he doesn't die. So I try to do the proper maths and aerodynamic design as close to perfect as I can in the SPH.

o.0 And here I was about to start stripping mods apart to find the culprit. I have a Mun probe on its way back and usually I just do a direct reentry with a 25km periapsis. It now breaks into into pieces at around 9km. Granted I entered the wrong way and it seemed the craft flipped around at then it broke apart. Or.. it flipped because it broke apart, idk it never happened before. And I'm using KJR. Anything I can do about this?

Edit: Nevermind I'm sorry. Few pages back I saw there's a high q setting I can disable apparently.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Motokid600

[smunisto]

Now that I got the hang of flying properly without aerodynamic failures I wonder why do people play with FAR if they disable one of its coolest features to date.

[Motokid600]

Now that I got the hang of flying properly without aerodynamic failures I wonder why do people play with FAR if they disable one of its coolest features to date.

Realistic gravity turns.

[smunisto]

So gravity turns are not realistic with failures? I never had any issues with my rockets, as long as I start the gravity turn basically from the ground. Of course MJ Ascent turns will be hard to master, if this is what you are trying to do, because it does not care about velocity vector.

[federally]

Because the update made destruction-by-high-dynamic-pressure possible. Basically, if you're going too fast for your control surfaces to cope, they'll break off. To fix it, you need to change your craft and/or your piloting skills.

Well that's not particularly helpful since it doesn't actually tell me how to improve my designs.

[Read have Read]

From what I learned is that most failures happen at at Q values in the neighbourhood of 34,000 and up depending on the plane. Usually 44,000 but some of Scott Manley's failures happened at 29,000 as well. The thing to keep in mind is low altitude is dense, and so is the air during the Trans-Sonic regime, combining the two is bad. If you must go fast to takeoff, rotate back gradually, don't pull many G's. If you are approching the sound barrier at 0.7 mach and up, don't try and maneuver. If you notice in Scott's video he was both at low altitude, and approching Mach 1. This is what the new EAS description calls overspeeding.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Read have Read
Removed erroneous Max-Q

[Drew Kerman]

Realistic gravity turns.

Yea no. I was able to perform a fine gravity turn with the rocket I recently launched under the newest FAR. I suggest fairings over anything that's not a fin or fuel tank.

From what I learned is that most failures happen at at Q values in the neighbourhood of 34,000 and up depending on the plane. Usually 44,000 but some of Scott Manley's failures happened at 29,000 as well. The thing to keep in mind is low altitude is dense, and so is the Trans-Sonic regime (Area of Max-Q). If you must go fast to takeoff, rotate back gradually, don't pull many G's. If you are approching the sound barrier at 0.7 mach and up, don't try and maneuver. If you notice in Scott's video he was both at low altitude, and approching Mach 1. This is what the new EAS description calls overspeeding.

I'll have to check out Manley's latest, but thanks for the general info. Hopefully ferram can update the simulator tool to tell us when things will break off. Actually that may already be there I haven't had time to go in the game and check.

[ferram4]

@Gaiiden: Simple: go slower and fly higher to reduce dynamic pressure, or use more gentle control inputs at high dynamic pressures to reduce loading. Don't fly at high angles of attack. Make sure your plane can take off below ~130 m/s. Anything above ~200 m/s near SL is asking for trouble.

@Motokid600: It was the flip that killed it. It flips, severe lateral forces on the vehicle, it breaks up. The default parameters are designed for an Eve lander with enough dV to return from datum altitude to enter Eve's atmosphere at with a 50 km periapsis from a standard hyperbolic trajectory and land perfectly fine; it hits a Q of ~80 kPa during that and it doesn't break up so long as it doesn't flip or go lateral during the procedure. Same principle here.

@federally: Well, you didn't ask "how do I prevent control surfaces from ripping off?" you just asked why they do; don't be upset when someone answers a question you asked. Now, to answer this question, reduce takeoff velocity (add more wing area, add flaps, reduce mass). Reduce need for control surface deflection (reduce stability, move CoL closer to CoM). Be more gentle with control inputs and take advantage of the delay between commanding a deflection and when the control surface reaches that deflection. Avoid overspeeding.

@Read have Read: No, the transonic regime isn't the area of Max Q, that's often after the transonic regime and into the low supersonic regime. It's just a flow regime where there are large regions of subsonic and supersonic flow and neither region can be assumed away in the analysis. Often the size of those regions results in much more severe lift and drag coefficients, but referring to it as the region of Max Q is fairly inaccurate, since Max Q has no dependence on Mach number itself, simply air density and velocity.

[Drew Kerman]

@Gaiiden: Simple: go slower and fly higher to reduce dynamic pressure, or use more gentle control inputs at high dynamic pressures to reduce loading. Don't fly at high angles of attack. Make sure your plane can take off below ~130 m/s. Anything above ~200 m/s near SL is asking for trouble.

Alright, I get it but that's still a lot of "fly it and see", which I'm trying to avoid. I'm not talking wings and control surfaces - my current jet has hard points to carry science packages and it would be nice to know how fast I can fly with them attached without have to just speed up until they come apart.

I've noticed that the FAR window will give you a warning when it detects high dynamic pressure - so that does help as I can increase speed until I see that warning. But I still think eventually this should be something added to the FAR window in build mode

Overall tho I definitely like the new challenge

[Motokid600]

Yea no. I was able to perform a fine gravity turn with the rocket I recently launched under the newest FAR. I suggest fairings over anything that's not a fin or fuel tank.

.

No what I mean when I say "realistic gravity turn" Is a pitch maneuver at 200 meters. Not 10km. Its the main reason I use FAR. Not for the flight dynamics.. I don't build planes much if at all.