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

[softweir]

All right thanks Ferram4.

Here is yet another issue. I tried to make a piece of fuselage using the interstage adapter from procedural fairings. The problem is that parts within the fairings are not properly shielded. This occurs only if the fairing pieces are added individually *without* symmetry. In the VAB as shown here nobody would do that. But in SPH i cannot get that kind of symmetry. In fact i cannot even place fairing pieces with left/right symmetry. Anyway, symmetry on or off, the resulting mesh appears to be the same so i bring this up here.

http://i.imgur.com/NCm3LR8.jpg

Pro Tip: Sub-assemblies created in the VAB can be used in the SPH and vice-versa! You can make your fairing section in the VAB, save it as a sub-assembly and then use it in the SPH. It's a fiddle, but it can be done!

(I really wish Squad would allow reflection symmetry in the VAB and radial symmetry in the SPH. Or better still, have a single "Design Building" with a toggle for horizontal/vertical assumptions - big enough you can design large space stations in it!)

[NathanKell]

Editor Extensions does that.

[Dirt_Merchant]

Editor Extensions does that.

and should be on your top five must-not-play-without mod list. just like FAR.

[softweir]

Thanks for the tip, it works nicely.

I did find a couple of examples where it was easier to export a sub-assembly to the VAB, but most things work very well. The other features are excellent!

[phoenix_ca]

If you don't want Editor Extensions (I don't use it because it adds wayyyyyy too much; for one, I have a much easier time using the stock visual representations of symmetry than I am with trying to interpret a number of degrees in text) you can just use Scene Switcher. When you switch between SPH and VAB it keeps whatever you were building at the time.

[DaMichel]

Thanks for the hints guys. Editor Extensions symmetry switch indeed works around the shielding issue.

(I actually have had EE installed from time to time but i found that most of the time i don't need the extra features)

[NathanKell]

Got a problem with flight? Must be FAR's fault!

[Starwaster]

Got a problem with flight? Must be FAR's fault!

I concur. FAR somehow caused my plane to crash even on a KSP installation where I didn't install FAR!!!

People tell me it's because I stick wings all over the place with no thought as to where they should go or large heavy unbalanced parts and no struts.... but what do they know.

.... that's meant to be humorous people.... I'm joking. JOKING!

Edited May 12, 2014 by Starwaster

[Tiron]

I concur. FAR somehow caused my plane to crash even on a KSP installation where I didn't install FAR!!!

People tell me it's because I stick wings all over the place with no thought as to where they should go or large heavy unbalanced parts and no struts.... but what do they know.

.... that's meant to be humorous people.... I'm joking. JOKING!

I've got almost as many struts on my wings as the Wright flyer. And if I let it go on rails on the ground, they rise up out of the wings and stick out all over. Just like the Wright Flyer!!!

[Gaugeforever]

I have now tried like 10 different plane configurations. All of them symmetric. All of them have lift just behind center of mass, all of them pull left. Every single one of them pulls left off the runway Ferram analysis says my planes are aerodynamically good. No torque in pod, no SAS. Just randomly pulls left (so it seems).

Edited May 13, 2014 by Gaugeforever

[Zeroignite]

I have now tried like 10 different plane configurations. All of them symmetric. All of them have lift just behind center of mass, all of them pull left. Every single one of them pulls left off the runway Ferram analysis says my planes are aerodynamically good. No torque in pod, no SAS. Just randomly pulls left (so it seems).

Your wheels probably aren't on straight.

[Gaugeforever]

Your wheels probably aren't on straight.

You may be right. Any tips for getting them aligned perfectly. I wish there was a mechanism for pointing an object in degrees when you attach.

[NathanKell]

Gaugeforever: as the link in my post explains, KSP has a bug where forces on symmetric parts aren't even.

[Gaugeforever]

Gaugeforever: as the link in my post explains, KSP has a bug where forces on symmetric parts aren't even.

So how does one overcome this to get off the airfield? Or to land back on it for that matter.

[Drew Kerman]

just trim a little rudder. Real aircraft often have to deal with minor "windcocking" all the time - especially single-engine props. As long as FAR doesn't report a major sideslip angle you'll be fine.

[Tiron]

So how does one overcome this to get off the airfield? Or to land back on it for that matter.

The biggest thing you can do is to use struts to stiffen whatever the wheels are attached to. It doesn't matter if the wheels are straight if whatever they're attached to flexes. (and if it does, it'll be asymmetrically because of the bug NathanKell linked, which has been around for as long as I can remember and is why it always goes in the same direction on the same plane.)

I also use Multiwheels Landing gear (many versions old though they be), which have the ability to slip realistically (complete with resulting smoke clouds!) They also have a much better than average suspension, which is also helpful.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Tiron

[Starwaster]

just trim a little rudder. Real aircraft often have to deal with minor "windcocking" all the time - especially single-engine props. As long as FAR doesn't report a major sideslip angle you'll be fine.

'just trim a little'

you know what? I've been bit by that bug and there comes a time in a man's life when he's careening down that runway at breakneck speeds and the rudder is jammed hard over to the right and the plane is still veering left and the spotlight at the end of the runway is rushing up to meet him and he realizes that all the rudder trim in the world wont save him this time and that he should have worn his brown pants that day....

times like that make me wish I'd listened to my mother.

[mdgates]

I do wish this thread had more gameplay discussion. Maybe I can help.

I started a new save when I installed FAR. My goal is to fill out the entire tech tree, while launching only planes. My working definition of "planes" is that they have almost all of the following characteristics while in an atmosphere: horizontal takeoff, lift generated primarily by wings, attitude control provided by movable surfaces, gradual atmospheric reentry, and horizontal landing.

My first few flights were really pathetic rocket sleds, for exploring KSC. Once I invented winglets, it was possible to explore the grasslands, mountains, and highlands. The invention the wheel and the jet engine were huge steps forward that allowed me to reach space, but I have not yet achieved orbit. I will not be able to unlock "Supersonic Flight" until I've done a manned orbit of the moon. Turbojets and ram intakes are a long ways off.

Taking this path is teaching me that, for *any* payload size, planes are the wrong way to put it in orbit. They require far more engineering time, the launch is way more complex and slower, designs do not scale as well, and modifications to the payload for the sake of the launch vehicle are more extensive. Even for SSTO, rockets are simpler. A Mainsail on two orange tanks has a parts count of three, and goes SSTO with a small payload.

So why build only planes? Not because it is easy, but because it is hard. :-D

[phoenix_ca]

When career mode actually has an economy to it, that might change with an actual pay-off for bringing the whole craft home. I already prefer to do SSTO planes for crew transfers to LKO, but that's just me wanting to use a plane for no reason at all. Though it can help with Kessler Syndrome, I suppose.

[KBluey]

Ferram, I'm having trouble with a lander that I've inverted on top of a rocket. At launch, the lander is attached to the top of the rocket using a clamp-o-tron. When I begin the ascent, the craft goes into a spin (roll). When I zoom in and look at what's happening, it's positive feedback from the control surfaces, i.e. when a small random roll is introduced, the control surfaces act to make it worse, not to correct it. It gets worse and worse, sometimes destroys the craft, and it continues once I'm out of the atmosphere (presumably due to the engine gimbals on the SABRE M engines), though it turns from a roll into a kind of shimmy above about 60km. This seems to be a Ferram artefact, since it doesn't occur when I disable Ferram and launch the same rocket.

[mdgates]

When career mode actually has an economy to it, that might change with an actual pay-off for bringing the whole craft home. I already prefer to do SSTO planes for crew transfers to LKO, but that's just me wanting to use a plane for no reason at all. Though it can help with Kessler Syndrome, I suppose.

Again rockets offer an easier solution: ditch your last lifter stage just before your orbit is circularized.

Know what's really fun? Staging a plane's wings and main engines, then later reentering on canards and tailfins.

[phoenix_ca]

Know what's really fun? Staging a plane's wings and main engines, then later reentering on canards and tailfins.

That sounds kinda insane. How very kerbal of you.

[DivisionByZero]

Is there a guide for setting up flaps? I keep seeing the option but I don't know how to set it up in the SPH.

[mdgates]

Now it's time for a lament: I am a mechanical engineer working for an aerospace company. But, I am not an aerodynamicist, and I find there's not a lot of documentation about how to bring an unstable craft under control. The help button and simulations explain exactly what the problem *is*, but not what to do about it.

So, how do you decrease Mw?

How about correcting a positive Zw?

[mdgates]

ThereIFixedIt, but it was alchemy rather than science. Why did that work? Also, what should I do on the other designs I've made with positive Zw?