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

[YauS]

(Filename:  Line: -1)

Mass: 60019.3630699068

S: 202.816

MAC: 3.07232120978797

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/StandalonePlayerGenerated/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 49)

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at ferram4.FAREditorGUI.CalculateStabilityDerivs (Double u0, Double q, Double M, Double alpha, Double beta, Double phi) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at ferram4.FAREditorGUI.StabilityDerivativeGUI (Boolean tmp) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at ferram4.FAREditorGUI.ActualGUI (Int32 windowID) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at UnityEngine.GUILayout+LayoutedWindow.DoWindow (Int32 windowID) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at UnityEngine.GUI.CallWindowDelegate (UnityEngine.WindowFunction func, Int32 id, UnityEngine.GUISkin _skin, Int32 forceRect, Single width, Single height, UnityEngine.GUIStyle style) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

I encounter this problem when use Control Surface and calculate the stability.

Also on action groups page,control surface cannot be selected.

[tetryds]

I found a bug.

It's very easy to reproduce, so here are the steps:

Have an aircraft with spoilers.

Launch it, click the breaks button at the top.

Return to KSC.

Launch something from the VAB.

Switch back to the airplane using [

You will see that spoilers are disabled, but breaks are held.

When you release breaks, spoilers will activate.

Mods:

-FAR

-Raster prop monitor

-Toolbar

-BDArmory

-Burn Together (if any mod is the cause of this, it is this or BDArmory)

-DMP (not on a multiplayer game)

-Improved Chase Camera

-Kerb Cam

-NavUtilities

-ModStatistics

-Persistent trails

I did not have custom cameras enabled, nor DMP, nor Persistent Trails, none of those.

The plane only had a few rockets from BDArmory on it.

Edit: aparently it's also happening when resuming from the tracking station, but maybe it was just already like that.

To fix it just disable breaks, go back to KSC, go back to it again from the tracking station.

Edited August 26, 2014 by tetryds

[dweorg]

I love the concept of this mod, but after playing around with it for a couple days it seems like I have an issue. I'm using the KW Rocketry pack for fairings and engine parts, and I have a simple, solid launch vehicle that is just a single engine, single fuel tank, winglets, and the fairing. This is the only mod I have that affects flight behavior in any way. For some reason, the payload is also subject to aerodynamic dis-assembly. Despite being totally contained in the fairings, weaker parts like solar pannels, batteries, and TAC life support containers break off as if they were attached to the outside. I've tried flying at relatively low speeds, around 200m/s at 3-4km and holding that speed for as long as possible, but speed doesn't seem to be my issue here, because the parts fall off around the same time as they do if I launch without fairings.

I also have another issue, though this one might just be my incompetence. If I have a particularly long payload in the fairings and I turn at all (5 degree turns) before I escape the atmosphere, then the rocket flips over and splits at the coupler. Even rockets that don't use any fairings are completely unable to turn more than 5 degrees before I leave the atmosphere altogether. Because of this, gravity turns of any sort are impossible.

Thoughts and/or suggestions would be appreciated. I'm going to try out NEAR when I have time to see if that helps, but if there's a way to fix the fairing issue I'd prefer to stick with FAR.

[BudgetHedgehog]

@dweorg: Couple things - there's a bug with FAR that it sometimes doesn't calculate things correctly upon launch. However, if you use launch clamps, when you stage then, FAR is forced to recalculate and proper shielding will be applied. Second, your rockets are breaking up because you're likely going too fast. The stock "45 at 10k" turn doesn't work, you'll want to start your turn at roughly 70m/s and keep the TWR low - around 1.2 to 1.4 while in the lower atmosphere is enough.

[dweorg]

@dweorg: Couple things - there's a bug with FAR that it sometimes doesn't calculate things correctly upon launch. However, if you use launch clamps, when you stage then, FAR is forced to recalculate and proper shielding will be applied. Second, your rockets are breaking up because you're likely going too fast. The stock "45 at 10k" turn doesn't work, you'll want to start your turn at roughly 70m/s and keep the TWR low - around 1.2 to 1.4 while in the lower atmosphere is enough.

I'll try the launch stabilizers later when I have time, but the turn you recommend is closer to what I'm doing than the traditional kerbal turn. I bump it shortly after launch in the direction I'm trying to go, maybe 5 degrees. After that, I've tried a few different things. Another slight bump 2km or so up causes the craft to wobble if SAS is on or to spin out if it isn't. I've tried letting the craft fall with the prograde after bumping it, but even stopping it with manual control and SAS isn't enough; it also spins out. I may just be going too fast, if all I need is 1.2 to 1.4. At half thrust this particular rocket has a TWR of ~1.75, but before this one I've launched slower craft with similar results.

[Rabada]

Thank you Ferram for this wonderful mod, it has completely changed KSP for the better and it is on my list of must have mods for every game.

I am still trying to figure out the intracacies of this mod. I am curious if anyone could tell me a good rule of thumb for what stabalizing fins I should put on my rockets? I have recently installed B9 and now I have a much larger selection of control surfaces I can use. Up until now the only Winglet I have ever used is the stock Delta-Deluxe Winglet. I have a feeling I should be using bigger winglets, especially for KWs new 5m parts.

[ferram4]

@YauS: I need the full output_log.txt and full reproduction steps. Just attempting to use the Stability Deriv GUI with B9 parts does not cause the issue.

@tetryds: Will investigate; it should be a fairly quick fix.

@dweorg: Fairing stuff is a known issue; use launch clamps. Otherwise, keep your TWR down, you're overspeeding.

@Rabada: Use the smallest fins you can get away with. If you can keep it stable without fins, that's more efficient.

[Master Tao]

I am curious if anyone could tell me a good rule of thumb for what stabalizing fins I should put on my rockets? I have recently installed B9 and now I have a much larger selection of control surfaces I can use.

It doesn't usually take big fins. Take a look at the center of mass and center of lift/aerodynamic center markers. Like with planes, you want the center of mass ahead of (above) the aerodynamic center. Burning fuel in the stage will only move the center of mass higher, so it will make the rocket more stable. The only trick is if your first stage finishes low in the atmosphere, you may need very small fins on the second stage.

[kafuka]

My KSP.log is spamming full with these messages:

[EXC 23:29:56.005] ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range.
[EXC 23:29:56.015] ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range.
[EXC 23:29:56.027] ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range.
[EXC 23:29:56.037] ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range.
[EXC 23:29:56.049] ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range.
[EXC 23:29:56.060] ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range.
[EXC 23:29:56.070] ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range.
[EXC 23:29:56.082] ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range.
[EXC 23:29:56.092] ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range.
[EXC 23:29:56.104] ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range.

As you can see from the interval, almost 100 times a second. The Player.log (output_log.txt) has the following detail:

ArgumentException: Value does not fall within the expected range.
  at ferram4.FARControlSys.OnDestroy () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at ferram4.FARControlSys.OnGUI () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
  at (wrapper delegate-invoke) Callback:invoke_void__this__ ()
  at (wrapper delegate-invoke) Callback:invoke_void__this__ ()
  at RenderingManager.OnGUI () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

(Filename:  Line: 4294967295)

Is FAR causing this? And what can I do about it?

[rentaspoon]

Hate to ask this but I can't find any results for this but are the ships I used with NEAR going to completely fail with FAR? Is it anything like the jump from stock to FAR? I tried it about a year ago and didn't like it but I'm using NEAR now and love that

I started using NEAR about a month ago, I really like it except for the jet engines not getting enough air from the base intakes as it makes career that little harder but it's nice to see some difference between the intakes

[Wanderfound]

Hate to ask this but I can't find any results for this but are the ships I used with NEAR going to completely fail with FAR? Is it anything like the jump from stock to FAR? I tried it about a year ago and didn't like it but I'm using NEAR now and love that

I started using NEAR about a month ago, I really like it except for the jet engines not getting enough air from the base intakes as it makes career that little harder but it's nice to see some difference between the intakes

Fly sensibly and you're all cool. Try to pull the sort of handbrake turns that stock permits and you're going to die. That's all there is to it, really.

So long as you fly in a manner that a real plane could possibly survive, you'll be fine.

[tetryds]

Hate to ask this but I can't find any results for this but are the ships I used with NEAR going to completely fail with FAR? Is it anything like the jump from stock to FAR? I tried it about a year ago and didn't like it but I'm using NEAR now and love that

I started using NEAR about a month ago, I really like it except for the jet engines not getting enough air from the base intakes as it makes career that little harder but it's nice to see some difference between the intakes

And nerf your engines.

I know it's annoying and feels bad, but do it.

[YauS]

@ferram https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49643180/output_log.7z

For MechJebFARExt, I recompile it because original one only support FAR 0.14.1.0

[Wanderfound]

Hate to ask this but I can't find any results for this but are the ships I used with NEAR going to completely fail with FAR? Is it anything like the jump from stock to FAR? I tried it about a year ago and didn't like it but I'm using NEAR now and love that

I started using NEAR about a month ago, I really like it except for the jet engines not getting enough air from the base intakes as it makes career that little harder but it's nice to see some difference between the intakes

Just in case you think that the 50% thrust nerf on turbojets and RAPIERs makes them underpowered in FAR, see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90747-Kerbodyne-SSTO-Division-Omnibus-Thread?p=1370535&viewfull=1#post1370535

Mach 11, escape velocity, in atmosphere. RAPIERs and Aerospikes on a practical bulk-passenger cargo plane.

If Ferram hadn't nerfed 'em, we'd probably have to start looking for mods to simulate relativistic time dilation effects.

[ferram4]

@kafuka: Known issue, try downloading the GameData folder from the GitHub repo to fix it.

@YauS: I still require reproduction steps. I have tried all manner of attempting to cause the issue, and I cannot; you will need to tell me exactly what you did before I can diagnose the issue.

[YauS]

KSP 0.24.2

+

FAR 0.14.1.2

B9 5.0 pre-release.

toolbar 1.7.6

MM 2.3.1

Active Texture Management 3-3-1

this is updated log

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/49643180/output_log_less_mod.7z

[ChrisWill]

Does anyone else have a problem with SAS after installing? After I installed FAR if I have SAS on it starts oscillating gradually picking up speed. I thought it might be do to the flight help thing(LVL, Yaw, pitch) but there doesn't seem to be a way to disable it so I don't know. Strange thing is that it really only starts in orbit, there is a slight movement on ascent but when I'm in orbit my ship becomes almost uncontrollable flipping around and stuff until I turn SAS off. I'll post a mod list but I'm certain it started after installing FAR.

ScanSat

DMagic orbital science

Kerbal alarm clock

Deadly reentry

Final Frontier

CactEye telescope

Kerbal engineer

Vanguard parachute

Procedural fairings

Kerbal attachment system

Real chutes

Toolbar

[ferram4]

@YauS: A mod list is not reproduction steps. I need to know what you did in game. What parts you combined. How they were attached. Order they were attached. Etc.

You're doing the equivalent of answering "how do I make fudge?" with "butter, condensed milk, chocolate and sugar" with no context for what to do with them.

@ChrisWill: The flight help stuff is disabled by default; unless you clicked one of the buttons in the Flight GUI to enable them, they are always off, and then you can always turn them off if you choose. If SAS is causing you to flip out in space, then it is not a FAR issue; FAR applies no forces in a vacuum, and so there will be no effect on vehicle dynamics.

[Wanderfound]

@ChrisWill: The flight help stuff is disabled by default; unless you clicked one of the buttons in the Flight GUI to enable them, they are always off, and then you can always turn them off if you choose. If SAS is causing you to flip out in space, then it is not a FAR issue; FAR applies no forces in a vacuum, and so there will be no effect on vehicle dynamics.

Speaking of FAR in vacuum...

I've been playing around with a ridiculously overpowered (KR-2L on a medium-sized plane; ~10G acceleration) raceplane on Minmus, and the rudders (AV-R8’s and Delta Deluxe winglets) keep tearing off for no apparent reason.

Is this a possible bit of screwyness with aerodynamic failures, or is it more likely to just be a pure G-force issue?

[ferram4]

Either it's a g-force issue, or something is interfering with FAR. FAR does not apply forces in vacuum, and so things should not break off in vacuum unless a 3rd party plugin reaches in and calls FAR's methods improperly. And at that point, there's nothing that I can do, because it's not my code.

[ChrisWill]

Thanks I resolved it, more or less, what was happening is something seems to be wrong with AIES parts as it only seems to happen when I use those parts. Anyway I thought it might be FAR because I installed AIES a week or two ago but never used until now which happens to be after installing FAR.

[ferram4]

FAR doesn't change the control law that SAS uses. SAS also overrides any and all of FAR's off-by-default control systems. If you are having issues in space, it is completely impossible for FAR alone to be the culprit.

[ChrisWill]

Yeah I got that. It appears to be AIES parts problem. I had just completely removed FAR to test and the problem still persisted, so not FAR's fault in anyway.

[DaMichel]

Here is a test series i did on various wing pieces from stock and Sp+. I painted in the mid-chord axis (whatever it is called) and the attachment point where it is unclear.

I made this to see how FAR deals with multi-part wing assemblies versus analogous single parts. I got carried away and made therewith unrelated configurations, too. For the delta wings, FAR does a good job. But some results for the rectangular pieces seem odd. Not that i'm complaining. I just wanted to share it because it is interesting without doubt

Javascript is disabled. View full album

(using the current FAR dev version)

[ferram4]

Yes, FAR can get messed up trying to deal with wings made of multiple parts. This is why you should use pWings instead, which it will handle correctly.

At the same time, a lot of those CoL seem so odd for the Sp+ parts that I suspect that they aren't set up correctly for FAR. It looks like there are a lot of inconsistent and wrong numbers there.