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

[DaMichel]

Yeah, don't get me wrong. I'm pleased with what FAR does. And i agree about Sp+. PWings on the other hand ... they are not as pretty and there is an issue with its control surfaces ;-)

[TeeGee]

Quick question regarding the visual fx. For some reason whenever I pass mach 1 I no longer see the condensation effect on my spacecraft or spaceplane anymore. Is there an option that I need to activate to see this happen or did something change in the more recent updates?

[ferram4]

I don't touch the visual effects at all.

[Wanderfound]

Is there a way to shrink down the FAR flight systems box while leaving the flight status indicator visible? I don't use the flight assistance toggles and my screen is a bit cluttered, but it'd be nice to keep the stall warnings etc.

[ferram4]

There really isn't, not without making the GUI code a gigantic nightmare of switches and options (which will inevitably take up all the room you'd save). You'd only save 30 pixels or so getting rid of the flight assistance buttons anyway, they're tiny.

Best option is to move it so it's partly off the screen, I'd say.

[Wanderfound]

BTW, Ferram: did you see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80796-0-24-Spaceplane-Plus-1-3?p=1377054&viewfull=1#post1377054 ?

That's an SP+ problem rather than a FAR problem, yes?

[ferram4]

That is almost certainly an issue with incorrectly set configs, which isn't something on my end.

[DaMichel]

Is there a way to shrink down the FAR flight systems box while leaving the flight status indicator visible? I don't use the flight assistance toggles and my screen is a bit cluttered, but it'd be nice to keep the stall warnings etc.

*Cough* does this satisfy your requirements http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80842-Kerbal-Flight-Data-%2822-05-2014%29 ?

Edit: W.r.t. Sp+, i suggest to verify the config against PWings because PWings has a nice debug option. IIRC you hover over the wing piece and hit 'O' and it will spit out its current configuration parameters. These include the same parameters which go into the part .cfg files. So with a PWing piece, made to match the shape of any of the Sp+ parts it should be possible to see if its .cfg is okay and to fix it if necessary.

Edited August 29, 2014 by DaMichel

[Wanderfound]

*Cough* does this satisfy your requirements http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80842-Kerbal-Flight-Data-%2822-05-2014%29 ?

Extra-sneaky ninjas: I installed that about half an hour ago. :-)

Any idea if it's possible to get it to display vertical velocity?

[DaMichel]

I answer in my thread.

[steve_v]

Seeing a pretty strange issue with the current git version.

Any vessel with wings on bugs out the 'stability derivatives' window:

Mass: 1322.38176092505
S: 3.639336
MAC: 1.31273165166212

(Filename: /BuildAgent/work/d63dfc6385190b60/artifacts/LinuxStandalonePlayerGenerated/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 

(Filename:  Line: 4294967295)

Numbers do not update.

Released version & git as of 08/08/14 do not exhibit this behavour.

Git version from 14/08/14 does. - something to do with 'weird control surface bug' fix?

For some reason this only happens on ships that have been through a save-load cycle, including stock example craft. Whilst building (and so long as you don't re-load the craft) everything seems to work fine.

[BlitzkriegNein]

I ran into a problem:

It's utterly impossible to fly most rockets in career mode with Ferram, before I reach the fairings from various mods.

This is just annoying.

I can get science by farming it on the launchpad and such but it's just frustrating...

[steve_v]

most rockets

So make aerodynamic rockets & save the lumpy bits for later?

I started my current career save with FAR installed, 'tis not that bad

There's plenty of science to be had in orbit around Kerbins 2 moons, IMHO you don't really need fairings until you start incorporating detatchable landers.

Besides, if you go slow enough in atmo some pretty weird shapes are still flyable... just.

On an urelated matter, anyone have handy tips for combating landing bouncy-bouncy?

(in my case usually bouncy-bouncy-feck-feck-feck-BOOM)

Ideas other than not having positive AOA on the runway?

Edited August 31, 2014 by steve_v

[ferram4]

@steve_v: Can't confirm that one, and I can't reproduce it in my slightly more up-to-date build that I haven't pushed yet due to some dependency changes. No issues that I can see, it always updates just fine.

@BlitzkriegNein: Well, of course you can't fly most rocket designs in career mode. You can't fly most rocket designs at all, since there are an infinite number of designs that are unstable, have off-center thrust, cause the rocket to spin up like crazy, and cause all sorts of other problems that make flying with them impossible. You don't complain about those ones though.

For reference, I've never had any trouble launching rockets in career mode, even in the very beginning. I personally start by collecting all the science around the launch pad though, since I think the stick-a-pod-on-a-booster-with-no-decoupler stage is just plain stupid. After that though it's quite difficult to build a rocket that will be flip happy in my experience, I'm really not sure what people do to create those.

[steve_v]

I'll wait and see then, it may well be something screwey with my install.

[CrayzeeMonkey]

Hello

I've been trying to make good turning planes with a low turn time/radius. The only problem is when i turn hard, holding S(I usually roll toward the direction i want to turn towards and pull up), the plane briefly stalls and goes back down, and then goes up, as in like it's bobbing it's nose up and down. I get around this problem by tapping S, which is a bit painful for my fingers(Side question: Will joysticks help?). How do you alleviate this problem?

My plane is quite small, modeled after the MiG-21. All stability derivatives are green(I think, don't exactly remember)(And obviously, CoM and CoL are in the correct position). Will post a picture if needed.

I've got other planes that could turn without this, the best one i lost to the .24 update, forgot where i put the backups. For the other planes that doesn't have this problem, i can't see the reason why it isn't doing it.

Don't ask why i am making a plane modeled after the MiG-21 and making it turn very hard without it "bobbing". Lets keep this concise and on topic, mkay?

Also, great mod, The space center is scattered with debris from my planes and rockets, 10/10.

Edited August 31, 2014 by CrayzeeMonkey

[ferram4]

That behavior is what happens when you go from no pitch input to full elevator deflection in 0 time. There's pretty much no way around it besides smoother controls (using the pulse-width-modulation method you're using now; I'm particularly fond of it myself), using a joystick, having an autopilot of some kind do it for you, or by redesigning the plane so it is much more sluggish than it would otherwise be.

It's not a problem, it's the way all planes fly. It just needs smoother control inputs.

[CrayzeeMonkey]

Thank you for the lightning quick answer (There's a mild storm currently where i live in ). I see that my planes that don't have that problem seem to turn like AN-225s. I'll try using Fine Controls a bit more, since i think it increments elevator deflection, or just tap S rapidly. In real life, when you pull a stick back suddenly will the same effects happen too, and i never see fighters do that kind of behavior, is it their stabilization systems(fly-by-wire?), just being curious. Have a good day to you then

[ferram4]

If there isn't something in-between the pilot and the plane to say, "Nope, you don't do that, cowboy," then yeah, that's what will happen. Modern fighters aren't piloted so much as given suggestions on what to do.

[Fueniker S.]

Hello

I've been trying to make good turning planes with a low turn time/radius. The only problem is when i turn hard, holding S(I usually roll toward the direction i want to turn towards and pull up), the plane briefly stalls and goes back down, and then goes up, as in like it's bobbing it's nose up and down. I get around this problem by tapping S, which is a bit painful for my fingers(Side question: Will joysticks help?). How do you alleviate this problem?

My plane is quite small, modeled after the MiG-21. All stability derivatives are green(I think, don't exactly remember)(And obviously, CoM and CoL are in the correct position). Will post a picture if needed.

Hello, just letting you know that it is possible to create some planes that can turn remarkably fast and maintain stability, heck just look at my Spanner jet, it pulls up to 80Gs, and even maintains speed incredibly well. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/76858-The-Stock-Craft-Repository-%28v0-24%29?p=1365462#post1365462

I don't know how it works, but it does, proving that agility doesn't have to be nerfed by tweakables or the use of a joystick.

[CrayzeeMonkey]

If there isn't something in-between the pilot and the plane to say, "Nope, you don't do that, cowboy," then yeah, that's what will happen. Modern fighters aren't piloted so much as given suggestions on what to do.

Thank you for the quick and interesting answer, i forgot about that fact where the computer "monitors" the pilots inputs. Maybe somebody could make a mod that does this? *wink* *wink*(It's pretty obvious to anyone that only immortal, all powerful gods of programming can create that kind of mod for KSP).

Hello, just letting you know that it is possible to create some planes that can turn remarkably fast and maintain stability, heck just look at my Spanner jet, it pulls up to 80Gs, and even maintains speed incredibly well. -snip-

Thanks, i just tried out your plane, and when i loaded it up on the runway, took off, and then held S...MY JAW DROPPED TO THE FLOOR, very well made craft you made there .

I noticed one thing though, your CoL(Center of Lift) is much higher than the CoM(Center of Mass) and is much closer compared to mine. Mine's CoL is SLIGHTLY higher than the CoM. From this data i am currently making another plane with a bit of the same CoL/CoM positions, see if it works.

My Plane:

Fueniker's "Spanner"

Sorry if these pictures are a tad bit too large, i forgot how to use spoilers, can a mod(I mean a moderator) fix that or something?

EDIT: Did it!

I made a plane with the CoL very high, i could turn tightly without the bobbing problem, not as tight as Fueniker's spanner though.

It's a little bit counterintuitive, because High CoL = Stable and Low CoL = Maneuverable, so i would think to have a balance between the two.

Thanks you guys!

Pictures

http://i.imgur.com/CiX4i6Z.png

http://i.imgur.com/60xY2hA.png

time to put rockets on these

Edited September 1, 2014 by CrayzeeMonkey

[Fueniker S.]

About the height of my CoL, I remember reading somewhere that above the CoM makes the plane more stable, but below gives you more control, if you tried the K version, you would see that in effect. Try putting bottom mounted wings on your plane, and maybe give it some dihedral if it rolls in the pitching.

EDIT: I used this post to further my understanding of how planes work, and the relation between CoL and CoM, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52080-Basic-Aircraft-Design-Explained-Simply-With-Pictures

EDIT 2: Monkey, I must say dear sir, that that is a jolly looking aircraft you have developed, I'd like to see something of your own conception which rivals the performance of my craft. Until then, try the K version plz.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Fueniker S.
added info link

[cakepie]

I am working on a fuselage part that has deployable airstairs; how would I go about setting it up to behave properly in FAR? i.e. I would like there to be an increase in drag on the side where the airstair is if someone were kerbal enough to deploy it in flight. In my current testing there doesn't seem to be any perceptible impact although FAR should be recalculating aerodynamics when the part animates.

Currently the part has a bunch of colliders defining the cylindrical fuselage with the entryway section hollowed out, and there are colliders for the stair steps and railings which animate together with the stairs.

edit: in high speed tests my test craft are generally falling apart due to dynamic pressures before any perceptible yaw or roll is induced by the extended stairs. If I leave a nicely trimmed craft in level flight, there is sometimes just the merest yaw to the left after awhile, that I can't be completely sure it's reliably due to the stairs. =/

Edited September 1, 2014 by cake>pie

[Wanderfound]

BTW, Ferram: now that everyone has adapted to and stopped whining about the 50% nerf, feel like giving 33% another try? The increasing uptake of the aerodynamically slick soon-to-be-stock SP+ parts is recreating the old superplane issues. At the moment, spaceplanes are kicking rocketry's arse so hard that Squad is likely to bring in its own nerf if you don't pre-empt them.

Mach 11 in atmosphere is fun, but it's more than a bit silly.

As mentioned previously, I'd be happy to go to AJE, but I don't want to lose the Kerbodyne customer base. Stock vs FAR is enough of a schism already.

[Wanderfound]

About the height of my CoL, I remember reading somewhere that above the CoM makes the plane more stable, but below gives you more control, if you tried the K version, you would see that in effect. Try putting bottom mounted wings on your plane, and maybe give it some dihedral if it rolls in the pitching.

EDIT: I used this post to further my understanding of how planes work, and the relation between CoL and CoM, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52080-Basic-Aircraft-Design-Explained-Simply-With-Pictures

EDIT 2: Monkey, I must say dear sir, that that is a jolly looking aircraft you have developed, I'd like to see something of your own conception which rivals the performance of my craft. Until then, try the K version plz.

Keep in mind that lift and drag are closely related. High wings pull the nose up, low wings pull the nose down.

AFAIK, anyway: I'm a neuroscience geek, not a physicist.