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

[ferram4]

@brusura: Pictures are better than craft files. And if there is no noticeable deviation of the indicators in the editor, then it is not something that I can fix; it is caused by stock flexing issues, bring it up with Squad.

@temeter: Stock issue due to uneven flexing, as far as I can tell. Nothing I can do about it, unless you can provide proof that the aerodynamic center is shifting improperly or of unbalanced masses.

As for the cargo bay stuff, I'll look into it.

@smunisto: I tried that. It didn't work. Did you notice that I was one of the few modders that didn't have "will not support win64" in the OP during 0.24?

But I'm tired.

I'm tired of being sent off chasing bugs that aren't my own.

I'm tired of running damage control when someone says that "doing X fixes it on win64" when it doesn't.

I'm tired of trying to maintain higher stability standards for win64 KSP than Squad has.

I'm tired of giving people incentive to use a messed up and unstable build.

But most importantly, I'm tired of people not reading the warnings and following them. Since Compatibility Checker has existed, we've had more and more instances of people just ignoring it, advocating other people ignoring it, and then when something actually breaks, people complain to us. Win64 KSP is no different.

So after spending all this time trying so desperately hard to leave open the option to people who understand that they're being reckless, all we've gotten back is complaints, anger, and a flood of garbage that buries valid reports. Worse, CC has only drawn attention to those mods and brought more complaints and trash reports because a mod had the gall to draw attention to the fact that it wasn't properly functional. So now, after giving me hell in return for giving you a way around the warnings, you don't get to go around them anymore.

"But it's not my fault! I never complained to you about win64 issues! I'm innocent!" Of course. You're innocent of being a jerk directly. You're guilty of trying to enable other people by trying to get me back into that position. You're guilty of being the reason Squad decided it was better to release a broken win64 KSP rather than pull it like I asked. You're guilty of being the reason that they decided to rush a build out after someone hacked a broken win64 version together.

You can either switch to the win32 build or the linux 64-bit build. I'm not wasting my time on win64 anymore.

[blowfish]

It is sort of a disappointment, that 32-bit KSP is forced upon us if we want to run FAR.

I am sure I am not the only one who didn't have any serious issues with x64 KSP, modded to the point it uses 5.4 Gb RAM. There is no way for me to go back to 32-bit, even with ATM.

I would have expected from one of the most renown mods to offer flexibility for its users, not force us to use a specific version of the game in order to run it. Like a toggle option somewhere in a cfg file.

Then again...I remember the whole ModStatistics fiasco

I hope you can understand people who want to at least be able to try running x64 with FAR, Ferram.

If it matters that much to you, download the code and make the changes to allow it to run on x64 . There's no reason why mod developers like ferram4 should have to try and support something so unstable.

[brusura]

This should be fun even for you ferram4, if it is not fun anymore, why are you doing it? I like your works and maybe most us do not have the right knowledge that you have to distinguish what is what.

Again you should have fun, you dont get even paid for doing this awesome works. Peace.

[Temeter]

Thx for the answer. Fixable or not, it's good to know where the issue is coming from.

Regarding the x64, can't you just make it something like a switch in a config? So people will only be able to actually play 64 as long as they read the description closely, along with a warning that bugs in x64-versions won't be supported. Otherwise it's imo understandable.

I think you should calm down a bit. No point in throwing accusations or insults, even if the frustration is understandable.

Again you should have fun, you dont get even paid for doing this awesome works. Peace.

Well put. Sometimes it's also good to take a break for some time. There are surely other competent people who could keep the mod up to date.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Temeter

[NathanKell]

Temeter: read ferram's post again. We *tried* that approach It did not work. And that was on a *less* broken x64 build (.24).

The reason we are doing this is because we have absolute proof that approach does not work.

[Temeter]

I thought more about actually hiding it, not making it a easily accessible choice. But it's probably better this way, you guys actually have to deal with the result. No point in agonizing over a mod which should be fun.

[Camacha]

You can either switch to the win32 build or the linux 64-bit build. I'm not wasting my time on win64 anymore.

Sad, but fully understandable. I appreciate your efforts as always. I trust your judgement enough to gladly play the x86 version if you tell us it is better this way.

Edit: fixed.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Camacha

[brusura]

Camacha, where did you get that quote from? O_o

Edited October 8, 2014 by brusura

[Camacha]

Camacha, where did you get that quote from? O_o

From this post, although it seems I mixed up two separate parts of the message.

[Autochton]

It is sort of a disappointment, that 32-bit KSP is forced upon us if we want to run FAR.

I am sure I am not the only one who didn't have any serious issues with x64 KSP, modded to the point it uses 5.4 Gb RAM. There is no way for me to go back to 32-bit, even with ATM.

I would have expected from one of the most renown mods to offer flexibility for its users, not force us to use a specific version of the game in order to run it. Like a toggle option somewhere in a cfg file.

Then again...I remember the whole ModStatistics fiasco

I hope you can understand people who want to at least be able to try running x64 with FAR, Ferram.

Do what I do and run it on Linux, then. Problem solved.

[Camacha]

What does the DCA Flight Assistance do?

[Wanderfound]

Has there been any alteration to aero or thrust apart from the re-weighted wings? I'm getting a lot of high-altitude instability and nose tuck, which might just be inadequately adapted designs, but...

- - - Updated - - -

What does the DCA Flight Assistance do?

Dynamic Control Authority. Winds down your control inputs as you speed up.

[Northstar1989]

@Ferram4

As one of the people who successfully ran KSP 0.24.2 without any issues whatsoever (aside from with context menus), I was disappointed to see how unstable the 0.25 build was (I kept getting crashes every time KSP loaded up). I can understand why you wouldn't want to try and support FAR on such an unstable platform.

But, hopefully, you'll keep an eye on it to see if it gets any more stable for x64 in future versions?

It's got to improve *eventually*- Unity is constantly evolving and changing, and sooner or later Squad's got to update to a more recent version of Unity as the basis for the game... Maybe that version of Unity might actually work perfectly with Windows x64.

As a player with experience using Linux, I *strongly* recommend installing Ubuntu or another free version of Linux in parallel to Windows i your computer can handle it. If not (like with my current laptop- which I think would explode under the extra strain for having two OS' installed), then just wait patiently until x64 becomes stable agian in a future build, and play x32 until then. Hopefully we can convince Squad to update Unity when that time comes...

Regards,

Northstar

[Voculus]

I finally muddled my way through getting Ubuntu installed, only to find that Nvidia won't let Linux players use triple monitors. Going back to 32-bit is going to seriously suck.

[mcbmaestro]

I was going to get the snazzy new update for B9 which said it only supports FAR or NEAR and not standard game physics, which I found a bit odd to begin with. That lead me to NEAR, which said 32bit only, which in turn lead me to FAR and same deal, 32bit only. Digging deeper in this thread, I see Ferram is frustrated with how buggy 64bit is that he won't support it. I've had some rare crashes on 64bit, but I've had just as many if not more on 32bit. Alas, I'm no modder and I respect your reasons. It's just a shame to see everyone boycotting 64bit like this. It may be unstable for some people but hasn't been for everyone and I'm feeling like they are getting left out in the cold here.

This isn't a petition for 64bit, just another hopeful that 64bit unity will satisfy modders enough stability to one day support it.

Edited October 9, 2014 by mcbmaestro

[AetherGoddess]

I finally muddled my way through getting Ubuntu installed, only to find that Nvidia won't let Linux players use triple monitors. Going back to 32-bit is going to seriously suck.

i think the correct response here is blame squad. the reason Ferram (and a few other modders also) has dropped support for Win-64 is that it is very, very, VERY, fragile. it frustrates me to no end, because i have 12 unused gigabytes with which to store textures. My Video card has 2GB of ram by itself. 32-bit numbers are just not large enough to store all the collected awesome of this modding community.

in testing .24's x64, i quickly came to the conclusion that, once mods were installed, there was no longer consistency in the causes that operated in the natural world, reason only sometimes worked, logic was a lie, and large memory access is governed by the old ones. i felt like James Mickens was laughing at me. This was my world while i tried to figure out what mods worked and what failed.

i tried .25 x64 once. it crashed during the nyancat.

[blowfish]

I was going to get the snazzy new update for B9 which said it only supports FAR or NEAR and not standard game physics, which I found a bit odd to begin with. That lead me to NEAR, which said 32bit only, which in turn lead me to FAR and same deal, 32bit only. Digging deeper in this thread, I see Ferram is frustrated with how buggy 64bit is that he won't support it. I've had some rare crashes on 64bit, but I've had just as many if not more on 32bit. Alas, I'm no modder and I respect your reasons. It's just a shame to see everyone boycotting 64bit like this. It may be unstable for some people but hasn't been for everyone and I'm feeling like they are getting left out in the cold here.

This isn't a petition for 64bit, just another hopeful that 64bit unity will satisfy modders enough stability to one day support it.

Do you have ATM installed? A lot of the 32 bit crashes are running out of memory (though x64 can crash for the same reason under nebulous circumstances).

And I too anticipate the day when x64 will be as stable as x32 so that mods can support it.

[Voculus]

I'm not blaming Ferram and crew at all. It's just frustrating seeing Squad make such small efforts to help the modders who have done a hundred times more to keep the game fresh and fun. And all without a cent in return!

[Climberfx]

Ferram4. People are like that.

Don't pay attention. You did a great job. You was the first one modder to update to .25.

Get some deserved rest and ignore the ones that only complain. (Like me, a little. )

[smunisto]

@smunisto: I tried that. It didn't work. Did you notice that I was one of the few modders that didn't have "will not support win64" in the OP during 0.24?

But I'm tired.

I'm tired of being sent off chasing bugs that aren't my own.

I'm tired of running damage control when someone says that "doing X fixes it on win64" when it doesn't.

I'm tired of trying to maintain higher stability standards for win64 KSP than Squad has.

I'm tired of giving people incentive to use a messed up and unstable build.

But most importantly, I'm tired of people not reading the warnings and following them. Since Compatibility Checker has existed, we've had more and more instances of people just ignoring it, advocating other people ignoring it, and then when something actually breaks, people complain to us. Win64 KSP is no different.

So after spending all this time trying so desperately hard to leave open the option to people who understand that they're being reckless, all we've gotten back is complaints, anger, and a flood of garbage that buries valid reports. Worse, CC has only drawn attention to those mods and brought more complaints and trash reports because a mod had the gall to draw attention to the fact that it wasn't properly functional. So now, after giving me hell in return for giving you a way around the warnings, you don't get to go around them anymore.

"But it's not my fault! I never complained to you about win64 issues! I'm innocent!" Of course. You're innocent of being a jerk directly. You're guilty of trying to enable other people by trying to get me back into that position. You're guilty of being the reason Squad decided it was better to release a broken win64 KSP rather than pull it like I asked. You're guilty of being the reason that they decided to rush a build out after someone hacked a broken win64 version together.

You can either switch to the win32 build or the linux 64-bit build. I'm not wasting my time on win64 anymore.

Indeed, you are right. I completely agree with you. I know about the issue x64 has on Win, I have experienced them myself back when Squad first released it.

I wouldn't say the users forced Squad to do anything. When have they ever listened to their users?

I am playing KSP since 0.17 and all they've thrown in the game(or even scratched, like the resource system) were concepts for mods or working mods just bunched together with the game itself.

Since when have they been doing anything but use the Modders' ideas in order to "improve the game".

In any case, I will not to rant against Squad in your thread, just keeping with your general tone.

Just trying to tell you that I am not personally blaming you for anything and if you say it's broken, then okay, you are one of the dozen-or-so modders who I would believe more than anyone at Squad.

I am sincerely sorry that me and other people made you feel the way you do about your modding work, I hope you realize that it is fundamental to people like me in order to enjoy the game and that all you do is deeply appreciated.

To the point of me actually not wanting to play KSP unless it has FAR on it. I am yet to learn all the technical things about real aerodynamics and even so I am unwilling to play the game without working FAR.

Going to try it on Linux.

Sorry for the headaches.

[ArcticTroll]

I'm having a problem where any rocket instantly disintegrates from aerodynamic stress, this probably is me just doing something wrong but if anyone can offer help it would be greatly appreciated.

[NoMrBond]

Would it be possible to compile, for personal use (non-distribution), a version of FAR that works under x64 under the condition that I never ever ever bug you about anything that might happen from doing so, including, but not limited to, fire erupting from my computer after doing it?

[Wanderfound]

I'm having a problem where any rocket instantly disintegrates from aerodynamic stress, this probably is me just doing something wrong but if anyone can offer help it would be greatly appreciated.

Screenshots of the rocket in the VAB would help.

When this is happening, what is your speed, altitude and angle of attack?

[SkyRex94]

I've one question:

How can i increase the deployment speed of elevons set to spoilers (aka airbrakes)? They seem to deploy waay to slow and i can't find a way to increase that speed.

[ArcticTroll]

I just used a stock Kerbal X, everything on the rocket breaks as soon as it loads in. (Did I add the images correctly?(If not they're at: http://imgur.com/a/Da5KO ))