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

[BudgetHedgehog]

Silly question, but how does one go about downloading the dev version from github?

I believe you replace your current FerramAerospaceResearch.dll with the one from here (click it, then View Raw and it should download. I'm no Githubber though).

[ferram4]

There are also the various other files that have updated, like the FARAeroData, FARAeroStress, and FerramAerospaceResearch configs. Not updating those will give you a lot of trouble.

[NathanKell]

Just nuke your old FerramAerospaceResearch folder and replace it with the one in GameData in the zip from git.

[Wanderfound]

Silly question, but how does one go about downloading the dev version from github? I'm happy to wait for an official release too, but can you give an estimate on when that might be available?

Thank you!

Go to https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research

Download the zip (link at centre-right of page).

Unzip it.

Dig through the folders until you find the Gamedata one.

Delete your old Ferram folder from your local Gamedata directory.

Merge the new Gamedata into your local one, same as if you were installing any other mod.

[Wanderfound]

Still having major flight issues (using the latest dev build, downloaded today). Ships that would have flown very well in .24 are now complete deathtraps: constant nosetuck, stalls at minor AoA, sudden rolls with no warning, etc.

For example, the latest one:

(yes, I get that this implies increasing mild instability after about 10 degrees AoA. The ships are blowing up even when attempting to maintain zero AoA)

That ship has already killed four Kerbals, all without ever making it above 5,000m. Spaceplanes are essentially unusable in my career game at the moment.

[ferram4]

Using the very latest dev build, uploaded 2 hours ago? I have been actively updating that repo, dev things change rapidly there. And I've got a great pair of supersonic planes that I'll be including with the next FAR update. Still working on a spaceplane, but I'm pretty sure it won't be difficult. Nothing much has changed.

And yeah, it makes sense that that's a death trap. Look at the Cm line, it's barely sloping down at low AoA, and then it starts sloping up above 8 degrees! Seriously, this thing is just unstable.

I am making changes to the way wing interactions are handled, so the physics will change. That is intended.

[jrandom]

I won't really be able to fly until AJE + RSS/RO gets the intake issue sorted out, so my next planes will most likely be with the wing physics changes. I can't wait! (I love the challenge that is realistic aerodynamics.)

[Wanderfound]

Using the very latest dev build, uploaded 2 hours ago? I have been actively updating that repo, dev things change rapidly there. And I've got a great pair of supersonic planes that I'll be including with the next FAR update. Still working on a spaceplane, but I'm pretty sure it won't be difficult. Nothing much has changed.

And yeah, it makes sense that that's a death trap. Look at the Cm line, it's barely sloping down at low AoA, and then it starts sloping up above 8 degrees! Seriously, this thing is just unstable.

I am making changes to the way wing interactions are handled, so the physics will change. That is intended.

Lightweight atmospheric stuff is working okay; it's only once you get into medium+ spaceplanes that it gets lethal. I'll see if I can build something extra stable and make it work.

Ships with similar aero readouts flew perfectly fine in .24:

Thanks for all the work, as always; I'm looking forward to when things stabilise again.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Wanderfound

[blowfish]

What AoA did you need for that one? If you weren't venturing into the unstable AoA zone you wouldn't have noticed any instability.

[Wanderfound]

Just tried the latest build, downloaded ten minutes ago. Still, nosetuck, stalls at tiny AoA, and unprovoked aerodynamic failures although wing strength was set to 0.4.

Getting a spaceplane to orbit at the moment is an extremely dangerous and prolonged chore requiring constant attention and a fair bit of luck. Previously, I could fly heavy cargo into orbit virtually hands-free (e.g. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90337-Economic-Fuel-to-Oribit/page5?p=1361984#post1361984) and get lightweight sporty stuff from runway to orbit to runway in about fifteen minutes (e.g. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94343-Spaceplane-Speed-Challenge-IV-Up-and-Down?p=1444635&viewfull=1#post1444635).

I'm sorry to seem to be whingeing, but I'm not the only one reporting these issues. And while my designs may not be perfect, I'm certainly not the worst designer out here: if I can't make something that reliably works, the newbies haven't a hope in hell.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Wanderfound]

What AoA did you need for that one? If you weren't venturing into the unstable AoA zone you wouldn't have noticed any instability.

Which one?

None of the losses have been at extreme AoA. Things are flipping out of control and blowing up when attempting to fly straight and level.

[camlost]

I won't really be able to fly until AJE + RSS/RO gets the intake issue sorted out, so my next planes will most likely be with the wing physics changes. I can't wait! (I love the challenge that is realistic aerodynamics.)

What intake issues? I never heard of any

[Wanderfound]

BTW, another thing I've noticed:

I used to use linear RCS ports on my spaceplanes, one pair per facing. For retro-thrust RCS, I'd have one port either side of the fuselage, rotated 90° to point forwards. Now, however, if I do that those RCS ports are guaranteed to tear off through aerodynamic stress long before I hit Mach 5. This never used to happen previously.

[ferram4]

Yes, yes. Everything is borked. FAR is broken. I know. I know very well.

The RCS is because I had to strip away the "greeble" setting for RCS modules because B9 and a few other mods put RCS modules in their command pods, and so I can't handwave it away. Dunno how to fix it. Don't particularly care about that right now, I have bigger issues to deal with.

[camlost]

I was testing the dev build about 2 hours ago, I noticed on a simple delta-wing airplane, the pitch control of the aileron was inverted. But stall and aerodynamic damage is working fine.

Never mind, seems fixed on the dev build about 1 hour ago.

Edited October 15, 2014 by camlost

[HoneyFox]

I was testing the dev build about 2 hours ago, I noticed on a simple delta-wing airplane, the pitch control of the aileron was inverted. But stall and aerodynamic damage is working fine.

Never mind, seems fixed on the dev build about 1 hour ago.

Wait, what is the control-surface deflect angle setting of that aileron? what if you change that to a negative value?

EDIT: didn't notice the last line...

[jrandom]

What intake issues? I never heard of any

It's probably due to RealismOverhaul not actually being .25-ready yet. At least, that's my guess. All intakes have a tiny intake area (neighborhood of 0.0002 or so), not nearly enough to get even the smallest jet engine running. I'm going to hazard a guess that when RO gets an official release for 0.25, all will be well.

[camlost]

It's probably due to RealismOverhaul not actually being .25-ready yet. At least, that's my guess. All intakes have a tiny intake area (neighborhood of 0.0002 or so), not nearly enough to get even the smallest jet engine running. I'm going to hazard a guess that when RO gets an official release for 0.25, all will be well.

Have you played with AJE for the past 3 months? The whole purpose of AJE is to discard the stock 'intake' algorithm. And since v1.4, there's a new distinct inlet code that's much more scientific, and not dependent on RO or any other mods at all.

[jrandom]

Have you played with AJE for the past 3 months? The whole purpose of AJE is to discard the stock 'intake' algorithm. And since v1.4, there's a new distinct inlet code that's much more scientific, and not dependent on RO or any other mods at all.

Oh yes, fairly recently in .24. Instead of the stock intake, there's "intake area", with each engine having a required area for 100% usage. And in .25, I'm seeing the AJE intake area as really, really tiny for all intakes (whereas in .24 it was working fine). I just grabbed the latest from github as I see some changes have been made in the intake area arena, although I'm not sure if I'll have time to try it out tonight.

[camlost]

Oh yes, fairly recently in .24. Instead of the stock intake, there's "intake area", with each engine having a required area for 100% usage. And in .25, I'm seeing the AJE intake area as really, really tiny for all intakes (whereas in .24 it was working fine). I just grabbed the latest from github as I see some changes have been made in the intake area arena, although I'm not sure if I'll have time to try it out tonight.

AJE area is not 'moduleAirIntake' area, and nothing has changed since .25. I only added a few parts that's it.

[blowfish]

Um, is it normal for inline parts and rear-facing aerodynamic cones to be producing more drag than any other part?

[Wanderfound]

Um, is it normal for inline parts and rear-facing aerodynamic cones to be producing more drag than any other part?

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/blowfishpro/KSP/Debug/2014-10-14_00003_zps357e560e.jpg

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/blowfishpro/KSP/Debug/2014-10-14_00001_zps0882b0e6.jpg

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/blowfishpro/KSP/Debug/2014-10-14_00002_zps689d58ca.jpg

See post #6140.

All good things come...

[DaMichel]

Yes, yes. Everything is borked. FAR is broken. I know. I know very well.

Yesterday (Oct 14 commits), my smallish planes flew fine

Only two nitpicks (as usual): Flaps tend to get stalled even at low AoA. In one instance the stalling didn't go away even when i retracted the flap. Secondly, air brakes. I build a pair from the smallest control surfaces and made them turn 80 deg up. This stalled the surface ofc, but it also created an unbelievable drag force. Maybe 50 kN each, at say 200 m/s EAS.

@DaMichel: And now you understand why I don't try. It's even more difficult because some user designs don't have distinct wing / tail / canard surfaces, which makes it worse.

Yes. I agree with you. It was worth giving it a thought though.

I'm looking forward to see your new planes!

[ferram4]

Okay, I just pushed stuff to the dev build that makes it not broken. Should be fine now.

[Matrix Aran]

Just gave the latest dev build a test; still as smooth as silk to orbit with the same plane I've been using since the early October 13th build. Did a quick and lazy ascent to orbit under 3x physical time warp. Left the nose at 20 degrees up, turned on SAS and took my hands off the controls. Only had to take back control at about 27km up and 1.3km/s to correct it from nosing up too much. I would even dare say that the design actually performs better to orbit that before. Even with a really lazy switch to rockets at 1.4km/s it still gets to orbit with 816m/s of dV left.