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

[ferram4]

@Rakayados: Then it is yawing because you have set up the flight assistance gains to be very, very sensitive for no reason. The yaw damper only responds to yaw movement, nothing else.

And yes, FAR does handle the effects of biplane interaction. Otherwise you could just add another layer of wing on top of your plane and it would make double the lift.

@Hodo: I mean, I suppose, but the CoL is a terrible indicator at those speeds. Hypersonic flow is highly nonlinear, and the usefulness of the CoL is only for linear aerodynamics. I'd rather not, simply because it will shift EVERYWHERE when you change AoA at high Mach numbers; it will be worse than useless.

@Kitspace: Yes, they do. Here is a tutorial on getting the proper values.

@Crzyrndm: Hmm... I must not be clearing something out then. I'll see if I can fix it.

[Climberfx]

Hey Ferram4.

We are having some issues on the new model from Cpt. Kipard.. The Skylon.

When we play with FAR and put his cfg (module manager), the COL get off center and crazy.

Here is some pics on what happens and the cfg from it.

I'm here to ask you, because i really think that is because he don't use "rotated" symmetry, but the ship have a model of wing for each side, on a separate model. Is there a way you know to fix this result?

Can you help us?

[COLOR=#333333]@PART[KipEngSkylonWing*]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR] // each side part have "left" "right"on the end of the part name.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]{[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]// zero out all stock values, remove stock module[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@module = Part[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@maximum_drag = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@minimum_drag = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@angularDrag = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@dragCoeff = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@deflectionLiftCoeff = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@ctrlSurfaceRange = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@ctrlSurfaceArea = 0[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#333333]// add custom FAR values[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]MODULE[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]{[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]name = FARControllableSurface[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]MAC = 10.385[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]MidChordSweep = 17.165[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]b_2 = 4.02[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]TaperRatio = 0.56[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]e = 0.87[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]nonSideAttach = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]maxdeflect = 15[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]ctrlSurfFrac = 0.12[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]}[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]}[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#333333]@PART[KipEngSkylonCanard*]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR][/COLOR][COLOR=#333333] // each side part have "left" "right"on the end of the part name.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]{[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]// zero out all stock values, remove stock module[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@module = Part[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@maximum_drag = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@minimum_drag = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@angularDrag = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@dragCoeff = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@deflectionLiftCoeff = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@ctrlSurfaceRange = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@ctrlSurfaceArea = 0[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#333333]// add custom FAR values[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]MODULE[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]{[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]name = FARControllableSurface[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]MAC = 1.985[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]MidChordSweep = 42.695[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]b_2 = 4.02[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]TaperRatio = 0.25[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]e = 0.87[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]nonSideAttach = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]maxdeflect = 15[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]ctrlSurfFrac = 1[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]}[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]}[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#333333]@PART[KipEngSkylonStabiliser]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch|NEAR][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]{[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]// zero out all stock values, remove stock module[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@module = Part[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@maximum_drag = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@minimum_drag = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@angularDrag = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@dragCoeff = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@deflectionLiftCoeff = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@ctrlSurfaceRange = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@ctrlSurfaceArea = 0[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#333333]// add custom FAR values[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]MODULE[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]{[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]name = FARControllableSurface[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]MAC = 3.27[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]MidChordSweep = 44.227[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]b_2 = 4.02[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]TaperRatio = 0.213[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]e = 0.87[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]nonSideAttach = 0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]maxdeflect = 15[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]ctrlSurfFrac = 1[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]}[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]}[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#333333]@PART[KipEngSkylonSabreEngine]:NEEDS[FerramAerospaceResearch]:AFTER[FerramAerospaceResearch]:NEEDS[!AJE][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]{[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],0[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]{[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]@maxThrust *= 1.5[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]}[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333]}[/COLOR][COLOR=#333333]
[/COLOR]

This one showed that without any wing, front and back, the center of lift still on middle, the right position.

Original Thread for Cpt. Kipard Skylon: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/49756-WIP-R-E-L-Skylon-C2-Alpha-Released-FAR-config-available%21-%2806-Dec-2014%29/page9

Edited December 7, 2014 by Climberfx

[kcs123]

Hey Ferram4.

We are having some issues on the new model from Cpt. Kipard.. The Skylon.

When we play with far and put his cfg (module manager), the COL get off center and crazy.

Here is some pics on what happens and the cfg from it.

I'm here to ask you, because i really think that is because he don't use "rotated" symmetry, but the ship have a model of wing for each side, on a separate model. Is there a way you know to fix this result?

Can you help me?

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8654/15773454440_f41e2287d4_o.png

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7463/15341110463_7634afbc58_o.pnghttps://farm9.staticflickr.com/8650/15774712329_07648625b5_o.pnghttps://farm8.staticflickr.com/7521/15960728745_ecacf0bc31_o.pnghttps://farm9.staticflickr.com/8673/15774712099_e610a6d562_o.pnghttps://farm8.staticflickr.com/7548/15775010217_1645fa9989_o.pnghttps://farm8.staticflickr.com/7546/15773326648_76d2032f88_o.pnghttps://farm9.staticflickr.com/8659/15775008527_571b2b3ea2_o.png

This one showed that without any wing, front and back, the center of lift still on middle, the right position.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7557/15773325788_300ca66b1e_o.pnghttps://farm9.staticflickr.com/8583/15338454834_74bfa7becd_o.pnghttps://farm8.staticflickr.com/7516/15338454264_16d0b53326_o.png

Original Thread for Cpt. Kipard Skylon: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/49756-WIP-R-E-L-Skylon-C2-Alpha-Released-FAR-config-available%21-%2806-Dec-2014%29/page9

Noticed similar asymetry bug with Procedural wings, but it is not only PW bug, I got the same with stock SP+ wings. Workaround for it is quite simple, deatach wing from oposite side where CoL is not calculated and attach again on plane. Both wings are calculated now and shows correct CoL point. I'm not sure how to reproduce this bug, it seems that hapens when you attach/deatach wings number of times in editor and/or forgot to choose symetry before attaching/grabing wing.

[Kitspace]

Is there a way to place a hard limit on control inputs or make some of the controls lock themselves as the airspeed increases?

[Climberfx]

Noticed similar asymetry bug with Procedural wings, but it is not only PW bug, I got the same with stock SP+ wings. Workaround for it is quite simple, deatach wing from oposite side where CoL is not calculated and attach again on plane. Both wings are calculated now and shows correct CoL point. I'm not sure how to reproduce this bug, it seems that hapens when you attach/deatach wings number of times in editor and/or forgot to choose symetry before attaching/grabing wing.

KCS, that is not my case. Still doing that thing. I believe that happens because it not use stock symmetry, but one model of wing for each side. And i don't know how to fix that, because must be a FAR thing.

Thank you anyway.

Edited December 7, 2014 by Climberfx

[Hodo]

@Hodo: I mean, I suppose, but the CoL is a terrible indicator at those speeds. Hypersonic flow is highly nonlinear, and the usefulness of the CoL is only for linear aerodynamics. I'd rather not, simply because it will shift EVERYWHERE when you change AoA at high Mach numbers; it will be worse than useless.

Ok, good to know. Is there a way to calculate how the CoL changes in relation to the the speed, in layman terms? I am a tanker not an aeronautical engineer.

I am only wondering because I am trying to find out how to improve my designs at higher speeds.

[chbaker0]

Does FAR simulate shock waves from supersonic flight? I'm curious if a design similar to the Boeing X-51 would work, because it generated a lot of its lift from "riding" on the shock waves it generated.

[Rakaydos]

@Rakayados: Then it is yawing because you have set up the flight assistance gains to be very, very sensitive for no reason. The yaw damper only responds to yaw movement, nothing else.

What should I turn down?

[Rakaydos]

My flap control acton groups arnt working.

The action group is set in the action group tab, the vehical spawns in flap setting 2, my other action groups are fine, and I can manually set flap settings in the right click menu, but my -flap control- action groups arnt doing a darn thing.

[blowfish]

My flap control acton groups arnt working.

The action group is set in the action group tab, the vehical spawns in flap setting 2, my other action groups are fine, and I can manually set flap settings in the right click menu, but my -flap control- action groups arnt doing a darn thing.

http://i.imgur.com/x5RUaio.png

The max flap setting is 3, so the difference between that and the default can be difficult to see. To test if it's actually working, give it a decrease flap deflection group too, and see if you can zero out the flap deflection using that group.

[Dreadp1r4te]

Is there any way to enable x64 support as a config option? While I understand x64 may be less stable than x86, I can't help but consider that "partially stable" is significantly better than "instantly crashes when I load the VAB" due to the number of mods I have, and the texture reduction mod also breaks my game so that's a no go. It causes things to disappear (usually planets) and breaks physics.

[blowfish]

Is there any way to enable x64 support as a config option? While I understand x64 may be less stable than x86, I can't help but consider that "partially stable" is significantly better than "instantly crashes when I load the VAB" due to the number of mods I have, and the texture reduction mod also breaks my game so that's a no go. It causes things to disappear (usually planets) and breaks physics.

Ferram had made it clear that he will not enable x64 support in official builds until Squad fixes the instabilities on their end. You can however find unofficial recompiles which enable Win64 support. Of course, don't expect any official support for those builds.

[Dreadp1r4te]

Ferram had made it clear that he will not enable x64 support in official builds until Squad fixes the instabilities on their end. You can however find unofficial recompiles which enable Win64 support. Of course, don't expect any official support for those builds.

Ah, outstanding! Did not notice this before. I do hope Squad fixes this soon; this is 2014, even my damn tablet is 64 bit XD

[Rakaydos]

The max flap setting is 3, so the difference between that and the default can be difficult to see. To test if it's actually working, give it a decrease flap deflection group too, and see if you can zero out the flap deflection using that group.

That's action group 5.

I Am right clicking the flap on the runway, to see the flap setting, and pressing 4 or 5 to try and change it. the flap setting remains at 2.

[Starman4308]

Ah, outstanding! Did not notice this before. I do hope Squad fixes this soon; this is 2014, even my damn tablet is 64 bit XD

The problem is that Squad can't fix it. It's mostly a problem with Unity, the underlying engine. Squad can't do anything about that short of migrating the engine, which would be an enormous amount of work. I'm under the impression Unity 5 lacks the x64 bugs, but it's not out yet, and Squad is eagerly awaiting that.

[blowfish]

That's action group 5.

I Am right clicking the flap on the runway, to see the flap setting, and pressing 4 or 5 to try and change it. the flap setting remains at 2.

Then unfortunately I can't say what the problem is, though I swear I've seen something like this before. Does it happen with all craft, or after reinstalling FAR?

[Van Disaster]

Does FAR simulate shock waves from supersonic flight? I'm curious if a design similar to the Boeing X-51 would work, because it generated a lot of its lift from "riding" on the shock waves it generated.

No wave-riding or compression lift unless it's sneaked in recently - it's come up before, a lot

@flaps discussion: if there's no auto-assign groups for flaps then any rework of flaps involving symmetry will mean one side of the plane needs the action groups for the flaps reassigned every edit - easy to forget, I do it with engines all the time.... Other thing is - does the rightclick menu on the part update without needing reopening? I've found that somewhat unpredictable. Tried reopening the menu after you've made a flap adjustment?

[Rakaydos]

Then unfortunately I can't say what the problem is, though I swear I've seen something like this before. Does it happen with all craft, or after reinstalling FAR?

After some testing with various crafts I have saved, I realized I was only teting the "near side" flaps after spawning on the runway- the far side flaps function fine. Perhaps moving a mirrored part breaks the action group of the "other copy"?

Edit: thanks.

Any help on setting the Flight Assistance to be helpful but not too helpful? (my other issue)

[blowfish]

After some testing with various crafts I have saved, I realized I was only teting the "near side" flaps after spawning on the runway- the far side flaps function fine. Perhaps moving a mirrored part breaks the action group of the "other copy"?

Edit: thanks.

Any help on setting the Flight Assistance to be helpful but not too helpful? (my other issue)

That would explain it. When you move a mirrored part, the action group definitely breaks for the one on the other side. Annoying as hell ... there is a workaround in this specific case though. Rather than setting flap control action groups on a per-craft basis, set them globally in the FAR settings from the Space Center screen.

[Wanderfound]

That would explain it. When you move a mirrored part, the action group definitely breaks for the one on the other side. Annoying as hell ... there is a workaround in this specific case though. Rather than setting flap control action groups on a per-craft basis, set them globally in the FAR settings from the Space Center screen.

There's also this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-0-25-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules-%28Release-v0-1-5b-23-Nov-14%29

[ferram4]

@ClimberFX: You should investigate the KSO configs, since I think the smaller shuttle has had some work done to make it FAR-compatible. The problem is that FAR has never been good at figuring out wings set up that way, because they are completely off all the other wing part specs.

@Kitspace: No.

@chbaker0: No, and while getting closer to that level of interaction is planned, the math required for waveriders isn't really feasible in KSP right now. The on-design effects are easy to simulate, but the off-design effects are very, very difficult to handle.

@Rakaydos: Stock bug with Action Groups and symmetry. That's been there since Action Groups were introduced in what, 0.18?

[CaptainKipard]

Ferram I already looked through KSO. The author says it's not meant to be FAR-compatible, and I can't see any FAR configs for it. The only FAR data is commented out in all the relevant parts.

They probably had the same problem.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[CaptainKipard]

WRT to this post Do you have plans to fix FAR for stackable surfaces?

[ferram4]

Wing overhaul should make that generally unnecessary, so if you plan on waiting, oh, a few months, you can maybe have a dev version that doesn't require compliance with the current data and assumptions FAR needs.

Aerodynamics requires a lot of geometry data to get things right. Making assumptions causes problems; virtually every complaint and bug in FAR is due to errors when those assumptions are wrong. For that reason, FAR requires a lot of author-generated data for the config to avoid those errors.

[CaptainKipard]

Ok well if you're considering it, then think about extracting data from game objects and the hierarchy somehow. You could have modders insert game objects at the root, tip, and all the other necessary places. You could do away with config data altogether, just have a list of objects.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard