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

[blowfish]

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.

In my experience getting things set up in the CFG is a lot easier than getting things set up in Unity but to each his own, I suppose.

[CaptainKipard]

Not in this case.

[ferram4]

No, that still requires work on the author's end, and it also prevents unofficial support coming from outside.

It would be better to get it from the mesh, but that will take a lot more time. Until then, work out the config; make the changes I told you to make and it will function perfectly fine.

[CaptainKipard]

Yeah, about those. I can't understand your instructions at all. I don't mean the words, I mean the grammar. If you gave them to me in a series of steps that might help.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Kitspace]

Maybe a stupid question but does the atmosphere model affect any of the atmospheric drag heat things including those introduced by other mods?

[SkyRex94]

hey ferram4 , one question:

How difficult would it be to implement Ground Effect? Is it even possible with KSP's Terrain? OR a Ground effect just based on height, so it basically only works over an ocean?

Would be a great addition.

(Or is that already in but just I tested it wrong?)

Would enable you to build veeery Big transport-aircraft to carry stuff around very fast. Usefull for Kerbin, and with the coming biomes also for Eve and especially Laythe.

Building an Ekranoplan for that would give you the speed of an aircraft but with much smaller wings and so with less fuel consumption per ton. And you could build heavy transporters for hole base-modules without the need for enourmus wings.

[Rebelgamer]

Ferram posted this last year:

It's difficult to model properly. I admit, it would be funny to see people build planes that can just barely fly along the runway, but they get to the end and drop like a brick because the runway falls away from them, but every attempt at modeling ground effect either resulted in physics glitches, or what appeared to be very inconsistent amounts of lift that didn't vary properly with wingspan or wing loading. The only way that resulted in anything that made any sense also resulted in only tiny increases in lift. So basically, it seems to be more trouble than it's worth, at least for now.

[Montaño]

hey ferram4 , one question:

How difficult would it be to implement Ground Effect? Is it even possible with KSP's Terrain? OR a Ground effect just based on height, so it basically only works over an ocean?

Would be a great addition.

(Or is that already in but just I tested it wrong?)

Would enable you to build veeery Big transport-aircraft to carry stuff around very fast. Usefull for Kerbin, and with the coming biomes also for Eve and especially Laythe.

Building an Ekranoplan for that would give you the speed of an aircraft but with much smaller wings and so with less fuel consumption per ton. And you could build heavy transporters for hole base-modules without the need for enourmus wings.

Maybe you can have more lift, even more aerodynamic efficiency, but definitely you will be slower than flying high.

As density goes down with altitude, you can increase your speed keeping the drag constant. That means with the same required thrust. Although your available thrust decreases with altitude, the point where both (required and available) match is usually far from ground (for turbofan engines).

[SkyRex94]

Maybe you can have more lift, even more aerodynamic efficiency, but definitely you will be slower than flying high.

As density goes down with altitude, you can increase your speed keeping the drag constant. That means with the same required thrust. Although your available thrust decreases with altitude, the point where both (required and available) match is usually far from ground (for turbofan engines).

I didn't meant it to be fast, but its faster than anything that has actually ground contact. Not faster than other planes. meant it to carry stuff around faster than it would be per rover but with smaller craft per payload as a full size cargo plane would be.

[Montaño]

Maybe you can have more lift, even more aerodynamic efficiency, but definitely you will be slower than flying high.

As density goes down with altitude, you can increase your speed keeping the drag constant. That means with the same required thrust. Although your available thrust decreases with altitude, the point where both (required and available) match is usually far from ground (for turbofan engines).

Mmm. To be honest, it is not speed but range what really improves with altitude.

[JGUN]

I have a problem that I can't seem to find any similar posts about.

Since 0.25 update (and new version of FAR) there is no longer "isShielded" or "currentDrag" stats when I right click on parts and it seems like some parts do not properly get shielded by fairings.

Edited December 9, 2014 by JGUN

[tetryds]

hey ferram4 , one question:

How difficult would it be to implement Ground Effect? Is it even possible with KSP's Terrain? OR a Ground effect just based on height, so it basically only works over an ocean?

Would be a great addition.

(Or is that already in but just I tested it wrong?)

Would enable you to build veeery Big transport-aircraft to carry stuff around very fast. Usefull for Kerbin, and with the coming biomes also for Eve and especially Laythe.

Building an Ekranoplan for that would give you the speed of an aircraft but with much smaller wings and so with less fuel consumption per ton. And you could build heavy transporters for hole base-modules without the need for enourmus wings.

It was told to be too much work and processing for too little gain.

Just stick some flaps to your plane if you need more lift.

[Lei07]

Hi folks, this isnt a bug report or a complaint as such, but it is a bit of a plea for information.

I recently created a HL based shuttle in FAR 0.14.3.2, it uses some Tweakscaled parts, namely two B9 RCS thrusters (R12 Block at 150%, and a Mk1 Pod at 140%) and two KW SPS (scaled down to 1.25m). I am using Tweakscale 1.44 as there seems to be alot of issues with 1.47.

I made sure the shuttle had plenty of lift incase I was short or overshot on a reentry. Here is the data I like to "benchmark" at before inputting different speeds:

KER is giving the same mass and vacuum delta-v, and all the control surfaces are set to the same density as before (they infact did not change, but I tested it anyway).

Does the Tweakscale intergration really change the performance that much? Or are there other matters at work here.

I am a total and utter novice at understanding these things, after watching some Scott Manley vids on the subject months ago all I've done since then is "green line as high a number as possible, and yellow line as low as possible", thats about as technical as I understand but its worked for me so far.

I fear that I will have to rework both of my shuttles, and possibly my other aircraft too, ranging from little fighter like planes to large transporters. As long as this change is correct and is working as intended I will rework the best I can, what I don't want is to rework it only to find out that this is some form of bug and any reworking to be made moot.

Any advice, comment, information etc appreciated if anyone has the time!

Edited December 9, 2014 by Lei07
formatting

[SkyRender]

Has anyone else been experiencing some rather odd center-of-mass issues when using FAR? I developed a cargo spaceplane and successfully launched it into orbit, then released its payload and sent said payload off on its merry way. Except... it didn't behave properly. At all. Despite being barely more than a probe, fuel tank, and engine (all nicely balanced without any odd jutting mass), the payload craft's thrust started to push it increasingly more intensely "down" (ie. towards the planet). It was inconsistent at times, as well: if I took the thrust up gradually, it would behave itself most of the time, but any sudden thrust jumps and suddenly the whole physics model went pear-shaped. FAR isn't supposed to muck about with travel in a vacuum, as far as I know, so what gives?

[Wanderfound]

Has anyone else been experiencing some rather odd center-of-mass issues when using FAR? I developed a cargo spaceplane and successfully launched it into orbit, then released its payload and sent said payload off on its merry way. Except... it didn't behave properly. At all. Despite being barely more than a probe, fuel tank, and engine (all nicely balanced without any odd jutting mass), the payload craft's thrust started to push it increasingly more intensely "down" (ie. towards the planet). It was inconsistent at times, as well: if I took the thrust up gradually, it would behave itself most of the time, but any sudden thrust jumps and suddenly the whole physics model went pear-shaped. FAR isn't supposed to muck about with travel in a vacuum, as far as I know, so what gives?

1) Get RCS Build Aid.

2) Set it to measure engine torque.

3) Post screenshots with and without fuel and payload.

The gradual vs sudden acceleration thing is normal; SAS can handle gradual accelerations that overwhelm it if applied rapidly.

[Rakaydos]

Has anyone else been experiencing some rather odd center-of-mass issues when using FAR? I developed a cargo spaceplane and successfully launched it into orbit, then released its payload and sent said payload off on its merry way. Except... it didn't behave properly. At all. Despite being barely more than a probe, fuel tank, and engine (all nicely balanced without any odd jutting mass), the payload craft's thrust started to push it increasingly more intensely "down" (ie. towards the planet). It was inconsistent at times, as well: if I took the thrust up gradually, it would behave itself most of the time, but any sudden thrust jumps and suddenly the whole physics model went pear-shaped. FAR isn't supposed to muck about with travel in a vacuum, as far as I know, so what gives?

Dumb question:

Are your Flight Assistance Toggles still on?

[SkyRender]

Dumb question:

Are your Flight Assistance Toggles still on?

I don't use flight assistance. I'm old-school like that. And I think it's rather telling that this exact same simple craft behaves in space with absolutely no problems on a stock install of KSP, not to mention that the strange off-center thrust issues only pop up under controllable circumstances while FAR is installed.

[Wanderfound]

I don't use flight assistance. I'm old-school like that. And I think it's rather telling that this exact same simple craft behaves in space with absolutely no problems on a stock install of KSP, not to mention that the strange off-center thrust issues only pop up under controllable circumstances while FAR is installed.

FAR doesn't do anything in vacuum, unless some other mod has messed with it. A Mechjeb build did so briefly a few months ago, leading to wings tearing off in vacuum etc.

The wing weight tweakable will move your CoM unless adjusted; default FAR wings are heavier than stock. It sounds like you have heavy wings mounted below CoM.

Edited December 10, 2014 by Wanderfound

[Starman4308]

Has anyone else been experiencing some rather odd center-of-mass issues when using FAR? I developed a cargo spaceplane and successfully launched it into orbit, then released its payload and sent said payload off on its merry way. Except... it didn't behave properly. At all. Despite being barely more than a probe, fuel tank, and engine (all nicely balanced without any odd jutting mass), the payload craft's thrust started to push it increasingly more intensely "down" (ie. towards the planet). It was inconsistent at times, as well: if I took the thrust up gradually, it would behave itself most of the time, but any sudden thrust jumps and suddenly the whole physics model went pear-shaped. FAR isn't supposed to muck about with travel in a vacuum, as far as I know, so what gives?

Are you sure you had symmetric fuel tank drain? Docking and undocking can do strange things to a craft's tree structure.

[SkyRender]

FAR dosn't do anything in vacuum, unless some other mod has messed with it. A Mechjeb build did so briefly a few months ago, leading to wings tearing off in vacuum etc.

The wing weight tweakable will move your CoM unless adjusted; default FAR wings are heavier than stock.

I won't touch MechJeb, so that's ruled out. And the wing masses on this craft are all default. The only thing that's been altered about any of them is pitch/yaw/roll control levels and spoiler/flap flags. I can't imagine how that would cause a probe body, fuel tank, and engine with attached solar panels and symmetrical science instruments and nothing else to misbehave so badly. The parent craft's parameters should not impact the child craft once the child craft has been detached.

Edited December 9, 2014 by SkyRender

[Van Disaster]

He meant that stock wings under FAR are heavier than stock wings under stock, if left alone. I can't compare, I don't have stock wings installed atm.

I had/have a wierd bug with one of my satellites stuck on a plane via the subassembly system - the CoM moves slowly back down the velocity vector of the entire combination ( even in space ), which leads to some really bizarre manoevering. After detaching the sat the plane performed as it should, the sat is not quite so well behaved. I'm reasonably convinced that's a subassembly bug rather than a FAR issue, but it does bear some resemblance to yours.

[sarge38]

Sigh, my fighter aircraft preformed brilliantly before the update, it was even able to take 15g turns without stalling at 400km/h. now on it barely even rolls let alone turn. i changed nothing of the aircraft and no changes to action groups or anything like that. has there been a sneaky feature or fix?

[Wanderfound]

Sigh, my fighter aircraft preformed brilliantly before the update, it was even able to take 15g turns without stalling at 400km/h. now on it barely even rolls let alone turn. i changed nothing of the aircraft and no changes to action groups or anything like that. has there been a sneaky feature or fix?

Mass tweakable wings. Right click in the SPH; new FAR wings are much stronger and heavier than old FAR wings.

[sarge38]

Mass tweakable wings. Right click in the SPH; new FAR wings are much stronger and heavier than old FAR wings.

ahhhh thanks, ima try that out now.

[sarge38]

ahhhh thanks, ima try that out now.

This didn't work, one thing i noticed though is that when i turned on visuals the wings seem to be stalling, although before the update they weren't. it also seems that all the control surfaces are stalling even when im not moving very fast (200/300km/h) where again, before the update none of this happened. Also, the control surfaces seem to travel slower between positions... very frustrating as i use to fly this thing with my joystick.