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

[kcs123]

I don't have config for FAR, and this one is for B9 from 0.25KSP - ATM basic. You also should have info in comments inside config file for ATM mod.

This is just example how you can override ATM main behaviour just for specific mod, you can do the same for FAR, but keep in mind that you need to edit this for FAR and your specific usage.

ACTIVE_TEXTURE_MANAGER_CONFIG
{
    folder = B9_Aerospace
    enabled  = true
    NORMAL_LIST
    {
        texture = B9_Aerospace/Parts/Structure_P_Clear-Half/model001
        texture = B9_Aerospace/Parts/Structure_P_Standard-Frame/model001_NRM
    }
    OVERRIDES
    {
        B9_Aerospace/Props/B9_MFD/images/.*
        {
            compress = true
            mipmaps = false
            scale = 1
            max_size = 0
            make_not_readable = false
        }
    }
}

[LameLefty]

I dropped this one right inside my /GameData/FerramAerospaceResearch/Textures folder:

ACTIVE_TEXTURE_MANAGER_CONFIG
{
	folder = FerramAerospaceResearch
	enabled = true
	OVERRIDES
	{
		FerramAerospaceResearch/.*
		{
			compress = false
			mipmaps = false
			scale = 1
			max_size = 0
		}
	}
}

I don't want ATM compressing any of my on-screen icons. Blurry text and icons make zero sense to me when there's so much else that can be compressed to save real memory.

[Dr. Death]

Nobody believes that line any more. Even if there is some truth to it (highly unlikely, stock 64-bit Windows KSP is broken, even for Squad, and mods, any mods, are known to make it worse), nobody cares. Whine about it all you want, all you will achieve is making enemies (ie, people unsympathetic to your plight).

What you said really bothers me. I can remove all mods and make an 1-hour video of me playing KSP 64-bits as i have done and without any problems. No, i dont know WHY some 64-bit copies work fine, but mine does. It works perfectly fine, of course, i cant force you to believe me, but i wont take people say that i am telling a lie just because they dont like 64-bit KSP just because of how Unity works.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Dr. Death

[steve_v]

Nobody "doesn't like" 64bit KSP, but your case aside, the evidence that it is broken is overwhelming. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.

This wasn't a big deal untill people started doing what you are doing now and making a fuss about it, hence the lockout. Please stop digging that hole, you are not helping.

If you really must run 64bit, good for you, just quit moaning about it.

Perhaps then this thread can go back to discussing FAR, as intended.

[Hodo]

What you said really bothers me. I can remove all mods and make an 1-hour video of me playing KSP 64-bits as i have done and without any problems. No, i dont know WHY some 64-bit copies work fine, but mine does. It works perfectly fine, of course, i cant force you to believe me, but i wont take people say that i am telling a lie just because they dont like 64-bit KSP just because of how Unity works.

To put it plainly so there is no doubt in the back of your argumentative mind.

Ferram4 said he will not support 64bit, dont comment on it here, dont argue about it here, no one here cares about what you can and cant do in 64bit, so have a Coke and a smile and shut up about it.

Thank you.

[tempsgk]

• Shape-Based Aerodynamics - Long, thin shapes drag less than wide, flat shapes, and smooth changes in body width reduce drag. Tall rockets good; pancake rockets bad.
  

Can someone expand on this?

What works and what dosen't. What if a pancake rocket has all nose cones and in terms of mass less than a thin rocket.

[tetryds]

• Shape-Based Aerodynamics - Long, thin shapes drag less than wide, flat shapes, and smooth changes in body width reduce drag. Tall rockets good; pancake rockets bad.
  

Can someone expand on this?

What works and what dosen't. What if a pancake rocket has all nose cones and in terms of mass less than a thin rocket.

Even a nosecone still has more drag than no nosecone.

So if your ship is a very tall 2.5m pillar with a nosecone it will cause way less drag than if it was shorter and had lots of boosters attached to it radially.

Mass has nothing to do with the drag, it does have to do with the terminal velocity but that's another story.

[tempsgk]

1.I have a FL-T400 Fuel Tank which has a drag of 0.2

2.I have a FL-T400 Fuel Tank and a Aerodynamic Nose Cone on top which overall equal 0.3 drag.

How does far calculate it?

next question.

Does the nose cone or what ever on top needs to be bigger than the part below in order to reduce drag?

Which brings us to the question: Does Far takes into account parts such as these? C7 Brand Adapter - 2.5m to 1.25m

And please expand on what works and what doesn't other than my examples if possible thanks.

Also I know about the technical flight window, but how do I read it to learn about drag?

Edited January 17, 2015 by tempsgk

[BudgetHedgehog]

FAR drag is based on the mesh (complicated stuff involving raycasts, unused attach nodes, basic assumptions about shapes and other things), not config-designated drag values. A nose cone can be of any size you want, it'll still reduce drag, but obviously, the bigger the nosecone, the bigger the change in cross section which means higher drag.

Basically, forget everything about stock drag because none of it applies to FAR - pretty much nothing in the config is used to calculate drag (attach nodes aside, and only if they're unused).

Pretty much anything works - as long as it looks aerodynamic, it'll be aerodynamic. Skinny pointy things are more aerodynamic than fat blunt things. I'm not sure what examples to put as that's basically it. One thing FAR doesn't do though is skip calculating drag/lift on parts that have been offset so they're hiding inside another part (say, radial MP tanks). The only way to shield something from drag is put it in a cargo bay or fairing.

[tempsgk]

Basically forget everything and anything works is difficult because I don't know what works and what doesn't in FAR. At least with stock I get the simple idea that more mass= more drag.

So in FAR if you have the smallest nose cone it has the same effectiveness as a big nose cone that actually covers the tank underneath? And that far only takes into account the unattach/attach nodes so that adapters are useless and only serve to make the craft anaesthetically pleasing like nose cones in stock?

Another question: For the amount of thrusters, is it better to have TVR-2160C Mk2 Stack Quad-Coupler instead of many similar 4 fuel tanks housing the 4 Thrusters? Since that only needs 1 nose cone and a fuel tank or structual panel.

And is a structual panel having less drag than a fuel tank when placed radially in the same position?

Edited January 17, 2015 by tempsgk

[Ze Hydro]

Hello, quick question. Does FAR simulate ground effect?

[tetryds]

Hello, quick question. Does FAR simulate ground effect?

No, unfortunatelly it does not, too heavy for too little profit.

@tempsgk: more mass = more drag does not relate in any shape or form to how any sort of fluid or gas behaves.

Yes, smaller nosecones work, but that is not because FAR is bad, it's because there are limited resources for FAR and it cannot have the luxury of using extra processing to count for that kind of stuff.

It's not that bad, really.

And yes, a 4 stack coupler is better than having them on their own, just like it would be in real life.

What works in far? COL behind COM, and BOOST UR TAIL^tm!

Damn, every time someone posts a question here I wish I could link my tutorials, that is killing me.

[Ze Hydro]

No, unfortunatelly it does not, too heavy for too little profit.

Bah, oh well. Thanks.

[Insanitic]

I'm kinda confused about spoilers settings:

So I have binded toggling spoilers to action groups but whenever I try it, I don't see any animation or indication that they have deployed. My plane is using the stock space plane elevons/ailerons and I don't see any animation of them moving. Am I mistaken as to how they work? Because I assume spoilers are the flaps that raise on wings to help with the braking of the craft, at least, based on my knowledge of playing FSX.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Insanitic

[Crzyrndm]

I'm kinda confused about spoilers settings:

So I have binded toggling spoilers to action groups but whenever I try it, I don't see any animation or indication that they have deployed. My plane is using the stock space plane elevons/ailerons and I don't see any animation of them moving. Am I mistaken as to how they work? Because I assume spoilers are the flaps that raise on wings to help with the braking of the craft, at least, based on my knowledge of playing FSX.

You have to enable a control surface to act as a spoiler in the SPH (same for flaps)

[Wanderfound]

I'm kinda confused about spoilers settings:

So I have binded toggling spoilers to action groups but whenever I try it, I don't see any animation or indication that they have deployed. My plane is using the stock space plane elevons/ailerons and I don't see any animation of them moving. Am I mistaken as to how they work? Because I assume spoilers are the flaps that raise on wings to help with the braking of the craft, at least, based on my knowledge of playing FSX.

You also need to configure the control surfaces that you want to move as spoilers via the right-click tweakables. Having an action group to activate a spoiler won't do anything if the control surface hasn't been told that it's a spoiler.

[cantab]

• Shape-Based Aerodynamics - Long, thin shapes drag less than wide, flat shapes, and smooth changes in body width reduce drag. Tall rockets good; pancake rockets bad.
  

Can someone expand on this?

What works and what dosen't. What if a pancake rocket has all nose cones and in terms of mass less than a thin rocket.

In my experience short fat rockets have stability issues - they don't want to fly forwards. For example this little guy needs the fins to fly stably, without them it will just tumble out of control: https://flic.kr/p/quQPAd Although I could probably force it to fly straight with a big reaction wheel and caution on the controls.

[xXIndestructibleEVAXx]

Hello, I need help. My rocket won't fly! When I try to do my gravity turn (and I know, turn slowly) it starts to flip! It's tall and thin, and it uses the KW rocketry expanded 1.25m fairings. Once I'm passed mach 1, as soon as I drop my 2 big boosters, it starts to flip. I'm using SAS, gimballing engines, and the little wings (not the ones that move completely, the sort of triangular ones with the flaps.)

[Mekan1k]

No, unfortunatelly it does not, too heavy for too little profit.

@tempsgk: more mass = more drag does not relate in any shape or form to how any sort of fluid or gas behaves.

Yes, smaller nosecones work, but that is not because FAR is bad, it's because there are limited resources for FAR and it cannot have the luxury of using extra processing to count for that kind of stuff.

It's not that bad, really.

And yes, a 4 stack coupler is better than having them on their own, just like it would be in real life.

What works in far? COL behind COM, and BOOST UR TAIL^tm!

Damn, every time someone posts a question here I wish I could link my tutorials, that is killing me.

Doesn't the ground effect increase the relative lift by a factor of 2 while the aircraft is within 1/2 the maximum wingspan on the aircraft in question? (Simplified terms)

[LameLefty]

Hello, I need help. My rocket won't fly! When I try to do my gravity turn (and I know, turn slowly) it starts to flip! It's tall and thin, and it uses the KW rocketry expanded 1.25m fairings. Once I'm passed mach 1, as soon as I drop my 2 big boosters, it starts to flip. I'm using SAS, gimballing engines, and the little wings (not the ones that move completely, the sort of triangular ones with the flaps.)

You need more control authority at the base of your rocket - try "the ones that move completely"

Also, you say you're turning slowly but what does that mean? Keep an eye on your prograde marker on the Navball. Don't let your nose get further than about 5º - 7º ahead of your prograde marker until you're nearly out of the atmosphere - above 25K or so should be safe.

[tetryds]

Doesn't the ground effect increase the relative lift by a factor of 2 while the aircraft is within 1/2 the maximum wingspan on the aircraft in question? (Simplified terms)

I did not see much about it, but if you convince ferram that such simplification is accurate enough it does not seem very complicated to implement.

[xXIndestructibleEVAXx]

k, I'll try that tomorrow morning, as I'm going to 'sleep' now. I'll get back to you then with whether it works or not. Thanks ahead of time, though, in case it does work.

[Forty21112]

Hi, guys, it's me again. I have another problem.

FAR doesn't seem to be working as it should be. I mean, previous craft that was certainly controllable (in 0.24.2) is now not even remotely controllable.

Seriously? Did something happen in 0.25 that I missed or is it that I downloaded it wrong?

[blowfish]

Hi, guys, it's me again. I have another problem.

FAR doesn't seem to be working as it should be. I mean, previous craft that was certainly controllable (in 0.24.2) is now not even remotely controllable.

Seriously? Did something happen in 0.25 that I missed or is it that I downloaded it wrong?

0.24.2 was a while ago. I don't remember exactly when, but the wing code underwent some major changes at some point which did break certain crafts. The most likely culprit would be that the CoM is no longer in front of the CoL.

[tetryds]

Hi, guys, it's me again. I have another problem.

FAR doesn't seem to be working as it should be. I mean, previous craft that was certainly controllable (in 0.24.2) is now not even remotely controllable.

Seriously? Did something happen in 0.25 that I missed or is it that I downloaded it wrong?

Also, get the GIT version, the current release version can have some drag issues.