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

[AndreyATGB]

Please just exclude the dll instead, it practically achieves the same thing.

[Dimenus]

Seeing interesting behavior with the CoL when building rockets in the VAB. I was having issues with light payload rockets flipping (TWR 1.07 - 1.4) so I added some wings on the back. It seemed to make stability worse. As far as the editor goes, it seems to RAISE the center of lift towards the nose rather than towards the tail when I add wings. Here are a couple screenshots. Let me know if I can provide any additional info

Edit: These rockets had PFs. I just removed them when I took the screenshots.

Edit2: Upon further testing, this seems to just be a display issue. Once i added simple wings that weren't controllable, the rocket stayed in the air stream the entire time with wings on but flipped easily with the wings off.

nuFAR w/ Wings:

nuFAR w/out Wings:

Edited May 6, 2015 by Dimenus

[etheoma]

checked.... no still nothing

oh context menu is back....stock one no fAR buttons and sliders

Did you merge the Game data folder and do you have module manger and are you using 1.0 or 0.90 because the VoxelAeroPort is for 1.0 and VoxelAero is for 0.90, and are you going to github and going here https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/branches for FAR.

Sorry these may sound like dumb questions but it has to be asked just encase. And no I don't think your dumb its just if no one has told you to do one of these things it can trip you up.

And Yes Ferram someone already told him about the ModularFlightIntegrator.

Edited May 6, 2015 by etheoma

[Guest Jax Pok]

Any point in still using FAR if KSP 1.0 now uses realistic aerodynamics?

[theend3r]

Seeing interesting behavior with the CoL when building rockets in the VAB. I was having issues with light payload rockets flipping (TWR 1.07 - 1.4) so I added some wings on the back. It seemed to make stability worse. As far as the editor goes, it seems to RAISE the center of lift towards the nose rather than towards the tail when I add wings. Here are a couple screenshots. Let me know if I can provide any additional info

Edit: These rockets had PFs. I just removed them when I took the screenshots.

Edit2: Upon further testing, this seems to just be a display issue. Once i added simple wings that weren't controllable, the rocket stayed in the air stream the entire time with wings on but flipped easily with the wings off.

nuFAR w/ Wings:

http://i.imgur.com/o4z2Snrh.jpg

nuFAR w/out Wings:

http://i.imgur.com/pOChaBNh.jpg

CoL indicator doesn't work yet and it basically can't as it's an oversimplified representation of the complex forces the new FAR is trying to simulate. Ferram said a few pages back that he's thinking about it.

Any point in still using FAR if KSP 1.0 now uses realistic aerodynamics?

They are by no means realistic. FAR is more realistic.

[Surefoot]

Any point in still using FAR if KSP 1.0 now uses realistic aerodynamics?

Did you even bother to read posts on the same page ?

[etheoma]

Also cant wait for B9 update, we need lower profile landing gears !

B9 landing gear works and most of the parts work if you turn on Non-Strict Part Orientation Checks in the debug Toolbar in Cheats.

Just encase you don't know it's Alt+F12 to get up the debug menu.

Also you should download the fixed version of the Firespitter.dill, also the are some price fix and tech tree fixes if you poke around. Not really relvent to me because I'm not starting a Career mode until NuFAR and Deadly Reentry are in a release state.

Edited May 6, 2015 by etheoma

[ferram4]

@Dimenius: Upon my testing, I find that the CoL drops to where it should be. If you aren't absolutely certain that you're running the latest nuFAR and you're not absolutely certain you've installed every dependency right, don't post a bug report.

@etheoma: As I said above, stop helping. If they can't figure it out themselves, don't help at all.

@Jax Pok: Yes, it's completely realistic and there's no need for FAR ever again. It's gone forever and development has ended. You see, stock is so realistic, it even accounts for the way that clipping things together works in the real world. As we all know, if you attach a nosecone to a booster, and then spin the cone around so that it's inside the booster and a flat end is facing the air, that will result in a minimum drag. This is why the ideal frontal shape is a flat face, because it results in the lowest drag when you have internal nosecones with the flat-end facing outward. In real-life tests (which have been replicated very well in KSP), doing this can reduce drag by 30% after Mach 1, and even reduce frontal drag to 0 as Mach -> infinity! It's amazing that so few real-life designs use this, I mean, KSP is realistic, right?

[LuvSicGrl]

@Jax Pok: Yes, it's completely realistic and there's no need for FAR ever again. It's gone forever and development has ended. You see, stock is so realistic, it even accounts for the way that clipping things together works in the real world. As we all know, if you attach a nosecone to a booster, and then spin the cone around so that it's inside the booster and a flat end is facing the air, that will result in a minimum drag. This is why the ideal frontal shape is a flat face, because it results in the lowest drag when you have internal nosecones with the flat-end facing outward. In real-life tests (which have been replicated very well in KSP), doing this can reduce drag by 30% after Mach 1, and even reduce frontal drag to 0 as Mach -> infinity! It's amazing that so few real-life designs use this, I mean, KSP is realistic, right?

Is being an ass required? "Don't help people.... it disrupts my process, Meh."

[AndreyATGB]

Is being an ass required? "Don't help people.... it disrupts my process, Meh."

IMO asking for help for development builds is not ok. These are provided as-is and I'd generally say it's best you keep your experiences with these unstable bits to yourself unless the dev specifically asks for help.

[steve_v]

Just stopped by to say thanks for keeping FAR alive, ferram4. The new stock aero is better than it was, but it's nowhere near as sweet as FAR.

The current voxelAeroPort git build is working rather well here and once more, things are flying as they should

Waiting patiently for a release... and tracking git closely to see what's in the works

[etheoma]

@etheoma: As I said above, stop helping. If they can't figure it out themselves, don't help at all.

Sorry didn't see that as I was working my way down the page, And I see your point I would be a little annoyed at the content flow of ITS BROKEN!!! HELPS PLEAS!!! if it was my thread. But my nature is to be helpful when ever I can but as I said I'm not having to put up with this all the time as I can just leave after I'm bored where as you have to sift crap to get to the actual stuff which would be relevant to actually developing / answering pertinent questions.

reserved and understood, anything I can do to even make your job even 1% easier just consider it done.

Edited May 6, 2015 by etheoma

[theend3r]

This is why the ideal frontal shape is a flat face, because it results in the lowest drag when you have internal nosecones with the flat-end facing outward. In real-life tests (which have been replicated very well in KSP), doing this can reduce drag by 30% after Mach 1, and even reduce frontal drag to 0 as Mach -> infinity! It's amazing that so few real-life designs use this, I mean, KSP is realistic, right?

Since you are the god of aerodynamics I'll believe you. I'm going to try building an M class rocket with an integrated reverse nosecone and see how it flies. I'll share my results later

On a more serious note your work is really amazing. After reading all the info on the new voxel method I'm just sitting here, astonished, with my mouth wide open.

[etheoma]

Is being an ass required? "Don't help people.... it disrupts my process, Meh."

Yeh dude totally not cool, calling a dev an ass even if they do deserve it is not cool. And ferram doesn't just to be clear.

There doing this for free and you have absolutely no right to complain about the way they do things. You can make suggestions etc even argue a point if there wrong as long as you keep it civil and you know your stuff, but calling them an ass is way out of bounds.

Even if a mod corrupts your save games or even somehow screws up your hole computer and the modder is rude about it you still shouldn't call them an ass, because it was free and you install it at your own risk.

Anything else than just delivering the mod is above and beyond and should not be expected by any means, even installing it in a user friendly manner in the final release never mind in a dev version which isn't meant for general consumption, and any help installing it is above and beyond and again especially in a dev version.

Edited May 6, 2015 by etheoma

[steve_v]

If it continues I'll simply stop pushing the updates to github and wait until it's ready for release...

Please, if you do this at least leave the source up - I can work a compiler (entry barrier anyone?)

[KillerRaccoon]

Ferram is 100% not being an ass. The dependency people are missing has been mentioned at least once per page, it would take literally two minutes of looking tops to find what, and where, it is. I'm personally thankful he stepped in, I don't come to this thread to see yet another person ask for someone else to put more effort into typing than it would take them to read a couple more posts. I come here to see when there are big developments with the mod itself.

[tetryds]

Enough of this discussion.

If you want to try the build, it's on git for everyone, if you find a bug, go there, download it again to make sure it's the very latest possible version and verify if the bug persists.

In case it does, report it here, that is how you are going to help.

FAR for KSP 1.0.2 is NOT out, it was not released yet, if you are using it it's at your own risk.

That is what ferram means, if you are not able to figure out how to get it it's likely that you cannot help on the development process.

This mod is complex, most of the issues are complex and require more than simply being able to play the game to figure out.

So, please, if you cannot help just be patient, that will ensure you do not play on a broken build where the weirdest things can happen and no data is reliable enough to tell you whether you are doing things wrong or if it's a bug.

And no, FAR is not dead, KSP Stock is very good, but has it's limitations, this is FAR more than where Stock can get.

Stock is meant to be a simplified yet good aerodynamics system which everyone can handle, FAR is not.

Edited May 6, 2015 by tetryds

[ferram4]

@LuvSicGirl: You mean, I should be nice and accepting towards trolls and spammers? I mean, this is what's going on, and it is interfering with the ability to get feedback from the people who have been competent and diligent enough to get it working.

Ultimately, the dev builds being publicly available aren't a courtesy, they're a trade with the users that will use them: they will try them and point out issues in the code, and I will be able to fix issues before a full release. Now, if you can't be bothered to set up everything, I get nothing from this trade, and there's no value in it. Worse, it drowns out any actual feedback, resulting in reduced value from the users who are actually participating in the trade.

@theend3r: Works perfectly fine in stock. Managed to get a booster to gain a few tens of km in apoapsis using that trick.

@etheoma: Hey, I take exception to the implication that I am not an ass. I am an ass, I'm just competent enough and honest enough about it that people let it go.

[taniel0401]

..//..

Also cant wait for B9 update, we need lower profile landing gears !

You might want to use the Adjustable landing gear mod it just got updated and has some pretty nice landing gear which now can be scaled

[etheoma]

@etheoma: Hey, I take exception to the implication that I am not an ass. I am an ass, I'm just competent enough and honest enough about it that people let it go.

Well this is one ass that I could kiss XD

[Dinokin]

Well this is one ass that I could kiss XD

ferram4:

god of aerodynamics

conqueror of hearts

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[W.O.P.R.]

@Ferram4:

Is that what you mean?

[futrtrubl]

Any point in still using FAR if KSP 1.0 now uses realistic aerodynamics?

Any point in having this thread if people refuse to read it first?

[etheoma]

@Ferram4:

Is that what you mean?

But but, look it is writing down...

[Camacha]

Any point in still using FAR if KSP 1.0 now uses realistic aerodynamics?

Come on man, at least try to read a couple of messages to find out the answer yourself.

Is being an ass required? "Don't help people.... it disrupts my process, Meh."

If you deal with the continuous stream of people not reading, asking the same questions over and over and eating up loads of time without contributing anything you get to say this. Oh, and do not forget putting in the years of relentless effort and swathes your own personal time. Before that, not so much. Ferram is arguably the greatest contributor to the KSP community, I think we would all like him to spend his time on making more of the excellent goodies he has demonstrated to produce so well.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Camacha