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

[MatterBeam]

In addition to FAR, I'm using a catalog of 24 different mods, mainly just for parts, but all of them compatible with 1.0.2. MechJeb and CrossFeedEnabler are the only "non-supported" ones, and of those only the former was active while this happened.

I've had a related bug recently where parts that were inside a fairing or cargo bay remain locked after being released from the fairing or cargobay. They are physics-less and you cannot extend their antennae or solar panels.

However, saving and quickloading corrects the problem.

[ferram4]

People, if you're gonna report bugs, post your log files. Otherwise I can't do jack.

Also, if you have what you think is an error in a vehicle, post a picture of the cross-section distribution. Maybe it didn't get the main axis right, and that graph will show if it did or not.

Better to have too much information than too little.

[ss8913]

wow I need to re-learn how to build SSTOs now with the voxel-based modeling and area ruling. At least I'm assuming that's why I can't seem to break mach 1.2 or get sufficient lift above 12000m to maintain a climb. All my old wing designs seem stuck permanently in the transonic sphere and since I can't get high enough or fast enough on air breathing engines, my rockets (or RAPIERs) run out of fuel too soon. Going to have to spend more time with the cross-sectional area window in the SPH. Before it was enough for the stability derivatives to all be in the green (they are), but now there's... more I'm concerned that anything that makes it to orbit is going to be kind of a pain in the butt to land, though.. really high stall speed with the small wings... Going to go look at some of the other designs here on this thread for inspiration.

[FourGreenFields]

People, if you're gonna report bugs, post your log files. Otherwise I can't do jack.

Also, if you have what you think is an error in a vehicle, post a picture of the cross-section distribution. Maybe it didn't get the main axis right, and that graph will show if it did or not.

Better to have too much information than too little.

Roger.

No cross-section area curves show up when I press the toggle button.

Wings were built without the symmetry function, to be able to balance the mass.

When using symmetry (= removing all non-symmetrical parts) the bug did not occur. When not using symmetry the bug only seemed to occur when using too much asymmetric wing surface.

Not quite sure about what you need, so I'll just upload everything found in the folder "2015-05-12_103856". I dont have any idea about wether it is going to work, or wether it is what you need though.

http://www77.zippyshare.com/v/ztVprXiq/file.html

Hope it helps now.

[smunisto]

The output log is located in the KSP_Data folder.

[monstah]

Question: does bad area-rule design cause instability when transonic, or only drag? I think that might be what's affecting my rockets. Also, I've noticed some TWR settings implicate staging right at the sound barrier. Not good, peeps!

- - - Updated - - -

Also, tip: FAR's mach effects + this mod = buckets of awesome

[tetryds]

Question: does bad area-rule design cause instability when transonic, or only drag? I think that might be what's affecting my rockets. Also, I've noticed some TWR settings implicate staging right at the sound barrier. Not good, peeps!

- - - Updated - - -

Also, tip: FAR's mach effects + this mod = buckets of awesome

It's drag, depending on where it happens it can cause instability or stability.

Tail fins don't help only because of their lift, but also because of their drag.

Also, payload fairings wider than the rocket will make your rocket very unstable, that is one of the reasons why gimbal was boosted 1.5x.

If you are not using a gimbal-capable engine, you should.

[Veskenapper]

I've had a related bug recently where parts that were inside a fairing or cargo bay remain locked after being released from the fairing or cargobay. They are physics-less and you cannot extend their antennae or solar panels.

However, saving and quickloading corrects the problem.

I think you're referring to this bug, which also affects stock? Think it might be the same? I'm not so sure, because holy snip did my parachutes disintegrate when I tried deploying them at 1800 m/s "mach 0"

Edit: Didn't see a new page had appeared. Trying to see if the save still exists, maybe I'll find a log file.

Edit 2: Quicksave was still there, loaded, and now everything works perfectly. As said, loading it before fixed nothing, but exiting the game and then loading, obviously did. Maybe there's something about that physicsless/"perma-stowed"-bug after all.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Veskenapper

[FourGreenFields]

The output log is located in the KSP_Data folder.

Well, then, I'll just upload that too.

http://www84.zippyshare.com/v/YSxNNfzl/file.html

[monstah]

It's drag, depending on where it happens it can cause instability or stability.

Tail fins don't help only because of their lift, but also because of their drag.

Also, payload fairings wider than the rocket will make your rocket very unstable, that is one of the reasons why gimbal was boosted 1.5x.

If you are not using a gimbal-capable engine, you should.

Thanks!

It's an early career rocket, no fairings. Nosecone + service bay, OCTO inside. No gimbals on launch, 1st stage is a Thumper.

I fiddled around with tier 0 fins where the control surfaces begin to make area transition a little smoother, and it seems to have worked a bit. Near the top, where the Terrier decouples from the Thumper, however, area is bad. The decoupler juts out then back in, really unpleasant.

[Hektos]

Thanks!

It's an early career rocket, no fairings. Nosecone + service bay, OCTO inside. No gimbals on launch, 1st stage is a Thumper.

I fiddled around with tier 0 fins where the control surfaces begin to make area transition a little smoother, and it seems to have worked a bit. Near the top, where the Terrier decouples from the Thumper, however, area is bad. The decoupler juts out then back in, really unpleasant.

I haven't yet had a problem with rockets. What are you having trouble with? Perhaps a picture?

[Svm420]

@All

What setting is everyone using for drag and area rule in the FAR main GUI in the spacecenter scene. I have switched to custom settings of 1 for drag and the default for smoothing passes on AR. I found default drag to low for me realism aside unless that is more realistic area ruling smoothing aside. Felt more like 0.90 FAR. Just curious if anyone else played with the settings there and if all this testing was done on default or max. Thanks!

[ferram4]

@FourGreenFields: Throw me the craft file. Maybe something particularly bad is breaking.

@Krakenfour: Are you getting the stowed bug with Fanno? One of the bugfixes in Fanno specifically resolved a lot of those issue.

[Hektos]

Just curious, what is the fastest anyone has gotten a plane to go using only a single Basic Jet Engine?

My plane maxes out at ~865 m/s @ 10km and I was curious if this is expected performance for a single Basic Jet Engine, or if my plane needs a design update.

[ss8913]

@Hektos - it'd be more helpful, at that altitude, to say what your max mach is, as opposed to your m/s relative to the ground. Open the FAR gui, it'll tell you. I've been unable to go more than mach 0.90 or so with a basic jet engine with the new FAR - which at least SEEMS realistic to me.

[jrandom]

I've managed Mach 1.00 at 8.something km with the basic turbofan, but no faster. I'm pretty sure it's intended as a subsonic/transonic engine.

[ss8913]

I think you're referring to this bug, which also affects stock? Think it might be the same? I'm not so sure, because holy snip did my parachutes disintegrate when I tried deploying them at 1800 m/s "mach 0"

Edit: Didn't see a new page had appeared. Trying to see if the save still exists, maybe I'll find a log file.

Edit 2: Quicksave was still there, loaded, and now everything works perfectly. As said, loading it before fixed nothing, but exiting the game and then loading, obviously did. Maybe there's something about that physicsless/"perma-stowed"-bug after all.

I had this problem with the stock fairings. Use procedural fairings; it does not have this problem. Solves it 100%.

[undercoveryankee]

I've managed Mach 1.00 at 8.something km with the basic turbofan, but no faster. I'm pretty sure it's intended as a subsonic/transonic engine.

Ferram said somewhere that the Wheasley is configured similar to a Shuttle-era fighter turbofan like the F100 as used in the F-15 and F-16. If you're barely transonic, you've probably got some room to optimize.

[Kitspace]

Regarding my questions some pages ago.

About the control surfaces limits the first thing I meant was that in most real life planes usually ailerons and elevators will deflect downwards to a less angle than they will deflect upwards. Is it possible to simulate that and set the different maximum deflections for up and down?

The second question was about setting a full authority limit beyond which a control surface will not go. Like a flaperon can deflect down to twenty degrees. When it is neutral all that is the aileron authority. But with flaps extended it is already deflected to fifteen degrees and the downwards aileron authority is just five degrees as the surface just will not deflect beyond twenty degrees in total anyway. That is just how its pivot would work in real life.

Is it possible to get this kind of behavior?

I am sorry in case it was not clear what the questions are about the first time.

And about the airspeed thing I really appreciate the quick answers on that and certainly it is clear to me at least how different kinds of airplane speeds work in real life.

The thing is that I do not understand what happens in game and why is it so.

The indicated airspeed shown is significantly higher than the true airspeed.

How could that possibly be like that at all?

Thank you.

[lordkrike]

Just curious, what is the fastest anyone has gotten a plane to go using only a single Basic Jet Engine?

My plane maxes out at ~865 m/s @ 10km and I was curious if this is expected performance for a single Basic Jet Engine, or if my plane needs a design update.

I got a craft to mach 2.07 using the basic jet engine. I'll post some pictures in a moment.

Minimizing trans-sonic wave drag is really, really important.

[NathanKell]

undercoveryankee: yeah, but without afterburner, and with about 1.8x the dry thrust. So if you're supersonic you're in supercruise.

[Neuntausend]

Since KSP 1.0 has come out, I updated today and gave it a spin. I am running KSP 1.0.2 x86_64 under gentoo linux and have the current FAR installed. Currently I am flying a Mk 1 Pod in a "stable" orbit with a periapsis at 22.5 and apoapsis at 25km. They go up a kilometer, then they go down one, but I don't lose any speed at all. The atmosphere is hardly slowing me down, despite the constant heating effect. Apparently, the lift is high enough to push the orbit before me up enough to keep me orbiting constantly. It's quite impossible to land a ship that way, because the parachutes come off if I return from a low Kerbin orbit and still have 2000m/s at 10km altitude.

Is that something that happens with the new FAR, and can I work around it somehow?

Edited May 12, 2015 by Neuntausend

[balu0]

I got a craft to mach 2.07 using the basic jet engine. I'll post some pictures in a moment.

Minimizing trans-sonic wave drag is really, really important.

doing m1.947 almost there

[jrandom]

Ferram said somewhere that the Wheasley is configured similar to a Shuttle-era fighter turbofan like the F100 as used in the F-15 and F-16. If you're barely transonic, you've probably got some room to optimize.

To be fair, it was a pretty large plane with a lot of fuel (see below). I'm bettin' I could get the engine to go faster on a much smaller craft.

[lordkrike]

doing m1.947 almost there

Getting this thing off of the runway is a feat of aerobatics, and my only "landing" recovered only the cockpit and a wheel.

But it goes fast! And on a single, standard jet engine!

My engine and intakes look funny because of Ven's part revamp. They're the stock basic engine and intake.

Edited May 13, 2015 by lordkrike