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

[Thorbane]

Yes, spoilers act to reduce the lift upward. They have always done this, this is not an issue.

Then can I make a feature request? Can we get the option to use any control surface as an airbrake?

[Svm420]

Then can I make a feature request? Can we get the option to use any control surface as an airbrake?

You can click a surface and turn on spoiler.

[Megan]

Just wanted to say thank you to Ferram for all his extraordinary work. The stock aerodynamics confused and frightened me, and FAR showed me that while I may be a terrible pilot and a pretty amateurish designer, I'm not actually insane.

[Kitspace]

Hello!

Any information on the floating graphs calculations?

Is it an issue indeed or what is it? If it is a real issue then can I do anything useful to help track it down?

Also why is there a very severe increase in game lag proportional to the dynamic pressure?

Sometimes it comes almost to a complete stop near the sound barrier while the rest of the time there is no lag at all?

Thank you.

[Youen]

Don't know if someone else noticed, but apparently Kerbals are not protected from heat and drag if you place an "EAS-1 External Command Seat" in a service bay, and board a Kerbal on it. It works in stock (the Kerbal gets protection from the service bay), but installing FAR removes that protection (leading to aerodynamic failures and/or overheat).

[Solar71]

Download this, then transfer the Gamedata folder to your own KSP Gamedata

P.S. "dev" stands for development, not developer.

Thank you good SIR!!!!!!

[Solar71]

Hey guys. Thanks to "ObsessedWithKSP" I finally have nuFAR working all the time!!! yeah!!!

But now I have another problem.

I personally do not agree with nuFARs' atmospheric settings. So I wanted to change them to be "IMO" more realistic.

So I opened up the FAR debug/settings window inside KSP. I went to the atmospheric settings tab. Then I clicked on Kerbin.

The viscosity for the atmosphere is set to 0.00002, ok fine... So I change it to 0.05000

I fly my base/test rocket and I like the results. So I save the game and leave.

I come back into the game about 30 minutes later and the settings have been reverted.

Is there any way to make this change stick?

I opened the FAR physics file and I found the reference to kerbins' atmosphere. The changes I made are still in the file, but whenever

I load the game up, the setting is reverted. Can someone please help with changing this please?

Thank you!!!

[ferram4]

Well, I'll be removing that tab anyway because of issues with that, and frankly, you should have to go into the config files to change configs like that anyway. That said, I have no idea why you want the air to have the kinematic viscosity of engine oil at room temperature. I mean... why? That's not how air works!

[taniwha]

Solar71: "IMO" and "more realistic" are incompatible phrases. I suggest you go look up the viscosity of air. I just did and Google popped up a panel showing 1.983☓10^-5, which is in agreement with that 0.00002 since it seems to depend on temperature (I saw other hits mentioning "at 26°C" etc).

[Gryphon]

Solar71: "IMO" and "more realistic" are incompatible phrases. I suggest you go look up the viscosity of air. I just did and Google popped up a panel showing 1.983☓10^-5, which is in agreement with that 0.00002 since it seems to depend on temperature (I saw other hits mentioning "at 26°C" etc).

You're assuming that Solar71 is from Earth. What if he's an ET from a world where the atmosphere IS that soupy?

[Bakase]

You're assuming that Solar71 is from Earth. What if he's an ET from a world where the atmosphere IS that soupy?

Maybe he's a pre-1.0 kerbal?

[Kitspace]

I am experiencing the same problem with floating graphs.

This time with different parts and a different style airplane.

You are just tweaking the wing or stabilizer position or angle anyhow and then do something that spoils the graphs.

Not sure what actions can trigger it but the reproduction steps from the post with pictures seem reliable.

Looks like an issue of some sort that is about the voxelisation of the wing root and its interference with the fuselage or something.

Probably catching this could sort some of the other strange things like a stabilizer stalling the main wing or the flaps stalling at small angles or a classic design airframe being stable without a stabilizer.

[Solar71]

Well, I'll be removing that tab anyway because of issues with that, and frankly, you should have to go into the config files to change configs like that anyway. That said, I have no idea why you want the air to have the kinematic viscosity of engine oil at room temperature. I mean... why? That's not how air works!

I understand what you're saying, but its completely irrelevant.

You have a FAR setting tab with "settings" in it. Those "settings" are there to be "set".

If a person chooses to change the "settings", those "settings" should stick...

Weather you agree or disagree with said "settings"...

Personally I don't think a 1 meter long SRB should be able to fly so high.

And I personally don't think it should have a terminal velocity or 465 m/s at sea level.

465 m/s = 1,046 mph with empty tanks at sea level!!!

Sorry but that's not realistic to me. I thought this mod was made by you, for the "Players" of KSP?

Im a player. I want to make changes, I cant. therefore something is wrong.

Get as pissed / defensive as you want. But the fact remains the same.

You made an AWESOME mod. But since 1.0.2 its having issues, that its never had before.

I was posting my problem to you... Just for your information. I was not trying to insult your ego.

But it seems I have.

Sorry, I will check back here for a fix periodically, because your mod is "at its core" Awesome.

But for now, I will not be able to use it.

Good luck

[RyanRising]

So... (And before you ask, yes, this is on 32-bit even though it crashes like mad), I have a question. Does this look right to you?

Those curves look awfully sharp for what looks to me like a relatively smooth fairing. Is this normal? If so, I'm sorry I asked, I just needed to know.

The fairings end at the nosecone, if that's helpful.

[Solar71]

Wow that pretty squiggly. But TBH, some of my rockets are much more squiggly then that... lol

So it looks good to me!!!

But my problem is my rockets are WAY WAY too fast!! I need much MORE drag... But I cant seem to get it...

I wonder. Your fairing is procedural. And my SRB is also Procedural.

Is it possible that FAR has an issue with procedural parts?

My 3.5m stock SRB flies only SLIGHTLY higher (78,000m)

Then my 1.75m procedural SRB (69,000m)

The delta V is only about 2,100 and 1,800 respectively.

This is WITH 4 fins and an MK1 + a Kerbal inside.

Maybe the DEV for FAR will fix it sometime soon I hope.

[Gryphon]

I understand what you're saying, but its completely irrelevant.

You have a FAR setting tab with "settings" in it. Those "settings" are there to be "set".

If a person chooses to change the "settings", those "settings" should stick...

Weather you agree or disagree with said "settings"...

First of all, he didn't disagree with them, he just explained what your desired settings meant, and asked WHY you wanted to use a setting that was very unrealistic - especially when you describe it as realistic.

Second, if you take the time to read back through some of Ferram's previous posts in this thread, you will see the discussion of why he decided to get rid of that tab.

I don't think anyone refused to help you - certainly, you ALREADY got help in this thread to resolve another issue, so that FAR would work for you.

Now, I can't tell you what the realistic terminal velocity of a "1 meter long SRB" should be. I am not even certain what KSP part you are describing, so I'll just skip that part of your post for now.

I thought this mod was made by you, for the "Players" of KSP?

Im a player. I want to make changes, I cant. therefore something is wrong.

What is wrong here seems to be your attitude. Ferram is just a player of KSP as well. He has spent exceedingly large amounts of his time and copious knowledge putting a good aerodynamics simulation into KSP, and he has chosen to share that with the rest of us. Beyond even that, he chooses to support us in using his mod. You, I, and all the rest of the FAR users aren't entitled to ANYTHING from him.

You can make changes to FAR settings, in the config files.

Get as pissed / defensive as you want. But the fact remains the same.

You certainly seem to be getting both pissed and defensive, not anyone else. Personally, I think you will find it easier to receive the help you desire if you chill out.

I wonder. Your fairing is procedural. And my SRB is also Procedural.

Is it possible that FAR has an issue with procedural parts?

If you take the time to read back through some of Ferram's posts in the last few weeks, you will learn that some mod parts, both procedural and not procedural, DO have problems working with FAR - typically because there is a hole or other issues with the model, that weren't exposed by stock aerodynamics.

If I understand your previous posts, it seems like you are possibly having two issues: one, with changing FAR settings in the config files; and two, with some unspecific procedural SRB part.

I am hopeful that you did not intend for your post to sound so rude, and that you are only frustrated with trying to integrate FAR with your game of KSP.

I recommend that you ask for assistance with details about what config file entries you are trying to change (that aren't working for you), and specifically what part from what mod that you are using and not getting the desired results with. For the part, issue, I recommend a screenshot showing the VAB graph for that part (like what RyanRising just posted), as well as with the debug voxelization enabled, so that it is more clear what is going on.

[kcs123]

So... (And before you ask, yes, this is on 32-bit even though it crashes like mad), I have a question. Does this look right to you?

http://i.imgur.com/O4x0db8.jpg

Those curves look awfully sharp for what looks to me like a relatively smooth fairing. Is this normal? If so, I'm sorry I asked, I just needed to know.

The fairings end at the nosecone, if that's helpful.

Can you made screenshot with voxalization ? It seems like second portion of fairing is holow. Green line should be continued to increase slightly, but you have slight drop in cross section area.

After that it start to increase again as from visual shape it should.

Other parts of fairing looks OK, but problematic part is from top where is brown horizontal line on your rocket.

[RyanRising]

Can you made screenshot with voxalization ? It seems like second portion of fairing is holow. Green line should be continued to increase slightly, but you have slight drop in cross section area.

After that it start to increase again as from visual shape it should.

Other parts of fairing looks OK, but problematic part is from top where is brown horizontal line on your rocket.

Those are all stock parts, just with Ven's Revamp installed. Not sure if that's relevant. Anyway, your requested voxelization screenshots:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I get like 1 frame every 2 seconds when I'm using voxelization.

Edited June 8, 2015 by RyanRising

[KillerRaccoon]

Hello Ferram,

I am getting into kOS right now, and was wondering if there is any way to retrieve values such as coefficient of drag and reference area from FAR. Dynamic pressure would be nice too, but that's easy enough to calculate. Right now I'm working on a PID for the throttle, but if there is such an interface I'm sure it would be useful to know about for other projects as well.

[Gryphon]

Hello Ferram,

I am getting into kOS right now, and was wondering if there is any way to retrieve values such as coefficient of drag and reference area from FAR. Dynamic pressure would be nice too, but that's easy enough to calculate. Right now I'm working on a PID for the throttle, but if there is such an interface I'm sure it would be useful to know about for other projects as well.

There is a FARAPI, I believe to make data available to other mods, but I don't know much about it.

[Flashblade]

Those are all stock parts, just with Ven's Revamp installed. Not sure if that's relevant. Anyway, your requested voxelization screenshots:

I get like 1 frame every 2 seconds when I'm using voxelization.

The fairing is completely ignored and the parts below have uneven voxelization. This is not how it is supposed to look at all. Which version of NuFAR are you using? The latest dev or an earlier version? Also yes Ven's revamp is significant, because it has been posted previously I believe that it is not working right with NuFAR.

[ferram4]

I understand what you're saying, but its completely irrelevant.

You have a FAR setting tab with "settings" in it. Those "settings" are there to be "set".

If a person chooses to change the "settings", those "settings" should stick...

Weather you agree or disagree with said "settings"...

Yes, hence why they are going to be removed. The settings tab obviously doesn't work, and too many people seem to be trying to edit things without understanding what they do. For example...

Personally I don't think a 1 meter long SRB should be able to fly so high.

And I personally don't think it should have a terminal velocity or 465 m/s at sea level.

465 m/s = 1,046 mph with empty tanks at sea level!!!

Three points:

1. The terminal velocity readout is an estimate. It does not account for changes in Cd due to Mach number or Reynolds number. As you approach the true terminal velocity, the estimate gets more accurate.
   
2. A terminal velocity of several hundred m/s is not unrealistic. I mean, you can sit there and talk about your opinions all you want, but unless you can back that up with data, you're just arguing feelings. I can't code feelings, I can code data.
   
3. A much larger influence in this is air density. Most of the forces that set terminal velocity (wherever it may be) are dominated by air density, with little to no direct influence from viscosity. If the setting did save, you'd be in hre complaining that it didn't do anything because your changes, in the grand scheme of things, really don't change anything. Besides high altitude drag, that'll be a fair bit higher.
   

Sorry but that's not realistic to me. I thought this mod was made by you, for the "Players" of KSP?

Im a player. I want to make changes, I cant. therefore something is wrong.

No, I made it for me. I released it, because it gets me bug reports and more references to data to improve it for me. You are not a customer, I do not work for you, and frankly, out of all the things that you've argued, this is the one that insults me. The implication that modders are supposed to care about nothing but the whims of whatever random user (or non-user) happens to demand ticks me off, especially given that every user can get the mod for no cost whatsoever. If I did this for you or any other random faceless post on the internet, I would have quit a long time ago because you're all impossible to please and frequently enforce feels > reals.

Get as pissed / defensive as you want. But the fact remains the same.

You made an AWESOME mod. But since 1.0.2 its having issues, that its never had before.

Yes, and as I addressed when I answered you, a solution is already planned for the next update. Then I asked why you wanted to make things less realistic in the name of realism and you decided to tell me off... for some reason.

So... (And before you ask, yes, this is on 32-bit even though it crashes like mad), I have a question. Does this look right to you?

http://i.imgur.com/O4x0db8.jpg

Those curves look awfully sharp for what looks to me like a relatively smooth fairing. Is this normal? If so, I'm sorry I asked, I just needed to know.

The fairings end at the nosecone, if that's helpful.

Looks like some very strange kind of voxelization error. Not sure why it would fail on the payload fairings, it normally voxelizes those fine. Can you reproduce it with the latest dev build, and what steps did you take to cause it?

Hello Ferram,

I am getting into kOS right now, and was wondering if there is any way to retrieve values such as coefficient of drag and reference area from FAR. Dynamic pressure would be nice too, but that's easy enough to calculate. Right now I'm working on a PID for the throttle, but if there is such an interface I'm sure it would be useful to know about for other projects as well.

You should be able to grab most of that through FAR API. If there's something missing, ask and I'll look into adding it.

[jrandom]

Ven's revamp is significant, because it has been posted previously I believe that it is not working right with NuFAR.

Aw crud, I just started using that mod...

[DaMichel]

No, I made it for me. I released it, because it gets me bug reports and more references to data to improve it for me.

And the huge amounts of internet fame and praise has totally nothing to do with it!

Thanks again for the opportunity to help you hunt bugs. FAR is awesome. Remember that for each grumpy user here there are many more who are very happy with FAR.

[Bakase]

Aw crud, I just started using that mod...

FWIW, I haven't experienced any problems... I don't think there should be any problems either, as the new voxel system eliminates a lot of areas for error when it comes to mod compatibility. There are a few canards that cause FAR to revert to the old lift code, but that's it.