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

[zomos]

KSP: 1.0.4 (Win32) - Unity: 4.6.4f1 - OS: Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (6.1.7601) 64bit

Ambient Light Adjustment - 1.4.4.2

B9 Aerospace Procedural Parts - 0.40

Chatterer - 0.9.6.86

Colorful Fuel Lines - 0.3.1

Community Resource Pack - 0.4.4

Contract Configurator - 1.7.5

Contract Pack: Base Construction - 0.2.3

CC-CP-SCANSat - 0.5.2.1

Contract Pack: Initial Contracts - 1.0.4

Contract Pack: Kerbal Space Station - 2.3.4.1

Contract Pack: Grand Tours - 0.1.7

Contract Pack: Unmanned Contracts - 0.3.10

Contract Pack: Tourism Plus - 1.2

Contracts Window Plus - 1.0.5.3

CryoEngines - 0.1.10

Custom Asteroids - 1.1

DMagic Orbital Science - 1.0.8

Dynamic Deflection - 1.1.3

Ferram Aerospace Research - 0.15.5.1

Firespitter - 7.1.3

Fuel Tanks Plus - 1.2.1

Interstellar Fuel Switch - 1.16

RasterPropMonitor - 0.22.2

Kerbal Attachment System - 0.5.4

Kerbal Engineer Redux - 1.0.18

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement - 3.1.4

Kerbal Inventory System - 1.2.2

KSP-AVC Plugin - 1.1.5

KW-Rocketry-Community-Fixes - 0.3

Infernal Robots - 0.21.3

Modular Rocket Systems - 1.7.3

ModularFlightIntegrator - 1.1.1

Near Future Electrical - 0.5.3

Final Frontier - 0.8.6.1370

S.A.V.E - 1.0.1.672

Outer Planets Mod - 1.8

AmpYear - 1.0.2

SafeChute - 1.7.1

SAS Tuning Fix - 1.0

SCANsat - 1.1.4.2

SETI-Contracts - 0.9.3

SpaceTux: Shared Assets - 0.3.6

StageRecovery - 1.5.7

TarsierSpaceTechnology - 5.4.1

Thermal Monitor - 1.2

Kerbal Alarm Clock - 3.4

Transfer Window Planner - 1.3.1

TweakScale - 2.2.1

OSE Workshop - 0.10.2

Will this fit?

[ferram4]

...and logs?

[cantab]

KSP: 1.0.4 (Win32) - Unity: 4.6.4f1 - OS: Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (6.1.7601) 64bit

Ambient Light Adjustment - 1.4.4.2

B9 Aerospace Procedural Parts - 0.40

Chatterer - 0.9.6.86

<snip>

Transfer Window Planner - 1.3.1

TweakScale - 2.2.1

OSE Workshop - 0.10.2

With a laundry list of mods like that you'd do well to first try and reproduce the issue with the minimum mods necessary - FAR, Kopernicus, and Outer Planets Mod. If the issue still arises reporting it is much simpler. If it doesn't, you then need to think about candidate problem mods. To me the obvious suspects are B9 and Firespitter, if you used those parts on the affected craft - we've already had all sorts of discussion about procedural wing issues. Dynamic Deflection affects aerodynamic stuff too. If you're out of obvious suspects you'll have to resort to a binary search.

For that matter, double-check your installation to. If you used CKAN, redo it manually - CKAN has a track record of messing up FAR, and last I tried it it didn't do a good job of planet mods either.

[Spheniscine]

I wish to report an unfavorable mod interaction with FAR and BahamutoD's Critter Crawler. Seems that FAR is treating its claws as extended: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82341-1-0-B-Dynamics-Retracting-vectoring-engines-etc-v1-2-0-%28May-6%29?p=2204547&viewfull=1#post2204547 .

[ferram4]

Then that needs to be handled on Baha's end; it needs to inform FAR when the shape of the mesh changes, because apparently it starts with the legs open. If it doesn't do this, FAR can't be blamed for assuming that it is exactly like every other part that doesn't require shape updates constantly.

[Virindi]

A friend was having trouble with stock aircraft in FAR, believing the Aeris 4a was not capable of orbit. So I made a little screenshot tutorial. Figured I should share it here

The real key is to waste as little fuel as possible during the jet phase.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[FourGreenFields]

A friend was having trouble with stock aircraft in FAR, believing the Aeris 4a was not capable of orbit. So I made a little screenshot tutorial. Figured I should share it here

The real key is to waste as little fuel as possible during the jet phase.

http://imgur.com/a/b6GD1

Isn't that the kind of thing that belongs here?

Anyway, not sure if reported allready, but my wave drag area was a tad messed up.

output_log (Or what I hope to be the output log; Played a bit more after the bug occured, not sure if that matters - didn't restart KSP though)

Was using Hayes, I hope that's the latest version. Craft file doesn't reproduce the bug (at least not after I modified it... sorry)

o7 I hope it helps.

Edited September 30, 2015 by FourGreenFields

[ferram4]

Yeah, so something broke horribly, but I need the craft that caused the bug and full reproduction steps.

[FourGreenFields]

Yeah, so something broke horribly, but I need the craft that caused the bug and full reproduction steps.

Sorry, even a minor change and it was normal again. And I did minor changes. Also no idea how to reproduce.

If I ever have something like that again I'll try and upload though.

EDIT: Allthough... Just managed to reduce wave drag from about 0.15m² to about 0.05m², while hardly changing cross section... Not sure if that's related. Going to upload craft after I checked whether it is the same after restarting.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, it was the same.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zb69bhb32lmlbu5/P%2024.craft?dl=0

Moving the missile rails (left right, clipping more or less into the wing) changes the wave drag area from below 0.02m² to above 0.27m².

When the wave drag is that silly low, the cross section increases just before the end of the engines for no good reason* - if the wave drag is high, it decreases for no good reason. Maybe a problem with ducted area ruling?

*As seen in the screenshot of the previous post

EDIT: Just replaced the missile rail with a micro landing strut, and managed to get similar results.

Edited September 30, 2015 by FourGreenFields

[ferram4]

Alright, cool; there were two bugs here, actually, and I got both of them. One reduces variation in drag properties due to very small overall cross-section changes, the other fixes negative sonic drag due to sudden drop-offs near the ends of the vehicle. Dev build on master branch has the fixes.

[Gryphon]

I was looking at info on the X-15, and I noticed this quote on the Wikipedia page:

A vertical-tail area equal to 60 percent of the wing area was required to give the X-15 adequate directional stability.

I immediately thought of FAR, and previous discussions here of the large tails needed for supersonic aircraft.

[Seifuku]

Hi,

Just wondering I currently only have FAR installed and its dependencies; whenever i launch a flight my fps just drops to almost zero and it seems the physics engine takes forever to activate.

[Gryphon]

Hi,

Just wondering I currently only have FAR installed and its dependencies; whenever i launch a flight my fps just drops to almost zero and it seems the physics engine takes forever to activate.

Do you have experience with installing mods? It's quite possible that it is not installed correctly. If so, then what directories do you have in your GameData folder? Did you install the ModuleManager dll that is included with FAR?

Are you able to use the FAR graphs in the VAB or SPH?

[Northstar1989]

Is the Euler release having issues with the 2.0 "unofficial" maintenance thread release of B9 Procedural Wings, or the latest version of Real Solar System 64K?

I ask because, with Euler and both those mods installed, I'm having planes that are nose-draggers according to the SPH and stable according to ALL of the stability derivatives go straight nose-up after liftoff, as if they were huge tail-draggers...

Screenshots coming soon.

Regards,

Northstar

[tetryds]

Is the Euler release having issues with the 2.0 "unofficial" maintenance thread release of B9 Procedural Wings, or the latest version of Real Solar System 64K?

I ask because, with Euler and both those mods installed, I'm having planes that are nose-draggers according to the SPH and stable according to ALL of the stability derivatives go straight nose-up after liftoff, as if they were huge tail-draggers...

Screenshots coming soon.

Regards,

Northstar

First update your FAR, some things regarding how it handles b9 pwings changed since then.

Also, don't expect to get support for an old release, it does not really make sense.

But there were some issues with b9 pwings back then, which got corrected, so yeah just update and your problem is likely to go away.

[Crzyrndm]

First update your FAR, some things regarding how it handles b9 pwings changed since then.

Also, don't expect to get support for an old release, it does not really make sense.

But there were some issues with b9 pwings back then, which got corrected, so yeah just update and your problem is likely to go away.

I can confirm that the version from ferram's github works with B9 PWings. I can't remember if the latest release or the one before it was the one which wasn't voxelising the internal section of the wings, but it is quite possibly the latest.

[tetryds]

I can confirm that the version from ferram's github works with B9 PWings. I can't remember if the latest release or the one before it was the one which wasn't voxelising the internal section of the wings, but it is quite possibly the latest.

Yeah, it works for sure and I use it all the time, FAR always gets any reproducible/well reported bugs fixed asap.

Edited October 5, 2015 by tetryds

[Hemius]

Hello!

I have a problem with ferram 0.15.5.1 Hayes. It looks like mod aerodynamics is not working properly. Made a test stand like in Scott Manley's video with 2 rockets and tried to launch them, rocket with no nosecone was going much faster.

Only FAR is installed. Installed it from Github.

In my gamedata folder:

1) Squad folder

2) FAR folder

3) ModularFlightIntegrator folder

4) ModuleManager2.6.8.dll + 4 configs

Screenshots:

1) FAR Settings

2) Stand on launch point

3) Start flight

4) Mid flight

5) End flight

If you need more info just tell me and I will upload it. Sorry for inconvenience

Edited October 5, 2015 by Hemius

[cantab]

Both are just freely flying right, with no probe cores? Consider retrying with a probe core on each. If I remember rightly FAR applies quicker but less accurate drag to debris than to controllable vessels.

[Hemius]

Both are just freely flying right, with no probe cores? Consider retrying with a probe core on each. If I remember rightly FAR applies quicker but less accurate drag to debris than to controllable vessels.

Tried with probe core - now it takes nosecone in count and rocket with nosecone go faster.

In my case it looks like:

start - 5second of fligh - go almost on same level

5s - 10s - nosecone go faster, but not a lot (looks like sometimes rocket without nosecone starts go faster...)

10s - end of fuel - nosecone is going much faster than normal one.

That's how it works for me. I think and hope that it's how it was intended to be.

Is there a way to get more accurate drag model be applied to debris? Like custom setting for it?

Thanks a lot for help!

[tetryds]

That's how it works for me. I think and hope that it's how it was intended to be.

Is there a way to get more accurate drag model be applied to debris? Like custom setting for it?

Thanks a lot for help!

There is not too much that can be done about it.

You DO NOT want debris to have higher accuracy on their aerodynamics than what they have right now.

I agree that it's not accurate enough for big chunks of debris but imagine if you are flying a big SSTO and it explodes in a million pieces.

[ferram4]

Confirmed the bug, current dev build has some quick fixes to it. Hopefully that helps a bit.

[jbakes]

Mod needs fixed. My parts overheat. Saved game then docked a new part to my space station and exploded. Uninstalled FAR reloaded save and docked new part and nothing overheated.

[blowfish]

Mod needs fixed. My parts overheat. Saved game then docked a new part to my space station and exploded. Uninstalled FAR reloaded save and docked new part and nothing overheated.

Okay, so (1) That's a pretty rude way to phrase a support request, and (2) It's a known issue. Unfortunately it's a stock bug which is made worse by an interaction with FAR that is not well understood. Not much to be done about it for now. Reducing the conduction multiplier in the debug menu (Alt+F12) -> Physics -> Thermals helps a bit.

[ferram4]

It's a stock bug that has been fixed by FAR as much as is possible for FAR to fix it. Unfortunately, I don't have control over how heat is transferred between the "skin" section of parts, which is where the problem occurs; since the problem occurs when that "skin" section has too small an area and mass, FAR automatically sets the minimum to whatever stock would set. If that results in things breaking, well, then that's a really rare case, because I haven't seen it happen in any cases that weren't reproducible in some form of large random temperature fluctuations in stock.

Take Claw's bugfixes, scream at Squad to fix their game, scream at Squad to not roll out major changes to game mechanics in a minor patch. None of this is under my control, unless you want me to turn off overheating entirely.