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

[Vegemeister]

I'm having a lot of fun with FAR, but I cannot figure out how to get the design tools in the SPH/VAB to report the actual drag force on the vessel (or maybe I'm just missing it).  The level flight operating point on the data/stability derivatives page gives Cd, but any design changes I make will also alter reference area, so Cd can't be directly compared. I could multiply them myself, but that slows down the design feedback loop substantially.  What I've been doing is optimizing for minimum mach 1 wave drag area, but I don't know enough aero to know how that relates to drag substantially above mach 1.

Is this information not available, or am I missing something?  Is one of the stability derivatives equivalent to drag acceleration?

[NathanKell]

On the Transonic tab is the drag area. That will be Cd*S.

[KerbonautInTraining]

I'm playing on an install dedicated to aircraft and I am having way too much fun with it.

(Removed question, gonna make a thread for it)

Edited March 9, 2016 by KerbonautInTraining

[Thomassino]

On 29. 2. 2016 at 11:13 PM, Lorunification said:

Hey everyone,

Sorry, if this is a repetetive question or something, but I seem to have a problem with the current FAR release that I already ran into with some of the recent releases. I cant quite figure out what is wrong with my installation.

Here is the issue: The default starter rocket (Mk1 Capsule + RT-5 Flea + parachute) does not seem to generate any drag whatsoever during descend. The overlay does not show any drag indicators and the vessel slams into the ground at about 700m/s.

I think i already read about this issue somewhere, but can't remember how to solve it. Is this caused by an incompatibility with another mod? Any help is greatly appreciated!

Thank you in advance!

 

Edit: Seems to be the same issue already in discussion. But instead of reentering a "real" vessel, i have a completely new vessel with 3 parts.

It is happening to me too. Can you post your modlist?

[Kerbl101]

Is there a way to disable FAR Physics in-game?

[brusura]

1 hour ago, Kerbl101 said:

Is there a way to disable FAR Physics in-game?

Nope

[CrisK]

This version of FAR has been the most stable yet. I've yet to come across a bug.

[taniwha]

2 hours ago, Kerbl101 said:

Is there a way to disable FAR Physics in-game?

Uninstall FAR. However, then why did you install FAR in the first place?

Really, FAR is not about making KSP easier (or even harder, for that matter), but rather for making it more realistic (actually, not even that: we're all ferram's testers for his real-time, arbitrary configuration, aerodynamics simulator, and I say "more power to him").

That said, while FAR does, at first impression, make it more difficult to fly a rocket into space, or to build a stable plane, it also makes it so the wealth of aerodynamic information, and engineering solutions to the problems caused by aerodynamics, available out there in the real world is actually relevant (when correct :/, there's a lot of false info out there too). This means you can look at existing successful designs for guidance. The real world can't help you with stock aerodynamics (though things have improved since before 1.0).

[ss8913]

18 hours ago, taniwha said:

Uninstall FAR. However, then why did you install FAR in the first place?

Really, FAR is not about making KSP easier (or even harder, for that matter), but rather for making it more realistic (actually, not even that: we're all ferram's testers for his real-time, arbitrary configuration, aerodynamics simulator, and I say "more power to him").

That said, while FAR does, at first impression, make it more difficult to fly a rocket into space, or to build a stable plane, it also makes it so the wealth of aerodynamic information, and engineering solutions to the problems caused by aerodynamics, available out there in the real world is actually relevant (when correct :/, there's a lot of false info out there too). This means you can look at existing successful designs for guidance. The real world can't help you with stock aerodynamics (though things have improved since before 1.0).

+2 ... if you make something in KSP+FAR that looks kind of like a 737, it flies kind of like one too.  Pretty damn close on the V speeds, approach speeds, everything.  Would be closer if I wasn't just eyeballing it too, I'm sure.

@ferram4 are you planning to release a FAR for the 'public beta test' version of 1.1?  I can't play KSP without FAR, so I need to know if it's safe to opt-in to the beta or not   Seriously if I could only have one mod in KSP it'd be this.

On 3/10/2016 at 1:24 PM, Thomassino said:

It is happening to me too. Can you post your modlist?

Before attempting re-entry did you do any docking/undocking in orbit?  I've noticed that as soon as you un-dock you MUST F5/F9 or several mods, FAR included, will not work properly.  In the case of FAR it basically *turns off the aerodynamics modeling completely* and air generates no drag.  Not every time, but it can.  Also messes with RPM, TCA, and several others.

[Darth Jeb]

I really want to play with this mod but I am having KSP 64 bit and do not want to move on to 32 bit or Linux. So is there any way to enable FAR in 64 bit ? Like any .cfg edit ?

the same goes for your joint reinforcement mod.

[blowfish]

18 minutes ago, Darth Jeb said:

I really want to play with this mod but I am having KSP 64 bit and do not want to move on to 32 bit or Linux. So is there any way to enable FAR in 64 bit ? Like any .cfg edit ?

the same goes for your joint reinforcement mod.

The only way is to edit the code and recompile the plugin.  There are plenty of ways to reduce memory under 32 bit in Windows though.  If you're too stubborn to try any of them, then just wait for 1.1

[ferram4]

@Lorunification: Well, then you had better be able to provide reliable reproduction steps for it.  So far, no one has been able to and every time I have tried claimed reproduction steps everything behaves normally.  So there's a reproduction step missing in all of these that every single person is missing.  It's also pretty telling that every single example includes reproduction steps that are followed any time anyone launches anything and it still doesn't cause problems.

@123nick: Funny, I've thought that water drag is probably a bit too high.I've had plenty of planes basically come to a halt almost immediately and pods stop bobbing in the water after maybe 3 or 4 oscillations.  I suspect you're not using the most up-to-date version of FAR, update your install.

@ss8913: I honestly don't know yet.  Although on the one hand it might provide good feedback, I've got a lot of reservations about how things might go.  I have no idea how CKAN might behave with this and if it will be able to differentiate between the beta 1.1 and real 1.1, which makes releasing through the standard channels somewhat concerning.  I also expect that there will be the disaster of people from 1.0.5 trying to install the 1.1 build and vice versa and that will cause tons of hassles.  I'm not even sure if I should push what I have to github considering the gigantic mess that was the time when FAR v0.15 was under development and people couldn't be bothered checking to make sure they had up-to-date dependencies.  I'm still working out the cost-benefit analysis.

[tetryds]

@ferram4 I would personally not release for 1.1 pre release at all, simply because it's not meant to be played with mods to begin with.

It could also cause a problem, people reporting stock issues here, or FAR issues there, which would be a headache for everyone.

I would go for leaving it at git, if even, and release only after 1.1 final release.

[NathanKell]

I concur on not releasing for 1.1 pre, especially since I know I will be changing the underlying code during it.

[ss8913]

On 3/14/2016 at 10:52 AM, tetryds said:

@ferram4 I would personally not release for 1.1 pre release at all, simply because it's not meant to be played with mods to begin with.

It could also cause a problem, people reporting stock issues here, or FAR issues there, which would be a headache for everyone.

I would go for leaving it at git, if even, and release only after 1.1 final release.

Squad said specifically that the pre-release was for modders to get things ready for the release, so.. yes it is meant to be played with mods!

[blowfish]

1 minute ago, ss8913 said:

Squad said specifically that the pre-release was for modders to get things ready for the release, so.. yes it is meant to be played with mods!

It's an opportunity for modders to get a head start on changes required for 1.1, not for players to get functional mods.  It's only 2 weeks at any rate, I think it's worth the wait to avoid the headache of compatibility issues it would cause.

[Knowbie]

Hi, 

I'm looking for a way of pulling values for the lift and drag coefficients from the editor simulation GUI.

Are they stored in a temporary file somewhere that I can copy over into an excel sheet?

Thanks! 

[ss8913]

On 3/15/2016 at 2:12 PM, blowfish said:

It's an opportunity for modders to get a head start on changes required for 1.1, not for players to get functional mods.  It's only 2 weeks at any rate, I think it's worth the wait to avoid the headache of compatibility issues it would cause.

whatever works best for the maintainers, I'm happy to wait.  1.1 isn't "released" until FAR is available, at least not for me.

[The Fedora Astronaut]

So. I want to enter in the BAD-T tourney. I got all of the mods, including the FAR. However, I dont understand the Science of it. Can someone please explain me what to do and what should I do to gid gud?

 

[ss8913]

On 3/26/2016 at 8:25 PM, The Fedora Astronaut said:

So. I want to enter in the BAD-T tourney. I got all of the mods, including the FAR. However, I dont understand the Science of it. Can someone please explain me what to do and what should I do to gid gud?

 

it's... air.  Bernoulli would be the scientist you'd want to research, but.. if you've ever flown an airplane (real or a good simulator like X-Plane, P3D, FSX, etc)... FAR makes KSP more like that and less.... incorrect, as far as aerodynamics go

That's the short version - long version is, aerodynamic forces matter more - what that means to you is 1. rockets get to space more easily (a little, requires a bit less dV anyway), and planes are a little more difficult if you're used to stock aerodynamics.  Dynamic pressure can tear planes apart, and pulling up too hard on the stick in a plane that's got enough mass and control authority will likewise damage it.  Try some of the craft that FAR comes with and fly them around the KSC to get a feel for it before trying to build your own, would be my suggestion.  FAR has some nice build tools within the SPH that will tell you how good your craft design is - mostly the transonic 'yellow' curve and the static derivatives page (the one with all the numbers.  You want none of them to be red.)

[Motokid600]

I need some advice on flaps and spoiler placement in relation to a crafts center of mass. I've a VERY large cargo plane that I'm having a hard time with on takeoff and landing. The speeds are way too high. The flaps in particular I'm working with ( B9 Procedural ) only seem to act more as airbrakes as opposed to increasing lift at lower speeds. So is there a genera rule of thumb when it comes to flaps and spoilers here in FAR? 

Edited March 27, 2016 by Motokid600

[Svm420]

3 hours ago, Motokid600 said:

I need some advice on flaps and spoiler placement in relation to a crafts center of mass. I've a VERY large cargo plane that I'm having a hard time with on takeoff and landing. The speeds are way too high. The flaps in particular I'm working with ( B9 Procedural ) only seem to act more as airbrakes as opposed to increasing lift at lower speeds. So is there a genera rule of thumb when it comes to flaps and spoilers here in FAR? 

Easier solution would be look up large cargo planes IRL and look at their placement. Flaps definitely help when used correctly, but they arent going to magic you to take off at super low speed if you craft is designed poorly. Use the graphs to see how much they help you can run the stability servitude to see how much less AoA you need to maintain level flight with flaps engaged. Then again you maybe over doing it and just adding excess drag. Why don't you post some pics to the FAR craft repo where FAR craft design is supposed to take place, not here. 

Edited March 27, 2016 by Svm420

[uncreative_user]

Hi , I am working on a Fighter right now and I wanted to know if FAR is able to calculate compression lift like on the XB-70 ? 

Edited March 27, 2016 by uncreative_user

[Motokid600]

5 hours ago, Svm420 said:

Easier solution would be look up large cargo planes IRL and look at their placement. Flaps definitely help when used correctly, but they arent going to magic you to take off at super low speed if you craft is designed poorly. Use the graphs to see how much they help you can run the stability servitude to see how much less AoA you need to maintain level flight with flaps engaged. Then again you maybe over doing it and just adding excess drag. Why don't you post some pics to the FAR craft repo where FAR craft design is supposed to take place, not here. 

Yea thank you I'm going to have to post pics because I don't fully understand the intricacies of those graphs. I kinda understand area ruling and I'm really good at making very fast super sonic planes, but heavy cargo jets is a different monster for me. All I know with the data readouts is.. red is bad. Green good, lol. I have looked at real pictures, but that's partly where I get confused. How is it real planes have their flaps on the rear of their wings? Mine are on the middle where the CoM is... hm. Might be that is the issue. To the repo it is.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Motokid600

[theend3r]

Is it possible to visualize wingtip vortices? For example by detecting the outermost area of the wings and applying smaller stock exhaust smoke?