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

[ferram4]

@Tortoise: Can you reproduce the issue with a purely stock craft with no mods affecting it other than FAR and provide that craft file?  It's really just launch -> return to SPH -> NREs?

What about the crash you were talking about?

[Tortoise]

@ferram4

Happens with stock aircraft as-well. Yep, that's all it is. I said FAR was crashing because I assume that's what happened -- FAR crashed. I get a bunch of NREs. They don't come continuously, but there's like 20-25 NREs, then they stop, and come again. And that keeps happening. I'm unable to use anything in the FAR menu at that point.

[ferram4]

Hmm.  Then I'd suggest uninstalling FAR completely and reinstalling, because this isn't something that I've been able to cause with just stock craft following the launch->revert->breaks steps.

[Tau137]

Thank you, Ferram - both for a great mod (stock is still... stock, really inadequate and unrealistic), and quick response to reported issues, despite absence of logs and detailed info in the complaint!

[Tortoise]

@ferram4 reinstalled FAR, still no luck. Maybe it's another mod causing FAR to crash. I guess I'll have to investigate further.

[ExiledViking]

Hi @ferram4,

Could you confirm that the dependancy ModularFlightIntegrator included in Kindelberger being flagged by MiniAvc is a non issue?

tia

[ferram4]

@Tortoise: Well, nothing is crashing at all in any of your logs.  It's not working, but that's very different than a crash.  Words mean things, please try to use them correctly.

@ExiledViking: If it's bundled, it's a non-issue.  If it's coming through of CKAN, if the SHA is the same it's a non-issue.  If anything has modified it somewhere along the way, maybe it is.

I dunno why MiniAVC would log it as an issue to begin with unless you're trying to use Kindelberger on something other than KSP 1.1.2.  Everything is set to work fine with KSP 1.1.2, but KSP 1.1.1 and 1.1.0 will not work with it.

[ExiledViking]

@ferram4 

I'm running 1.1.2 with Far grabbed from github. the versioning file contained with MoularFlightIntegrator is tagged as follows:

    "KSP_VERSION_MIN": {
        "MAJOR": 1,
        "MINOR": 1,
        "PATCH": 0
    },
    "KSP_VERSION_MAX": {
        "MAJOR": 1,
        "MINOR": 1,
        "PATCH": 0
    }

I presume that's why.

[ferram4]

Well, it works.  No idea why the version info is so restrictive though.

[ExiledViking]

3 minutes ago, ferram4 said:

Well, it works.  No idea why the version info is so restrictive though.

As long as you confirm it works, i'll adjust the file to stop the nag screen.

Thanks again.

[ferram4]

FAR v0.15.6.4 "Kleinhans" is out.  Bugfix release, plays nice with Tweakscale, fix some drag issues.  Changelog has info, as always; have fun with it.

[blu3wolf]

Will it be an issue to install the newer version of MFI than the one included with Kleinhans?

[longhornchris]

8 hours ago, ferram4 said:

FAR v0.15.6.4 "Kleinhans" is out.  Bugfix release, plays nice with Tweakscale, fix some drag issues.  Changelog has info, as always; have fun with it.

Ferram,

I love FAR - can't play without it.  I wanted to report a possible bug.

I just upgraded to 0.15.6.4 and now my spaceplane using the Mk1 cockpit (basic 1-kerbal cockpit) have huge yawing problems.  The aircraft worked fine in the previous version.  I activated the 'aerovis' arrows and the cause appears to be huge lift being generated whenever there is any sideslip in yaw..  Strangely, this only impacts yaw, not pitch.  Its acting like there's a huge 'vertical' wing in place of the nosecone.

Note: I haven't checked the other cockpits to see if this is related to the Mk1 or all leading nosecones.

[OddFunction]

Hello,

 

I am trying to disable Aerodynamic failures. I know that there exists an option in the FAR menu to turn it off via 'debug/cheat', but the problem is it always, always reverts to the "on" state when I reload the game. I checked the configs but couldn't find anything.

 

So, is there a permanent way to turn off Aero failures? Thank you!

 

Edit: After reinstalling KSP + my mods, the problem went away. Aerodynamic failure now stays "off" properly.

Edited May 15, 2016 by OddFunction

[Kitspace]

@ferram4

Yes surfaces produce a strong pitch down moment when they stall yet in this case it looks exaggerated to some extent.

Stalling one flap section out of three up to just a couple of percent leaves a large cargo plane without any pitch up authority what so ever instantly.

Also most kerbal planes that I have seen even unstable ones seem to be absolutely stall and spin proof.

As soon as they hit the stall angles of attack they mostly just bounce back off like rubber balls without ever going any deeper into the stall and it is almost impossible to get them any further regardless of speed and control authority. So instead of stalling the plane starts oscillate back and forth around the point where it begins to stall.

Could you please take a look a this? Thank you!

Edited May 15, 2016 by Kitspace

[Svm420]

34 minutes ago, Kitspace said:

@ferram4

Yes surfaces produce a strong pitch down moment when they stall yet in this case it looks exaggerated to some extent.

Stalling one flap section out of three up to just a couple of percent leaves a large cargo plane without any pitch up authority what so ever instantly.

Also most kerbal planes that I have seen even unstable ones seem to be absolutely stall and spin proof.

As soon as they hit the stall angles of attack they mostly just bounce back off like rubber balls without ever going any deeper into the stall and it is almost impossible to get them any further regardless of speed and control authority. So instead of stalling the plane starts oscillate back and forth around the point where it begins to stall.

Could you please take a look a this? Thank you!

Have you tried with a craft that is statically neutral? This is how I build my fighter jets and I can easily go into a bad stall that I can't recover from if I don't use some autopilot assistant. Maybe the craft you tried are very statically stable with mas very far in front of the aerodynamic center. Meaning it will take a hell of a lot of force to get in a deep stall as the craft wants to go back to stability. I mean if you really want Ferram to take you seriously present actual data not anecdotes 

[softweir]

4 hours ago, longhornchris said:

Ferram,

I love FAR - can't play without it.  I wanted to report a possible bug.

I just upgraded to 0.15.6.4 and now my spaceplane using the Mk1 cockpit (basic 1-kerbal cockpit) have huge yawing problems.  The aircraft worked fine in the previous version.  I activated the 'aerovis' arrows and the cause appears to be huge lift being generated whenever there is any sideslip in yaw..  Strangely, this only impacts yaw, not pitch.  Its acting like there's a huge 'vertical' wing in place of the nosecone.

Note: I haven't checked the other cockpits to see if this is related to the Mk1 or all leading nosecones.

Note: you also failed to supply a log or a craft file of this vehicle. Ferram won't be able to even look to see if this is a bug until he has that information. Also, it would help if you can get the same behaviour with a minimal set of mods, such as FAR and its dependencies and nothing else.

[Kitspace]

19 minutes ago, Svm420 said:

Have you tried with a craft that is statically neutral? This is how I build my fighter jets and I can easily go into a bad stall that I can't recover from if I don't use some autopilot assistant. Maybe the craft you tried are very statically stable with mas very far in front of the aerodynamic center. Meaning it will take a hell of a lot of force to get in a deep stall as the craft wants to go back to stability. I mean if you really want Ferram to take you seriously present actual data not anecdotes 

Anecdotes?

Yes I have tried neutrally stable and other highly maneuverable planes.

How is autopilot assistant going to take you out of the stall that you can not recover from yourself?

An unrecoverable stall means your control surfaces are just not effective enough to restore normal flight. This does not relate to autopilot in any way.

What you are talking about sounds more like a marginally unstable plane that needs active stabilization to maintain longitudinal control.

I am talking about planes trying to decrease angle of attack in a sudden jerk when they are about to stall. That happens more or less obviously with all airplanes in the game to the best of my knowledge.

[longhornchris]

2 hours ago, softweir said:

Note: you also failed to supply a log or a craft file of this vehicle. Ferram won't be able to even look to see if this is a bug until he has that information. Also, it would help if you can get the same behaviour with a minimal set of mods, such as FAR and its dependencies and nothing else.

Good point.  I'll go pull a log file when I get a chance but I reverted to 0.15.6.3 and the problem went away.  I'll have to re-install the update to get the behavior back.

If it helps, it doesn't matter what craft I use - if I have the Mk1 cockpit i get this behavior.

[cantab]

So I know you changed drag a bit, and I know this is a bit of an unusual aircraft, but should the latest FAR have this much impact on the handling?

Kindelberger: https://flic.kr/p/GgAckw

Kleinhans: https://flic.kr/p/GgAe5y

Craft file: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=40CBF49A479D54A8!428&authkey=!ACAzB2PctETTGeo&ithint=file%2ccraft

Flight testing backs the graphs, it few beautifully in Kindelberger but is totally unstable in Kleinhans.

[ThreePounds]

6 minutes ago, cantab said:

So I know you changed drag a bit, and I know this is a bit of an unusual aircraft, but should the latest FAR have this much impact on the handling?

Kindelberger: https://flic.kr/p/GgAckw

Kleinhans: https://flic.kr/p/GgAe5y

Craft file: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=40CBF49A479D54A8!428&authkey=!ACAzB2PctETTGeo&ithint=file%2ccraft

Flight testing backs the graphs, it few beautifully in Kindelberger but is totally unstable in Kleinhans.

Same issue here. I am rolling back to the previous release. No idea what is going on.

[tetryds]

Launch and return to the SPH and the graphs may show the right data again, in flight you probably won't have any issues and it should behave like it behaved before.

This is what I do when the graph does not match how the airplane should be behaving.

[cantab]

Confirmed it in a clean install with just FAR, and launching and reverting to SPH doesn't change things - and like I said, the plane is actually flying unstable in Kleinhans.

Let me know if you want logs Ferram (or others) and where they're located on Linux.

Edited May 15, 2016 by cantab

[taniwha]

KSP.log is in the usual place (with KSP.x86_64), and the equivalent to output_log.txt is ~/.config/unity3d/Squad/Kerbal\ Space\ Program/Player.log

So long as KSP isn't crashing, KSP.log is generally better as it is more readable.

[Darael]

2 hours ago, Kitspace said:

Anecdotes?

Yes I have tried neutrally stable and other highly maneuverable planes.

How is autopilot assistant going to take you out of the stall that you can not recover from yourself?

An unrecoverable stall means your control surfaces are just not effective enough to restore normal flight. This does not relate to autopilot in any way.

What you are talking about sounds more like a marginally unstable plane that needs active stabilization to maintain longitudinal control.

I am talking about planes trying to decrease angle of attack in a sudden jerk when they are about to stall. That happens more or less obviously with all airplanes in the game to the best of my knowledge.

I think th'art misreading the claim, honestly: there's an ambiguity, yes, but I parse it as "[...] This is how I build my fighter jets and without an autopilot assistant I can easily get into a bad stall from which I can't recover", not "[...]jets and I can easily get into a bad stall from which, without an autopilot assistant, I can't recover".  Big difference - the former is saying that avoiding the stall without an automatic pilot-assistance module is too hard (which, whether or not we agree, at least makes sense), the latter that escaping it is so (which, as thou sayest, Kitspace, does not).