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

[FunnelVortex]

 

20 hours ago, msnbcorp said:

Hum, this, principia, Background Processing and few others like Deadly Reentry, but yeah, i agree !

The effects of Deadly Reentry (like overheating during reentry and G forces) are pretty much stock now.

[msnbcorp]

27 minutes ago, FunnelVortex said:

 

The effects of Deadly Reentry (like overheating during reentry and G forces) are pretty much stock now.

Yeah but even on hard difficulty level it's not very "deadly". Even with a random rocket ^^ . So no need in stock version for shield ^^...

[MaxRebo]

@msnbcorp The thing about Deadly Reentry is that it's not realistic. It scales up reentry effects to ridiculous magnitudes so that the experience is similar to what you would get if Kerbin were Earth sized. IRL a mere 2k m/s don't result in the amounts of plasma being created that would actually ablate a heat shield. IMO stock hits a good middle ground here (I wish they would have just made Kerbin Earth-sized in the first place though).

[steve_v]

7 minutes ago, MaxRebo said:

The thing about Deadly Reentry is that it's not realistic.

Well yeah, but you gotta pick your "real".

DRE makes re-entry realistic for an earth sized kerbin - without scaling to an earth sized kerbin, which kinda makes sense in that it's the only way to make re-entry deadly on a 1/10th scale planet... if you run RO, it's not needed, but in stock re-enty is ridiculously forgiving... so Deadly Re-Entry is aptly named.

13 minutes ago, MaxRebo said:

(I wish they would have just made Kerbin Earth-sized in the first place though)

Agreed. I'll take DRE over stock for the challenge though.

[MaxRebo]

3 minutes ago, steve_v said:

so Deadly Re-Entry is aptly named

No one was disputing that

[msnbcorp]

10 hours ago, MaxRebo said:

@msnbcorp The thing about Deadly Reentry is that it's not realistic. It scales up reentry effects to ridiculous magnitudes so that the experience is similar to what you would get if Kerbin were Earth sized. IRL a mere 2k m/s don't result in the amounts of plasma being created that would actually ablate a heat shield. IMO stock hits a good middle ground here (I wish they would have just made Kerbin Earth-sized in the first place though).

Ok hum well, don't really understand this. Correct me where i'm wrong but stock size are like 10 size smaller planets as solar system. So earth is Kerbin*10 . But gravity is still the same no ?

So why the effect on earth should be different. Don't understant the point of the creation of deadly rentry on that.

Similar G and higher orbit (10* higher) should lead in lower speed. And the atmospheric is bigger sooooo.... the entry should be easier on earth no ?

 

Anyhow, I'm really agree with your final remark. But it applies on a LOT bunch of thing in KSP devellopement. The core of the game should have been more stable and optimized since alpha 0.0.0.0.0.0.etc....

The work on graphism, at least on kerbin, should have been wider. The stupid Keplerien two body low just solve false problem (stability : all modern integrator can run whole stable galaxies on Millions of year ! ) ( Performance : Principia men demonstrate that their Keplerien solver is just awfully wasting time in comparaison to a classical N-Body integrator) and bring more of them ( The fake 25km rectangle simulation ) when making the game less rich in the base core.

Well, KSP is a today classical story of an inexperimented team that try to do something too big for them ^^ ... Good experiment and I hope the leaving team use this experiment to build a nicer game the next time

Edited November 7, 2016 by msnbcorp

[cantab]

The orbital speeds round Earth are much higher than round Kerbin. That's why. But it's off-topic for this thread.

[Maeyanie]

4 hours ago, msnbcorp said:

Ok hum well, don't really understand this. Correct me where i'm wrong but stock size are like 10 size smaller planets as solar system. So earth is Kerbin*10 . But gravity is still the same no ?

So why the effect on earth should be different. Don't understant the point of the creation of deadly rentry on that.

Similar G and higher orbit (10* higher) should lead in lower speed. And the atmospheric is bigger sooooo.... the entry should be easier on earth no ?

No, because the circumference is much larger, so with the same gravity you have to be going a lot faster to miss the ground. Net result, low earth orbit is around 8 km/s, where low kerbin orbit is only around 2 km/s. That's a lot more energy when you smack into some air.

Edit: But yes, as cantab mentioned, this isn't the DRE thread. Sorry.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Maeyanie

[Dozyjones]

Hey all,

I'm currently working on a rather extensive guide, but I'm hitting my head somewhere. I know that the FAR jet engines have been nerfed, but I actually need specific values on how nerfed it is. I've tried looking in the ferramaerospace.cfg, but I can't find any new engine curves there. Is it automatically overwritten in the partname.cfg, of how is this handled?

[Deizelpunk]

I love you ferram

 

[ITman496]

I've definitely come to appreciate FAR, especially since I basically can't enjoy KSP without it.  Can't wait for it to come out so I can enjoy 1.2!  Keep up the good work ferram!

[ferram4]

@Dozyjones: They are not changed at all anymore.  They have not been changed since KSP 1.0.

[StellarumSectatio]

Haven't ever used Ferram but i'm looking to get into it (I need more realistic aerodynamics to advance any further in my glider development)  Does anyone know if Ferram aerospace was/is/will be compatible with B9 Procedural Wings?  They're pretty essential for my purposes.

[Starman4308]

On 11/10/2016 at 11:15 AM, Dozyjones said:

Hey all,

I'm currently working on a rather extensive guide, but I'm hitting my head somewhere. I know that the FAR jet engines have been nerfed, but I actually need specific values on how nerfed it is. I've tried looking in the ferramaerospace.cfg, but I can't find any new engine curves there. Is it automatically overwritten in the partname.cfg, of how is this handled?

I'm 99% sure the engine changes have been moved to the Advanced Jet Engine mod.

[Roxor]

2 hours ago, StellarumSectatio said:

Haven't ever used Ferram but i'm looking to get into it (I need more realistic aerodynamics to advance any further in my glider development)  Does anyone know if Ferram aerospace was/is/will be compatible with B9 Procedural Wings?  They're pretty essential for my purposes.

Yes it will work.

[stellargeli]

On 11/7/2016 at 1:52 AM, MaxRebo said:

@msnbcorp The thing about Deadly Reentry is that it's not realistic. It scales up reentry effects to ridiculous magnitudes so that the experience is similar to what you would get if Kerbin were Earth sized. IRL a mere 2k m/s don't result in the amounts of plasma being created that would actually ablate a heat shield. IMO stock hits a good middle ground here (I wish they would have just made Kerbin Earth-sized in the first place though).

Is that correct?  Kerbin has the same gravity as Earth.  Is the difference the density of the atmosphere?  Or is it just that Deadly Reentry isn't realistic to start with?  Size of the planet should not matter.  Gravity and atmosphere would be what matters.

[cantab]

Acceleration due to gravity is given by

g = m / r²

So if g is the same but r  is reduced (Kerbin is smaller than Earth and has the same surface gravity), m is reduced by a greater factor than r.

And orbital speed is given by

v = sqrt (m/r)

And that m/r term will be reduced for Kerbin compared to Earth, which means a lower orbital speed.

(Ignoring constants in the equations. And the small correction because we don't orbit at zero metres altitude.)

[paul23]

Uhhh of topic but I feel I have to correct some things:

the basics for orbital speeds is always the vis-viva equation

So indeed it is (notice everything is typically described in the standard gravitational parameter GM = mu):

v = sqrt(mu* 1/r) = sqrt(mu) * sqrt(1/r)
mu_earth =  3.986 * 10^14 m^3/s^2
mu_kerbin = 3.5316 * 10^12 m^3/s^2

So the "constant factor" for kerbin is about 10 times as small. The (equatorial) radius of earth is  6378000 m, so space "starts" at r = 6478000. For Kerbin  600000 + 80000 = 680000, which taken the root of would be about 3 times as big for kerbin. Combined we can see that the orbital velocity around kerbin's edge of space is about 3.3 times as small as earth. Which corresponds to the ballpark numbers of 2k and 7.5k for kerbin and earth.

 

[MaxRebo]

16 hours ago, stellargeli said:

Is that correct?  Kerbin has the same gravity as Earth.  Is the difference the density of the atmosphere?  Or is it just that Deadly Reentry isn't realistic to start with?  Size of the planet should not matter.  Gravity and atmosphere would be what matters.

Seeing as no one quoted or mentioned you, I figured I'd do it instead and refer you to the two answers above (I missed plenty replies like that myself). For further understanding it helps to remind yourself that Kerbin has much much lower mass than Earth (1/113th it was I think - would be easy enough to calculate from its gravitational parameter). Gravity as you put it is merely a function of how far away from the center you are.

I refrained from posting some math earlier in the discussion because I didn't want to derail the thread any further and (IMO) sufficient informal answers had been given - it seems that backfired. Sorry for starting this ferram and anyone monitoring this topic for FAR updates...

Edited November 13, 2016 by MaxRebo

[FunnelVortex]

It's kinda my fault. I'm the one who compared Deadly Reentry to the stock reentry heating/G-force effects, and it started the whole thing off. 

So I'm the one who should be apologizing.

Edited November 13, 2016 by FunnelVortex

[MaxRebo]

@FunnelVortex Still, saying DRE is unrealistic is quite the provocative statement in hindsight. Let's take shared responsibility

Edited November 13, 2016 by MaxRebo

[Program Kerbal Space]

Now once this becomes compatible with my version so I can get this will my aircrafts work -.-

[FunnelVortex]

20 minutes ago, Program Kerbal Space said:

Now once this becomes compatible with my version so I can get this will my aircrafts work -.-

I need it for my stock-alike Skylon replica to work properly .

Currently I can fly it, but I need to boost it off the runway with SRBs since the body doesn't produce lift with stock aero. But once FAR is updated it should be able to work as intended.

[Darael]

3 hours ago, FunnelVortex said:

I need it for my stock-alike Skylon replica to work properly .

Currently I can fly it, but I need to boost it off the runway with SRBs since the body doesn't produce lift with stock aero. But once FAR is updated it should be able to work as intended.

If it's only stock-alike that would imply th'art using some non-stock parts, so it's probably worth mentioning that if they're thine own parts or th'art happy mucking with ModuleManager and so on, it should be possible to add stock-aero-style body-lift by looking at the Mk2 fuselage bits.  But that's off-topic, rather.

[ITman496]

So I've been reading through the thread but I haven't quite figured this out yet...  When KSP updated to 1.2, what broke in FAR that prevented it from working?  Just curious, mostly. I like hearing about this kind of thing from a programmers point of view.