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

[Ser]

What could help in lowering your aircraft's weight a little is minimizing wing's toughness/weight. You'll need to fly carefully after that, without loading your wings too much, i.e. fly realistically. IRL some B737 tail rudders were stripped away just due to overload with pedal input. And of course, if real aircrafts had only keyboard input, they'd were torn apart before takeoff, IMHO (that explains unrealisic KSP aircraft weights too).

Edited December 10, 2016 by Ser

[Tricky14]

Have a question. I haven't had KSP installed for a while, but I just reinstalled and included FAR. Except I don't see the FAR icon on the side of the screen. Did I do something wrong? I installed the mod dependencies, so that can't be it. Is there a way to tell if FAR is running?

I'd really appreciate the help. Almost ready to start playing.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Tricky14

[FunnelVortex]

1 hour ago, Ser said:

What could help in lowering your aircraft's weight a little is minimizing wing's toughness/weight. You'll need to fly carefully after that, without loading your wings too much, i.e. fly realistically. IRL some B737 tail rudders were stripped away just due to overload with pedal input. And of course, if real aircrafts had only keyboard input, they'd were torn apart before takeoff, IMHO (that explains unrealisic KSP aircraft weights too).

That's pretty much why I perfer using my joystick for flying aircraft in KSP. Since I started using it I've had my canards torn off much less often.

Once you get your joystick and get past the learning curve, you'll never go back.  

Edited December 10, 2016 by FunnelVortex

[kcs123]

6 minutes ago, Tricky14 said:

Have a question. I haven't had KSP installed for a while, but I just reinstalled FAR. Except I don't see the FAR icon on screen. Did I do something wrong? I installed the mod dependencies, so that can't be it.

Is there a way to tell if FAR is running?

 

I'd appreciate the help.

Latest stable version of FAR is created for KSP 1.1.3. You will need either, to use older version of KSP or wait until FAR is updated properly for KSP 1.2.x.

It is a bit harder to chase down other compatible versions of each mod you want to use for KSP 1.1.3. but it is possible, most mod developers still keeps last known stable version of their mod somewhere.

[Tricky14]

20 minutes ago, kcs123 said:

Latest stable version of FAR is created for KSP 1.1.3. You will need either, to use older version of KSP or wait until FAR is updated properly for KSP 1.2.x.

It is a bit harder to chase down other compatible versions of each mod you want to use for KSP 1.1.3. but it is possible, most mod developers still keeps last known stable version of their mod somewhere.

Thank you. Sadly I don't have enough time to keep track of this. I'll try KSP again in a few months, see if FAR works. By then I'm sure a different mod has become incompatible though.

Such is KSP.

[MissMolly]

so im not sure if its FAR causing this but the log file did show a few null's referring to FAR, i do see others but not sure on what mod would be the cause it this. but if some one sees what mod that might be the cause please let me know so i can let the mod maker know.

so iv been having a few problems with not able to right click on and parts.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ongfi4zwg1nzh25/Player.log?dl=0

[kcs123]

9 hours ago, MissMolly said:

so im not sure if its FAR causing this but the log file did show a few null's referring to FAR, i do see others but not sure on what mod would be the cause it this. but if some one sees what mod that might be the cause please let me know so i can let the mod maker know.

so iv been having a few problems with not able to right click on and parts.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ongfi4zwg1nzh25/Player.log?dl=0

There is 2-3 pages of debate that reports about developer version of FAR is not supported for KSP 1.2.x because it is pretty much known that issues exist. And yet, you tried to use FAR with latest KSP release and asking for help ?

Thiis line is from your log:

******* Log Initiated for Kerbal Space Program - 1.2.2.1622 (OSXPlayer) *******

I haven't searched to see what is version of FAR you try to use. Please be patient and wait for official release, like rest of us. Reports like this does not help until FAR is properly updated, to iron out bugs that were possible not noticed trough development.

 

[tomgle]

12 hours ago, FunnelVortex said:

That's pretty much why I perfer using my joystick for flying aircraft in KSP. Since I started using it I've had my canards torn off much less often.

Once you get your joystick and get past the learning curve, you'll never go back.  

I thought there was some problem with joysticks in KSP, like a huge input lag or something. Has that been fixed? Also, would mouse aim flight work just as well instead of a joystick?

[tetryds]

@tomgle joysticks seem fine since a while ago, but they improved a lot on 1.0 IIRC.

About MAF, it will have trouble piloting flying wings, mainly because the system is very different and the pilot "AI" makes (proper) use of the rudder for banking and canceling sideslip.

So it can work, but not as straightforward as with conventional airplanes, it will require some fiddling around first.

I am considering making a mode for flying wings on the future, but I am working on a bigger non-ksp project now.

[tomgle]

@tetryds Ok, thanks a lot!

[Ser]

6 hours ago, tomgle said:

I thought there was some problem with joysticks in KSP, like a huge input lag or something. Has that been fixed? Also, would mouse aim flight work just as well instead of a joystick?

I haven't tried MAF but what I see from demonstration video it provides some arcade style mouse-driven flight. I'm lazy to plug and set my HOTAS up for KSP so I prefer Analog Control mod and will use it once it will be resurrected.

[MissMolly]

9 hours ago, kcs123 said:

There is 2-3 pages of debate that reports about developer version of FAR is not supported for KSP 1.2.x because it is pretty much known that issues exist. And yet, you tried to use FAR with latest KSP release and asking for help ?

Thiis line is from your log:

******* Log Initiated for Kerbal Space Program - 1.2.2.1622 (OSXPlayer) *******

I haven't searched to see what is version of FAR you try to use. Please be patient and wait for official release, like rest of us. Reports like this does not help until FAR is properly updated, to iron out bugs that were possible not noticed trough development.

 

just to clear this up I'm not in any rush, and this was installed via Ckan with 1.2.2 Ksp. so i will just remove FAR till RO is up dated.

not sure what your asking about this line. ******* Log Initiated for Kerbal Space Program - 1.2.2.1622 (OSXPlayer) *******

[Vanamonde]

A couple of posts have been removed from this thread. Please don't insult people on our forum. 

[stellargeli]

Everyone needs to stop comparing FAR to real life.  Making comments about landing speeds being better in RL and what FAR models, etc. is really, really silly.  To my knowledge, airfoil shapes are not part of of any of this, so lift values are all just made-up anyways.  Basically the aero stuff, stock or FAR, can sort of approximate some sort of RL performance, but as this is not actual aero modeling with parts that have actual airfoil shapes, etc. the comparision to RL gets pretty silly at some point.  I get that something near real is trying to be accomplished, but seriously it will never be anything except a gamified approximation of some assumed characteristics.  Now, if airfoils, etc. were accurately represented by different surfaces, and we designed all our parts in SolidWorks, then that might be different.

I am not saying FAR is bad.  I am not saying stock aero is bad.  I am saying that there is not enough part detail, or possibly even aero modelling detail to create some sort of RL accurate planes in KSP.  For example, a Cessna 172 has a different airfoil shape than a Boeing 747, and both have different shapes from an F-16.  Saying what the takeoff speed of a KSP plane is in RL, for example, is actually fairly impossible.

FAR is an awesome mod and I really enjoy what it brings to KSP.  Just don't go overboard comparing things to RL.

Edited December 11, 2016 by stellargeli

[kcs123]

2 hours ago, MissMolly said:

not sure what your asking about this line. ******* Log Initiated for Kerbal Space Program - 1.2.2.1622 (OSXPlayer) *******

I'm not asking anything. I was found it in your log and told you that current available versions of FAR were not compatible. Disapointed that you didn't read last 2-3 pages, otherwise you would find answer and didn't even bothered to ask.
Literaly, post above yours info about compatible KSP version and FAR version is provided.

You have probably installed trough CKAN with KSP 1.1.3. and then updated whole game. That is bad idea. Leads to many false bug reports and broken games. If you are using steam, install clean game without any mods, copy whole game folder elsewhere and put mods in that copied folder, trough CKAN or manual install, whatever is your preference.

That way, your game would not become broken each time steam push update. CKAN would not allow you to install FAR on top of fresh KSP 1.2.2. install.
If you want to play RO game, you should stick with older KSP release until major mod dependency is updated.

And don't know why that provoked such reactions and posts with insults. I wrote well deserved critics, but at the same time provided answer to question.
Where I'm insuled anyone ?

Edited December 11, 2016 by kcs123

[ss8913]

12 hours ago, kcs123 said:

There is 2-3 pages of debate that reports about developer version of FAR is not supported for KSP 1.2.x because it is pretty much known that issues exist. And yet, you tried to use FAR with latest KSP release and asking for help ?

Thiis line is from your log:

******* Log Initiated for Kerbal Space Program - 1.2.2.1622 (OSXPlayer) *******

I haven't searched to see what is version of FAR you try to use. Please be patient and wait for official release, like rest of us. Reports like this does not help until FAR is properly updated, to iron out bugs that were possible not noticed trough development.

 

If you're opting in to be a tester for the dev build, file your bug reports as detailed *bug reports* through github; that includes full logs and steps to reproduce.  The forum is for people using supported versions of the mod who are seeking help

2 hours ago, stellargeli said:

Everyone needs to stop comparing FAR to real life.  Making comments about landing speeds being better in RL and what FAR models, etc. is really, really silly.  To my knowledge, airfoil shapes are not part of of any of this, so lift values are all just made-up anyways.  Basically the aero stuff, stock or FAR, can sort of approximate some sort of RL performance, but as this is not actual aero modeling with parts that have actual airfoil shapes, etc. the comparision to RL gets pretty silly at some point.  I get that something near real is trying to be accomplished, but seriously it will never be anything except a gamified approximation of some assumed characteristics.  Now, if airfoils, etc. were accurately represented by different surfaces, and we designed all our parts in SolidWorks, then that might be different.

I am not saying FAR is bad.  I am not saying stock aero is bad.  I am saying that there is not enough part detail, or possibly even aero modelling detail to create some sort of RL accurate planes in KSP.  For example, a Cessna 172 has a different airfoil shape than a Boeing 747, and both have different shapes from an F-16.  Saying what the takeoff speed of a KSP plane is in RL, for example, is actually fairly impossible.

FAR is an awesome mod and I really enjoy what it brings to KSP.  Just don't go overboard comparing things to RL.

FAR does voxel-based aerodynamics; it actually does keep the craft shape in mind when calculating lift.  As has been mentioned, groundeffect is not yet modeled, so lighter GA-type planes aren't exactly right; however most of my spaceplanes with wing profiles similar to the US shuttle do seem to have similar landing speeds (200-250kts IAS).  Hopefully in the future there will be ground effect modeled and everything will line up.  In the meantime, this is still worlds better than stock aero, and ferram4 deserves a ton of credit for making this happen.

[Flashblade]

I don't really get why people think that the landing approach speed will massively improve because of ground effect. I've read up on when that actually happens and at or below the height of the planes wingspan isn't a massive amount of time during a landing. To actually massively use this effect during a landing maneuver you would have to hug the ground for quite some time which isn't really what a landing maneuver is usually like. I can see it being useful for take-offs though.

[FunnelVortex]

I suppose if you use SMURFF it will improve your takeoff and landing speeds with FAR, but then it ends up making everything overpowered in space if you just want to play with stock sized planets.

[kcs123]

Two small videos about ground effect topic:

 

 

There  is longer videos about same thing, but above should suffice, I hope.

[Maeyanie]

Those videos are about a specific kind of vehicle, known as "WiGE" -- Wings in Ground Effect. Planes are a bit different, but yes, ground effect is a significant factor for them in takeoff and landing, especially wtih smaller planes.

Generally a pilot, when landing, aims to flare the aircraft just before touchdown, and the flare ideally ends when the plane enters ground effect. That lets the pilot drift along the runway a bit for a nice, soft landing, despite being even slower than when it was descending before.

For particularly light low-winged planes (a lot of the small Piper aircraft are notorious for this) it can actually be difficult to get them to slow down enough to land. You can't just pitch down, since in a real plane if you land on the nosewheel they tend to break.

[blowfish]

9 hours ago, stellargeli said:

To my knowledge, airfoil shapes are not part of of any of this, so lift values are all just made-up anyways.

FAR assumes that all airfoils are thin, supersonic airfoils (I don't remember the exact shape).  That's certainly not realistic for all planes but also far from made-up.

[MissMolly]

9 hours ago, kcs123 said:

I'm not asking anything. I was found it in your log and told you that current available versions of FAR were not compatible. Disapointed that you didn't read last 2-3 pages, otherwise you would find answer and didn't even bothered to ask.
Literaly, post above yours info about compatible KSP version and FAR version is provided.

You have probably installed trough CKAN with KSP 1.1.3. and then updated whole game. That is bad idea. Leads to many false bug reports and broken games. If you are using steam, install clean game without any mods, copy whole game folder elsewhere and put mods in that copied folder, trough CKAN or manual install, whatever is your preference.

That way, your game would not become broken each time steam push update. CKAN would not allow you to install FAR on top of fresh KSP 1.2.2. install.
If you want to play RO game, you should stick with older KSP release until major mod dependency is updated.

And don't know why that provoked such reactions and posts with insults. I wrote well deserved critics, but at the same time provided answer to question.
Where I'm insuled anyone ?

who said any thing about steam? i did no,t and my game is not broken. and playing RO with 1.2.2 i will when its ready with or with out FAR. as for this mod this was my first time using it and i don't plan on putting it back in, and  i don't see any thing that i will miss.

 

"Disapointed that you didn't read last 2-3 pages" oh please! i just make a post about what i saw I'm my log nothing more, and there were a few others as well and iv had.  you can try to insult me as  you won't and as i was not insulted to begin with.

 

Cheers

[B15HOP_xmen]

On 12/12/2016 at 6:34 AM, Flashblade said:

I don't really get why people think that the landing approach speed will massively improve because of ground effect. I've read up on when that actually happens and at or below the height of the planes wingspan isn't a massive amount of time during a landing. To actually massively use this effect during a landing maneuver you would have to hug the ground for quite some time which isn't really what a landing maneuver is usually like. I can see it being useful for take-offs though.

So does FAR use ground effect? I notice it's stupidly hard for me to get my craft off the runway. Admittedly my designs are built primarily for near orbital altitude. Luckily for me, I always build my craft with high amount of TWR, so usually the engines get me off the runway. So long as I have RCS push the nose up, I'm fine. Once in the air, the RCS doesn't really come back into play until 15000m to 20000m altitude. Either way, I honestly feel like my craft are clamped to the runway right up until initial lift off.

[ss8913]

1 hour ago, B15HOP_xmen said:

So does FAR use ground effect? I notice it's stupidly hard for me to get my craft off the runway. Admittedly my designs are built primarily for near orbital altitude. Luckily for me, I always build my craft with high amount of TWR, so usually the engines get me off the runway. So long as I have RCS push the nose up, I'm fine. Once in the air, the RCS doesn't really come back into play until 15000m to 20000m altitude. Either way, I honestly feel like my craft are clamped to the runway right up until initial lift off.

I've not had that experience with far.. perhaps your main gear are too far aft of your center of mass?

[plausse]

20 minutes ago, ss8913 said:

I've not had that experience with far.. perhaps your main gear are too far aft of your center of mass?

That was my problem too and moving the wheels forward helped, but without detracting too far off topic; requiring high take off velocity for an SSTO may not be such a strange thing - especially it as you say is optimiser for near orbital velocity (and full of fuel). Imagine trying to take off horizontally with the space shuttle (hint - don't). 

Looking at supersonic bombers even, they don't turn on a dime. so it might show realism (or closer to realism) of the model rather than a fault. 

Edited December 13, 2016 by plausse