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

[tetryds]

@aluc24 Yes it will.

Saying "no pressure" doesn't help though, the same way as saying you don't want to hurt someone when you beat that person in the face doesn't soften the punches.

But it's understandable that you only want to know if it ever will be updated.

[aluc24]

Just now, tetryds said:

@aluc24 Yes it will.

Saying "no pressure" doesn't help though, the same way as saying you don't want to hurt someone when you beat that person in the face doesn't soften the punches.

But it's understandable that you only want to know if it ever will be updated.

I see... Well, in that case, I apologize. But I can't think of another way of finding out whenever the addon is abandoned, stuck, or still very well in progress... I don't mean to hurry the creator, only to find out if the project still has hope to be ever updated.

[Theysen]

4 minutes ago, aluc24 said:

I see... Well, in that case, I apologize. But I can't think of another way of finding out whenever the addon is abandoned, stuck, or still very well in progress... I don't mean to hurry the creator, only to find out if the project still has hope to be ever updated.

take your time like most others and read back at least one page where there is talk about a dev version and draw your own conclusions and you will find out that you can still have hope?

[aluc24]

Just now, Theysen said:

take your time like most others and read back at least one page where there is talk about a dev version and draw your own conclusions and you will find out that you can still have hope?

Yeah, that's what I did, I read the last 5 pages, and that's what made my worry that the project is stuck for good

[ferram4]

@aluc24: The current state of things is that it's still being developed, there are only 3 (I think) issues that still need to be fixed, and the only reason that I'm not rushing things out tomorrow (like I honestly could if I buckled down like mad to fix those issues) is that fixing some earlier issues required rejiggering some rather fundamental parts of FAR, which is the kind of thing that causes nasty game-breaking bugs to show up.  So I'm delaying to give the wonderful/crazy people who mess with dev builds a chance to make sure that I haven't introduced any new bugs through that before a full release, this way if there is a bug I can take time to address it rather than deal with the effect of looking to rush to replace a stable release that is anything but.  Also, bug reports from normal users are... frustratingly un-descriptive sometimes.

So barring any new, nasty bugs being reported that don't involve collision-based shenanigans like @Juncoph's helicopter thingy, I think I can get a release out in a week or so.  What's left shouldn't take much longer to address if it's within my power to address it.  But I want to make sure that any issues that need a patch are minor ones, not gamebreaking ones.

[aluc24]

1 minute ago, ferram4 said:

@aluc24: The current state of things is that it's still being developed, there are only 3 (I think) issues that still need to be fixed, and the only reason that I'm not rushing things out tomorrow (like I honestly could if I buckled down like mad to fix those issues) is that fixing some earlier issues required rejiggering some rather fundamental parts of FAR, which is the kind of thing that causes nasty game-breaking bugs to show up.  So I'm delaying to give the wonderful/crazy people who mess with dev builds a chance to make sure that I haven't introduced any new bugs through that before a full release, this way if there is a bug I can take time to address it rather than deal with the effect of looking to rush to replace a stable release that is anything but.  Also, bug reports from normal users are... frustratingly un-descriptive sometimes.

So barring any new, nasty bugs being reported that don't involve collision-based shenanigans like @Juncoph's helicopter thingy, I think I can get a release out in a week or so.  What's left shouldn't take much longer to address if it's within my power to address it.  But I want to make sure that any issues that need a patch are minor ones, not gamebreaking ones.

Thank you very much for such a detailed report. Your approach towards quality is most respectable. I'm also very glad that this project is in good shape, and I bow my head low in appreciation of the valuable time and effort you put into it. Thank you again.

[Jiraiyah]

I know that asking for possible release date is against rules, so, i am not asking for a release date for 1.2.2 but, is there any kind of news for that version or is there any beta version sitting around? i would like to give it a try.

thanks

[blu3wolf]

There's a dev version out. If knowing that there is, is insufficient knowledge to use that version, then you might just have to wait a little longer.

[blowfish]

7 hours ago, Jiraiyah said:

I know that asking for possible release date is against rules, so, i am not asking for a release date for 1.2.2 but, is there any kind of news for that version or is there any beta version sitting around? i would like to give it a try.

thanks

The news is a few posts above yours...

[Jiraiyah]

2 hours ago, blowfish said:

The news is a few posts above yours...

ufff i totally missed that one. sorry and thanks.

[softweir]

10 hours ago, Jiraiyah said:

I know that asking for possible release date is against rules, so, i am not asking for a release date for 1.2.2 but, is there any kind of news for that version or is there any beta version sitting around? i would like to give it a try.

thanks

Just two posts above you... (My emphasis.)

22 hours ago, ferram4 said:

@aluc24: The current state of things is that it's still being developed, there are only 3 (I think) issues that still need to be fixed, and the only reason that I'm not rushing things out tomorrow (like I honestly could if I buckled down like mad to fix those issues) is that fixing some earlier issues required rejiggering some rather fundamental parts of FAR, which is the kind of thing that causes nasty game-breaking bugs to show up.  So I'm delaying to give the wonderful/crazy people who mess with dev builds a chance to make sure that I haven't introduced any new bugs through that before a full release, this way if there is a bug I can take time to address it rather than deal with the effect of looking to rush to replace a stable release that is anything but.  Also, bug reports from normal users are... frustratingly un-descriptive sometimes.

So barring any new, nasty bugs being reported that don't involve collision-based shenanigans like @Juncoph's helicopter thingy, I think I can get a release out in a week or so.  What's left shouldn't take much longer to address if it's within my power to address it.  But I want to make sure that any issues that need a patch are minor ones, not gamebreaking ones.

I don't want to be unfriendly, but I would like to point out the value of reading the last few pages of a thread before posting questions of that nature.

As for the "beta version" there is a dev version. Read enough posts and get your tech-savvy in gear and you can download it. However, ferram4 would like people to refrain from "giving it a try" unless they are good at reporting bugs; this is a dev version, being released for the purposes of bug-tracking. That is why we are being somewhat... cryptic... as regards where to find the dev version.

 

[Jiraiyah]

3 minutes ago, softweir said:

Just two posts above you... (My emphasis.)

I don't want to be unfriendly, but I would like to point out the value of reading the last few pages of a thread before posting questions of that nature.

As for the "beta version" there is a dev version. Read enough posts and get your tech-savvy in gear and you can download it. However, ferram4 would like people to refrain from "giving it a try" unless they are good at reporting bugs; this is a dev version, being released for the purposes of bug-tracking. That is why we are being somewhat... cryptic... as regards where to find the dev version.

 

sorry. the reason i missed that post is that I get daily posts from many threads by email and sometimes i miss something important there. but normally i would everything regarding FAR, looks like at least once or twice i missed stuff. i won't read mails any more the first thing in morning sleepy head is not good for reading apparently

[Maeyanie]

23 hours ago, ferram4 said:

...new, nasty bugs being reported...

For what it's worth, I haven't noticed anything else that could be called a bug. Most of my problems are me getting used to low-drag aircraft again after having to play stock for a while.

[MisterFister]

I for one am constructively biding my time by preparing krakenbait craft files in the VAB while awaiting the next release of this mod.  Why, just a few minutes ago, I borked a stack-launch pretty good simply by incorrectly installing the folder structure of the devbuild of this mod.  #ThatsEnoughModtestingForMe

[Leafbaron]

I figured out how to get the dev version of FAR. All you gotta do is...Wait a second someones at the door....

Hello? how can I.... wait oh god what are your doing!? please no! *muffled screams*

*loud thud*

.......

[anto-shturmovik]

Hello everyone.

Just a quick message to say thank you. FAR has become an absolute necessity for me, and I stopped playing KSP waiting for a workable beta for the current version of KSP. I'm currently using the dev build, which seems to work flawlessly (I've encountered a single bug that I was not able to reproduce, where the concept of "drag" simply ceased to exist until I went back to the menu and loaded my save again). I know the dev build is supposed to be used only for testing purposes, but I couldn't play without FAR ! :-)

So a BIG thank you to ferram and all the others involved in the development.

[Leafbaron]

Friends,

I tried one of my SSTO spaceplanes from stock aero model in FAR this weekend (yes i have the dev version), and no I don't think its a bug, I believe it is related to supersonic aerodynamics and my lack of understanding them. Everything was going fine until about mach 1.5 when the craft started to pitch up and down slightly. progressively getting worse until about mach 2+ 700-800m/s at an altitude of about 10km pitching up and down turned into sideslipping until catastrophic unplanned destruction. Without knowing anything else. what can you veterans tell me about super sonic aerodynamics to aid in my designs? I can post a pic of the design when I get home, and if this is the wrong place to ask, please let me know. 

Edited January 9, 2017 by Leafbaron

[blowfish]

14 minutes ago, Leafbaron said:

Friends,

I tried one of my SSTO spaceplanes from stock aero model in FAR this weekend (yes i have the dev version), and no I don't think its a bug, I believe it is related to supersonic aerodynamics and my lack of understanding them. Everything was going fine until about mach 1.5 when the craft started to pitch up and down slightly. progressively getting worse until about mach 2+ 700-800m/s at an altitude of about 10km pitching up and down turned into sideslipping until catastrophic unplanned destruction. Without knowing anything else. what can you veterans tell me about super sonic aerodynamics to aid in my designs? I can post a pic of the design when I get home, and if this is the wrong place to ask, please let me know. 

For starters, there's no reason to necessarily expect that aircraft will behave the same in stock aero as in FAR.  In fact, you should expect to see some major differences, especially in supersonic flight.  FAR aircraft should probably be designed from the ground up in FAR.  Now, I do have some comments on your specific problems:

• Vertical oscillations: probably means you have too much pitch authority.  That and the fact that SAS has its limits.  Note however, that pitch authority can vary with flight condition, so decreasing pitch authority may mean that you don't have enough somewhere else.  You might want to look at mods like Pilot Assistant, which can help smooth some of these things out

 

• Sideslip: probably means you just need a larger vertical stabilizer, or to place it farther from the center of mass (i.e. farther back).

[capi3101]

27 minutes ago, Leafbaron said:

Friends,

I tried one of my SSTO spaceplanes from stock aero model in FAR this weekend (yes i have the dev version), and no I don't think its a bug, I believe it is related to supersonic aerodynamics and my lack of understanding them. Everything was going fine until about mach 1.5 when the craft started to pitch up and down slightly. progressively getting worse until about mach 2+ 700-800m/s at an altitude of about 10km pitching up and down turned into sideslipping until catastrophic unplanned destruction. Without knowing anything else. what can you veterans tell me about super sonic aerodynamics to aid in my designs? I can post a pic of the design when I get home, and if this is the wrong place to ask, please let me know. 

Almost sounds like a Dutch roll situation, except usually the roll axis is the one that starts oscillating instead of pitch...

What is the FAR dynamic simulation telling you for Mach 1.5? To test this, go into the VAB and load up FAR, and get your static numbers for Mach 1.5 and whatever altitude you're at up to that point (in my experience, usually around 12-13,000 meters for a good ascent profile depending on your thrust). Next, go to the dynamic simulation and try a w value of 1, and see what the graph does. If the amplitude of the sine wave increases from left to right, you've got unstable dynamic lateral stability on the pitch axis there. Test the beta parameter as well - again, with an initial value of 1. Increasing amplitude there means unstable dynamic longitudinal stability. Blowfish's advice applies in either case.

I would also recommend a mod - in my case, I'd suggest Atmosphere Autopilot for its fly-by-wire system. If you're very fortunate, that mod alone may solve any issues you're having with your craft without requiring any redesign.

[Leafbaron]

13 minutes ago, blowfish said:

For starters, there's no reason to necessarily expect that aircraft will behave the same in stock aero as in FAR.  In fact, you should expect to see some major differences, especially in supersonic flight.  FAR aircraft should probably be designed from the ground up in FAR.  Now, I do have some comments on your specific problems:

• Vertical oscillations: probably means you have too much pitch authority.  That and the fact that SAS has its limits.  Note however, that pitch authority can vary with flight condition, so decreasing pitch authority may mean that you don't have enough somewhere else.  You might want to look at mods like Pilot Assistant, which can help smooth some of these things out

 

• Sideslip: probably means you just need a larger vertical stabilizer, or to place it farther from the center of mass (i.e. farther back).

 

4 minutes ago, capi3101 said:

Almost sounds like a Dutch roll situation, except usually the roll axis is the one that starts oscillating instead of pitch...

What is the FAR dynamic simulation telling you for Mach 1.5? To test this, go into the VAB and load up FAR, and get your static numbers for Mach 1.5 and whatever altitude you're at up to that point (in my experience, usually around 12-13,000 meters for a good ascent profile depending on your thrust). Next, go to the dynamic simulation and try a w value of 1, and see what the graph does. If the amplitude of the sine wave increases from left to right, you've got unstable dynamic lateral stability on the pitch axis there. Test the beta parameter as well - again, with an initial value of 1. Increasing amplitude there means unstable dynamic longitudinal stability. Blowfish's advice applies in either case.

I would also recommend a mod - in my case, I'd suggest Atmosphere Autopilot for its fly-by-wire system. If you're very fortunate, that mod alone may solve any issues you're having with your craft without requiring any redesign.

Thank you both for the comments! I will try. I was expecting my planes to fail in FAR and they did, i just don't have the knowledge of FAR to fix the issues and both youre comments have set me in the right direction, much appreciated!

[Flashblade]

7 minutes ago, capi3101 said:

I would also recommend a mod - in my case, I'd suggest Atmosphere Autopilot for its fly-by-wire system. If you're very fortunate, that mod alone may solve any issues you're having with your craft without requiring any redesign.

I couldn't agree more on this, the fly-by-wire is a masterpiece. But may I remind you gentlefolk that this kind of topic is not meant to be discussed here This is exactly why the

was created, to post FAR planes and help people get their planes working in FAR.

 

[Leafbaron]

Thanks @Flashblade will use in the future!

[Tricky14]

Mouse Aim Flight also used to solve my control issues with FAR planes. Just putting it out there.

[Akira_R]

So I am using a mod that must be doing something funky with it's meshes that is causing some wonky voxelization, I know this isn't a FAR problem but I figured some one could tell me what is being done weirdly and then I can pass that info along to the mod author.

Pics:

Spoiler

Link to rest of gallery: http://imgur.com/a/9xrWZ

Basically some parts are showing up as hollow and have next to no cross sectional area.

I am using the latest FAR dev on 1.2.2 and all up to date dependencies.

[blowfish]

That probably means that there are holes in the collider mesh.