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

[ss8913]

On 4/29/2018 at 6:45 PM, Loskene said:

I'm wondering this as well, as the only bug I'm having with 1.4 is that the control surface settings window buttons don't work, and I guess this also zeroes the deflection allocations because I have no response from any control surfaces, stock or modded. This is obviously problematic for an aircraft. If I can change one config file and just use the stock buttons for setting pitch, yaw and roll control that'd be great.

that's because the current release of FAR specifically disables all of its functions on 1.4.x.  You can get around that by loading the source code into visual studio 2017 community edition (free), editing CompatibilityChecker.cs, and recompiling against the latest KSP libraries which are part of the standard KSP install.  I posted details on how to do this a few pages ago.

[mumbo jumbo]

is this mod getting the 1.4 treatment 

[willwill2will]

On 4/4/2018 at 9:19 PM, ss8913 said:

If you want to build it yourself with visual studio community 2017, open the solution file in visual studio, edit CompatibilityChecker.cs and change the minor version from 3 to 4, or add an "or" clause... make sure to add the appropriate 64-bit KSP references to *both projects*, set the build type to release, push F6, builds.  copy the resulting .dll files into your appropriate KSP GameData/ locations.  Obviously this explanation requires a bit of knowledge about VS, albeit not that much.

I have done this, but I am getting:

Error CS0246: The type or namespace name 'Vector4d' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) (CS0246) (ferramGraph)

There are 4 such errors, all at usages of 'Vector4d'.

...help?

[ss8913]

Did you open the references dropdown on the right side, and add all the ones that have the yellow ! Icon on them?  They're available in your ksp folder... down a few levels.  Make sure you use the x64 versions.

[Vanamonde]

18 hours ago, mumbo jumbo said:

is this mod getting the 1.4 treatment 

Probably. Ferram's a pretty active guy. Keep in mind, though, that what may seem like expressing appreciation on your part can seem like harassment to a mod maker who gets a lot of these requests. 

[NeonEagle]

@ss8913

I downloaded MVS but then I realized I have no idea what I'm doing.  Would you be willing to send me the file, or is this against the rulleesss?  Thanks

[mumbo jumbo]

i love this mod only problem is that it doesn`t work on the 1.4+ versions pls can you fix this

  

[goldenpsp]

1 hour ago, mumbo jumbo said:

i love this mod only problem is that it doesn`t work on the 1.4+ versions pls can you fix this

  

Did you not even read the reply you got above?  From a moderator?  Here a more straightforward reply.  Pestering a modder for updates is rude  (and yea asking twice on the same page is pestering).

 

 

[Lisias]

Right now, the latest doesn't work on my KSP 1.4.3. On KSP.log I found some exceptions on the 'FixedUpdate" method (well, a lot...) and the planes just don't take off. No lift - but hey, no drag! :-)

Well... I already recompiled some plugins, so why not one more? But then I found this guy that is doing some work on FAR. Don't know him, don't know if it's a "blessed" fork or not - essentially, I'm flying cold in the dark here. =D

The latest from him is 5 days old, what's good. But the thing still doesn't works no 1.4.3, what's bad. =/

Didn't tried on 1.4.2 neither 1.4.1. Perhaps it would work on them.

[ss8913]

You have to modify compatibilitychecker.cs and then recompile. Else it will still actively disable itself.

[Arcanejack]

Encountering a lot of errors with my attempt at ss8913's method for a conversion, I'll fiddle with it a bit tomorrow maybe. Or just wait for an official release.

If anyone has had success with their conversion, I would really appreciate just a simple recording of the conversion to see where I am going wrong.

Edited May 10, 2018 by Arcanejack

[4x4cheesecake]

1 hour ago, Arcanejack said:

Encountering a lot of errors with my attempt at ss8913's method for a conversion, I'll fiddle with it a bit tomorrow maybe. Or just wait for an official release.

If anyone has had success with their conversion, I would really appreciate just a simple recording of the conversion to see where I am going wrong.

I wrote a step-by-step tutorial for mumbo jumbo, you can take a look at it and check if you have missed something. Except for a plain black toolbaricon, I had no obvious errors, but keep in mind that you are all on your own, no warranty that the recompiled mod will not screw your game.

 

[Arcanejack]

12 hours ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

I wrote a step-by-step tutorial for mumbo jumbo, you can take a look at it and check if you have missed something. Except for a plain black toolbaricon, I had no obvious errors, but keep in mind that you are all on your own, no warranty that the recompiled mod will not screw your game.

 

Thanks! Worked like a charm. The icon in the toolbar is just a black box but otherwise it seems to be working just fine!

[Storywalker4]

So, I have a bit of an issue with the compiling. When I added the references in the primary FAR folder it stayed with the warning triangle. It did not do so for ferram graphs. In addition, when I went to check it was in the 3.5 .net framework through application it errored and I had no display. Same for build. I know I'm doing all the previous steps right it's really easy and straightforward. I'm pretty sure it's cause I don't have an activated version of windows, I've had issues with .net framework before.

 

Edit: In addition scale_redist is has a warning triangle on it

Edited May 11, 2018 by Storywalker4

[Lan_Morehell]

On 5/10/2018 at 8:26 AM, 4x4cheesecake said:

I wrote a step-by-step tutorial for mumbo jumbo, you can take a look at it and check if you have missed something. Except for a plain black toolbaricon, I had no obvious errors, but keep in mind that you are all on your own, no warranty that the recompiled mod will not screw your game.

 

Thank you! But could anyone please share the recompiled version for programming cro-magnons? of course with tons of !DANGER! stickers and some disclaimers. I promise to use a space suit while downloading and installing. Also ready to sign any paper for not introducing any law suits in case of catastrophic consequences!

[4x4cheesecake]

11 minutes ago, Lan_Morehell said:

Thank you! But could anyone please share the recompiled version for programming cro-magnons? of course with tons of !DANGER! stickers and some disclaimers. I promise to use a space suit while downloading and installing. Also ready to sign any paper for not introducing any law suits in case of catastrophic consequences!

Roughly a month ago, ss8913 asked for permission to share the recompiled .dll files but didn't get an answer, at least not a public answer. I wouldn't share anything without an OK from @ferram4 either, even though the license allows it. Somewhat a question of respect.

[Lan_Morehell]

34 minutes ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

Roughly a month ago, ss8913 asked for permission to share the recompiled .dll files but didn't get an answer, at least not a public answer. I wouldn't share anything without an OK from @ferram4 either, even though the license allows it. Somewhat a question of respect.

Thats fair enough... Now we have to find out where is @ferram4  His last post was more than month ago

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Lan_Morehell

[Lisias]

57 minutes ago, 4x4cheesecake said:

 Somewhat a question of respect.

Sometimes, you must choose between "respecting" the author, and respecting the users. (please note the quotes).

Once the license allows something, the authorization is already granted. So I don't see "disrespect" on using such authorization.

Publishing recompiled binaries - mainly if the distributor states clearly that it's only a recompiling, and the original author still "owns" the project, should not be seen as disrespectful. Hostile take-over of the project, mainly with the current owner actively maintaining it, is disrespectful.

Forking is encouraged in Open Source - you must remember that when doing it [open source].

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Lisias
better phrasing

[4x4cheesecake]

3 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Forking is encouraged in Open Source - you must remember that when doing it. 

Well, I just got some self-educated knowledge in visual basic to write some tools for myself, so I've never thought about forking any other projects especially when I can barely read the source code. Would be fine for me if I can just upload the dll files (+ modified source code according to the license) but I'm a bit afraid that people expect any support with their issues while using the modified version and I'm absolut not capable to provide any support.

Have to think about it.

[ferram4]

As an answer, the current code is licensed GPL, but several of the icons are not, making the entire distributable ARR. Now, that means that you don't need my permission for the code, but the icons for the debug voxels and the little applauncher thingy would need to be removed if you decide to fork and distribute it. Also, that's then your problem to fix issues in, not mine.

Yeah, I'm working on it, just a little busy with life. I just want to be sure not tremendously terrible happens in some weird edge case I didn't think of yet. If you've got any work towards making sure things work, it's better to make a PR to the FAR repo on github, which helps things along. Easier than duplicating work, and there's always the chance that your code catches an issue that mine doesn't.

[4x4cheesecake]

11 minutes ago, ferram4 said:

Now, that means that you don't need my permission for the code, but the icons for the debug voxels and the little applauncher thingy would need to be removed if you decide to fork and distribute it. Also, that's then your problem to fix issues in, not mine.

Thanks for your answer ferram, it is good to know that the icons are not covered by the GPL. Maybe someone else want to do a 1.4 fork and needs this information, but I'm definitly not going to do this, it's way beyond my capabilities.

[mhcha]

Hello, I have a question

When utilizing FAR, the aerodynamic coefficients of the model ( drag and lift coefficient and so on ) is computed by FAR automatically.  Now I have some drag coefficient data computed by CFD software, and I wonder if it's possible to use these data instead of those provided by FAR, and how can I apply them? 

Thanks advanced if anyone can give a clue. 

[Storywalker4]

EDIT: I didn't download the net workload like a dummy I did it.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Storywalker4

[Temeter]

Question, does FAR realistically reflect how variable sweep wings work? Tried them in stock aero and it didn't do anything but shift my center of gravity.

edit: OMFG, it really damn does. It's amazing, my otherwise clunky standard fighter suddenly lands in <200m, starts with even less, yet with swept back wings it becomes so much faster than before! I think I'm getting an idea as to why pilots loved stuffe like the F-14.

Edited May 13, 2018 by Temeter

[JeeF]

17 hours ago, Temeter said:

Question, does FAR realistically reflect how variable sweep wings work? Tried them in stock aero and it didn't do anything but shift my center of gravity.

edit: OMFG, it really damn does. It's amazing, my otherwise clunky standard fighter suddenly lands in <200m, starts with even less, yet with swept back wings it becomes so much faster than before! I think I'm getting an idea as to why pilots loved stuffe like the F-14.

The F-14 is a work of art, my favorite aircraft of all times.

The very first flight simulator I've tried was Top Gun: Fire at Will, with my good old Logitech Wingman Extreme.

That was a proper game, great simulation aspect for the time, loads of missions and replayability. Sadly the remake of the game was a total joke.

I'll be trying to make a F-14 in KSP as soon as FAR gets released for 1.4, since a lot of mods I find a must-have are dependent on it.

Did you use Infernal Robotics for the sweeping motion of the wings?