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

[jrandom]

NathanKell Ahhh, that makes sense.

I just installed the new FAR so I can test out your command pod issue on my end to see if it happens here is well. What is the exact structure you're using to test? Is it a command pod inside fairings that eject to release the craft within?

[Torminator]

I have several duplicate GUI items. I couldn't guess which mod causes it.

Sometimes I'll have 3 or 4 "Show Avionics GUI" or such.

[jrandom]

I get two "isShielded" entries when I right-click on the cockpit of that plane I'm currently flying...

[NathanKell]

Ok. It must be something in the code change from 0.9.5.x to 0.9.6.x (when ferram updated the fairing code) that adds duplicates to command parts. Thanks for proving I'm (my install's) not crazy! (Or we're both crazy together...)

[jrandom]

Nope! Not crazy! I just ejected this little rocket from a Procedural Fairings standard fairing and I get two isShielded entries. One is 'False', the other is 'True'. I completely removed my previous install of F.A.R. before installing the new one, and I just now verified I only have one copy of ModuleManager.dll in the entire GameData/ directory tree. I'm using the .dll that is packaged with F.A.R.

[jrandom]

I just realized the 'True' isShielded might be from Deadly Reentry and the fact the Mk1 has a built-in heat-shield. I'm going to try this with something that doesn't.

[Torminator]

I don't believe DRE uses the "isShielded" tag, but I could be wrong.

My guess, from what I've seen, is that the duplicate doesn't actually affect anything. Have you tried tracking your coefficient of drag during the process?

[jrandom]

Have you tried tracking your coefficient of drag during the process?

I uh... *hangs head in shame*... don't actually know how to interpret the numbers properly.

[NathanKell]

Torminator, the duplicate may not, but the fact that shielded command parts stay shielded does. Command pods have the drag of a well-designed rocket. Going by Cd. And practical tests: Reentry: 1600m/s at 700m....no chute for you!

[jrandom]

Ran some more tests, and it's it's not DE. With fairings and on the launchpad, I get the one true/one false isShielded displays. Without fairings, both are 'False'. With ejected fairings, the two settings retain their initial launch values of 'True' and 'False'. This is with all stock parts aside from Procedural Fairings (when applied).

[Torminator]

I uh... *hangs head in shame*... don't actually know how to interpret the numbers properly.

1 is super draggy. 0 is frictionless.

When I had the aforementioned bug with my intakes, my Cd was .9999999. I could barely move.

[jrandom]

I reverted back to 0.9.6 and checked the stats and the doubled isShielded is still there. I have various other mods installed, though, so I don't know if any of them are conflicted. Is there anyone here on 9.6.0 or 9.6.1 who doesn't have the doubling-up of isShielded?

Edit: I just realized why I never noticed the fairing/shielded problem before: all of my most recent rockets have had the command module placed above the fairings to make it easier to design the abort system: http://imgur.com/a/pAEYP#0

Edited September 5, 2013 by jrandom

[Starwaster]

I'm not currently using FAR so I can't check right now, but has anyone checked the config file(s) actually responsible for adding FAR modules?

[Torminator]

The module manager config only handles the aerodynamics of the stock parts, and I'm not at the point where I can accurately figure out how Ferram's source code flows.

EDIT- however, doing a quick test, even though I have the double gui entries, and both say false, my Cd went up when I popped the fairings, so they seem to be working for me in 9.6

Edited September 5, 2013 by Torminator

[Starwaster]

I reverted back to 0.9.6 and checked the stats and the doubled isShielded is still there. I have various other mods installed, though, so I don't know if any of them are conflicted. Is there anyone here on 9.6.0 or 9.6.1 who doesn't have the doubling-up of isShielded?

Edit: I just realized why I never noticed the fairing/shielded problem before: all of my most recent rockets have had the command module placed above the fairings to make it easier to design the abort system: http://imgur.com/a/pAEYP#0

Wow, loved your story about Dres... I swear I could almost hear the screaming myself.

Dres... attempt no landings there...

[a.g.]

The extra entry is from the FARControlSys object, which for some reason inherits from FARBaseAerodynamics and thus has the field. Fixing it is as simple as adding this to FARControlSys OnStart:

Fields["isShielded"].guiActive = false;

The extra field has no effects other than gui clutter and confusion.

[jrandom]

It's late and I've been trying out mad nearly-unflyable planes, but tomorrow (okay, fine, waaay later today after sleep and work) I'll keep an eye on my Cd value and see if I spot anything that doesn't look right.

[KerbMav]

I too get the displaced CoL - is it just a display error or will the craft use the wrong CoL when launched?

What I also have, is that my action groups forget one half of my plane. I set them up to control intakes and engines - which have been placed with symmetry - but when I pick up the parts, single or just in a portion of the craft, on the runway the action groups only control the original parts and wont control the symmetrically attached parts on the other side.

And: Which parts get "modded" by FAR? I am using the SpaceJunk Cargo Bay, will it get FARs drag and shielding?

[asmi]

What I also have, is that my action groups forget one half of my plane. I set them up to control intakes and engines - which have been placed with symmetry - but when I pick up the parts, single or just in a portion of the craft, on the runway the action groups only control the original parts and wont control the symmetrically attached parts on the other side.

That is editor issue that's been around since introduction of action groups. You'll need to reassign action groups for symmetrical parts every time you detach them.

[KerbMav]

Is it FAR or DR that lets my fuel tank burst when my test rocket makes a 180 to retrograde to slow down at full thrust?

LV-T45 Liquid Fuel Engine

AIES MER-6 Fuel Tank

probe core, SAS, parachute

[Torminator]

Probably Deadly Reentry. I found the G force limits were extremely low for most things. I managed to save a spaceplane from a messy re-entry, but lost my parachutes in the process. I got it under control and literally pulled up 10 meters from the water, flew to a nearby island, came in to land, touched down gently, and hit the brakes. At this point the wheels hit a bump and the G force destroyed the entire vessel. I wish I was joking.

[jrandom]

Is it FAR or DR that lets my fuel tank burst when my test rocket makes a 180 to retrograde to slow down at full thrust?

LV-T45 Liquid Fuel Engine

AIES MER-6 Fuel Tank

probe core, SAS, parachute

That would be DE -- it alters the g-force tolerances. The thrust from the engine at full-throttle with so little weight in front of it means you're getting excessive g-forces.

[KerbMav]

But ... the thrust is the same during ascent ... so ... ?

[Eric S]

But ... the thrust is the same during ascent ... so ... ?

The thrust is the same, but the acceleration is higher because there's less fuel, meaning less mass. Same thrust + less mass = more acceleration.

[Torminator]

Also less Atmosphere. Use mechjeb's "Limit acceleration" function. Set it to about 20m/s^2. That should prevent any sudden unplanned disassembly.