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

[ferram4]

I went and changed some things, and when version 0.12.4 comes out body lift will be more viable than it is currently. I did some math and it turns out that body lift at low angles of attack isn't quite high enough, so I'm boosting it back up a bit; pure structural part lifting bodies won't be quite as effective, but one with a pair of tiny wings attached should be doable. Pure structural part lifting bodies will need some thrust behind them to counteract the large amount of drag on them (which is what kills them now), but with tiny wings a glider will be possible.

Other than that, the solution to making a lifting body is always to just go faster. At high enough speeds, even barn doors make significant amounts of lift.

Also, I think I narrowed down and squished the "supersonic roll twitch" bug. So that's something nice.

[Donziboy2]

I went and changed some things, and when version 0.12.4 comes out body lift will be more viable than it is currently. I did some math and it turns out that body lift at low angles of attack isn't quite high enough, so I'm boosting it back up a bit; pure structural part lifting bodies won't be quite as effective, but one with a pair of tiny wings attached should be doable. Pure structural part lifting bodies will need some thrust behind them to counteract the large amount of drag on them (which is what kills them now), but with tiny wings a glider will be possible.

Other than that, the solution to making a lifting body is always to just go faster. At high enough speeds, even barn doors make significant amounts of lift.

Also, I think I narrowed down and squished the "supersonic roll twitch" bug. So that's something nice.

I look forward to testing it:)

[landeTLS]

I went and changed some things, and when version 0.12.4 comes out body lift will be more viable than it is currently. I did some math and it turns out that body lift at low angles of attack isn't quite high enough, so I'm boosting it back up a bit; pure structural part lifting bodies won't be quite as effective, but one with a pair of tiny wings attached should be doable. Pure structural part lifting bodies will need some thrust behind them to counteract the large amount of drag on them (which is what kills them now), but with tiny wings a glider will be possible.

Other than that, the solution to making a lifting body is always to just go faster. At high enough speeds, even barn doors make significant amounts of lift.

Also, I think I narrowed down and squished the "supersonic roll twitch" bug. So that's something nice.

Ooo. Cant wait!

[jrandom]

At high enough speeds, even barn doors make significant amounts of lift.

These are words to live by. In fact, I don't think I've ever heard any other sentence which sums up the entire spirit of Kerbal in so few words.

Also, I think I narrowed down and squished the "supersonic roll twitch" bug. So that's something nice.

This is happy, happy news!

Edited December 23, 2013 by jrandom

[luckyhendrix]

Hi I've build this thing, The data seems to tell me it should be stable, and start of launch is OK , but a soon as I hit Mach 0.4 everything goes crazy, and the plane flips upside down what could cause this ?

[Short Circuit]

So, I don't know what's going on here, but I have the following mods installed:

Kethane

Interstellar

SafeChute

Enhanced Navball

Atmospheric Sound Enhancement

Docking Port Alignment

Kerbal Alarm Clock

KErbal Joint reinforcement

Visual enhancements

And these all work fine and dandy, but as soon as I install FAR, it breaks the tech tree in career mode, and as soon as I remove FAR, the tech tree works again.

[Camacha]

Aye, that's what I'd like. Being able to set a few degrees of trim in the SPH/VAB would be real nice.

Well, can't you? It is a but crude, but by rotating the control surfaces you can pre-trim them. Having Editor Extensions might help.

[jrandom]

Also, I think I narrowed down and squished the "supersonic roll twitch" bug. So that's something nice.

So glad that was fixable! Looking forward to the next release I am!

[ferram4]

@luckyhendrix: I need more information, and probably a picture of the vehicle before I can diagnose what's going on. And what do you mean by "everything goes crazy?" Does the plane become unstable in pitch and flip out? Does it sideslip until it crashes? Does it dance on the runway and then crash out?

@Short Circuit: Make sure you don't have multiple copies of ModuleManager floating around, since that might cause an issue, but other than that, I don't know if I can help you. FAR doesn't touch anything near the tech tree, so it's something else causing the screw up. Especially since I have my own career mode working perfectly fine.

All of your other mods are up to date, correct? What versions are they? Can you provide an entire output_log.txt (from KSP_Data; don't post KSP.log, it's useless, and don't cut it short; people who do that tend to leave out important information in the process) from when you managed to cause the issue?

I suspect that all of the other mods aren't actually working "fine and dandy" but are just appearing to, and adding FAR simply exacerbates an existing issue in your install.

Oh, and for everyone who likes lifting bodies:

It's actually quite good looking except for the cockpit-fueltank-engine tumor on it's back, set up that way so no thrust angles downward. But it flies quite nicely with wings only to add stability and produce a pitch-up tendency. So lifting bodies shall return, if not in the crazy form they were previously.

[Brian Wiens]

I hate to complain because this mod is by far the most useful mod I have ever used in my two years of playing KSP. I understand that you did away with the "Control Surfaces" menu in favor of tweakables. This is fine and dandy but I can't get a precise deflection number for my flaps, elevators, and rudders using the tweakables because it doesn't use whole numbers. Now I end up with flaps that deflect at 44.95 degrees instead of 45 degrees. Is there a way to make the tweakable bar only change by whole numbers or would it be possible to see this in the new update?

[ferram4]

That's getting tweaked in the next release. You'll be able to set them in half-degree increments instead of the current mess.

[Brian Wiens]

Thank the gods. When is the next release bound to drop upon us?

[ferram4]

As soon as I am sure that the current changes haven't broken anything. Got a few trips to nullspace while testing the lifting body changes.

[Donziboy2]

As soon as I am sure that the current changes haven't broken anything. Got a few trips to nullspace while testing the lifting body changes.

I can test it for you, it cant be any worse then the current stuff I have(I considered going back to stock flight for about 0.1 second then thought better).... Im actually considering lifting bodies and just tossing wings lol.

[NQMT]

Hey ferram4,

I just want to thank you for allowing FAR to be used in the Formula K plugin pack. It'll make it a lot more challenging, but a lot more fun.

[big bear]

I had a problem with specifically loading the game up ._. Here is my output log. EVERYTHING LOADED, JUST NOT THESE THINGS, can you help with this? Thanks

TypeLoadException: Could not load type 'UI_Toggle' from assembly 'FerramAerospaceResearch'.
  at (wrapper managed-to-native) System.MonoCustomAttrs:GetCustomAttributesInternal (System.Reflection.ICustomAttributeProvider,System.Type,bool)

  at System.MonoCustomAttrs.GetCustomAttributesBase (ICustomAttributeProvider obj, System.Type attributeType) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at System.MonoCustomAttrs.GetCustomAttributes (ICustomAttributeProvider obj, System.Type attributeType, Boolean inherit) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at System.Reflection.MonoField.GetCustomAttributes (System.Type attributeType, Boolean inherit) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at BaseFieldList.CreateList (System.Type type, System.Object instance) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at BaseFieldList..ctor (UnityEngine.Component host) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at PartModule.ModularSetup () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at PartModule.Awake () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 
UnityEngine.GameObject:Internal_AddComponentWithType(Type)
UnityEngine.GameObject:AddComponent(Type)
Part:AddModule(String)
Part:AddModule(ConfigNode)
PartLoader:ParsePart(UrlConfig, ConfigNode)
:MoveNext()

(Filename:  Line: -1)

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at PartModule.Load (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at Part.AddModule (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at PartLoader.ParsePart (.UrlConfig urlConfig, .ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at PartLoader+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

(Filename:  Line: -1)

Fast Sine Curve Initialized

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/7535de4ca26c26ac/Runtime/ExportGenerated/StandalonePlayer/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 54)

FAR Raycast mask: 557059 557063

(Filename: C:/BuildAgent/work/7535de4ca26c26ac/Runtime/ExportGenerated/StandalonePlayer/UnityEngineDebug.cpp Line: 54)

NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
  at ferram4.FARControllableSurface.UpdateEvents () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

  at ferram4.FARControllableSurface.OnStart (StartState state) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 

[ferram4]

Why are you trying to make FAR 0.12+ work with KSP 0.22? It isn't compatible with that version of KSP due to the new tweakbles system; you'll have to use the mediafire mirror to download v0.11 if you're unwilling to upgrade to KSP 0.23.

[big bear]

Woops ._. My bad I didnt look good did I.. XD Im sorry, uhm can you link me to that please?

[ferram4]

First post; the link that says "older versions"

[Camacha]

Hey ferram4,

the Formula K plugin pack

What is this?

[ferram4]

An expansion of this challenge so that they can attempt to do rover racing without dealing with infinigliding nonsense. I specified some terms, they agreed, we'll see how it goes.

[DaMichel]

More lifting body fun with 0.12.3 while testing some custom mod parts

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Unfortunately, it launched vertically and has no landing gear nor parachutes. Poor Bob

[jrandom]

Ferram, is the image in the post shown below displaying correct CoL behavior, or is using swept-back procedural wings with FAR not a good idea at this juncture?

Example CoL w/ Procedural Wings, swept-back design

[ferram4]

@DaMichel: Those will fly much better once I get the v0.12.4 update out. It looks cool, but needs a nice texture to really look good awesome. Nice work.

@jrandom: I don't see a FAR icon on his screen, so I'm assuming he's not using FAR and this is an effect of stock aerodynamics. I think the stock winglet code applies forces at the part origin, so there's nothing to be done in his case.

[Zyglrox]

Ferram, what does ctrlSurfTimeConstant actually do?

I installed FAR recently and got that issue when enabling SAS on a plane enters "epilepsy mode". According to some posts in this thread, it's because SAS expects instant deflection of control surfaces (which is not the case in FAR) and overshoots, then corrects itself, over and over. You wrote:

Besides that, I've reduced the default time constant for control surfaces, so they should deflect a little faster and cause less trouble for the SAS. I've also exposed the parameter in the config, so it can be modded back to the original 0.1s if desired (or larger for hard-mode), or it can be dropped to a crazy 0.00001s if you need absolute instant deflection with all the instant stalling that will come with it; a good thing all around.

I tried to fix this behavior:

Reducing ctrlSurfTimeConstant to 0.00001 or 0 doesn't help at all.

Reducing "Control Maxi" on control surfaces to 3-4 degrees helps a little, but makes the plane much harder to control.

However, INCREASING ctrlSurfTimeConstant seems to fix the epilepsy. 0.5 works for most planes, 1 (and slightly decreased "Control Maxi" on surfaces) is required for light, less stable aircraft. And it doesn't look like "hard mode" - no shaking, less stall, and my controls behave like fine controls.

So, just curious, what does this parameter do? Because "1" certainly doesn't look like 1s deflection delay at all.