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

[DaMichel]

Hey Ferram4, i'm afraid here are some more bug reports for you.

i) Still some issues with shielding. First move a wing like in the first pic then attach it like in the second. It should be shown as shielded.

ii) The analysis gui sometimes produces errors like

FAR Error: Aerodynamic force = NaN AC Loc = 4.94638487330213 AoA = 0

MAC = 4 B_2 = 5 sweepAngle = 6.12303176911189E-17

MidChordSweep = 0 MidChordSweepSideways = 0

 at B9.Aero.Wing.SH.S.4m(Clone)(Clone)

and

NullReferenceException
  at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.Component:InternalGetTransform ()

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

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

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

and fails to do the plotting. Here are the log and a craft

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i8n42xj6iibtrxl/output_log_FAR.txt

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xz7mkjaprdue99p/FAR%20Fail.craft

[Motokid600]

Well I'll try reinstalling when I get home, but.. how does one install FAR incorrectly? Just drop the folder into the game data, no? Now.. I did remove the configs in the menu in order to disable structural failure. I hit the minus next to each category which removed them from the failure tab. It worked, but idk if it maybe screwed up FAR?

[phoenix_ca]

If you had it installed previously, you should have deleted the FerramAerospaceResearch folder first, then installed the new version. Just overwriting the folder is a bad way to update any mod.

[Motokid600]

If you had it installed previously, you should have deleted the FerramAerospaceResearch folder first, then installed the new version. Just overwriting the folder is a bad way to update any mod.

Oh that's the first thing I do before dropping in the new version. Delete the old. I'm not home yet so I can't test it, but other then poor performance with my rockets what else can I look out for that'll tell me right off the bat that FAR is not working? And again I deleted ( hit the little minus button ) the categories in the failures tab in FAR settings in order to disable failures. Was that the right way to do it? Could that have messed something up?

[ferram4]

@MunMun: Using a Mac? Learn how to merge folders on a Mac, it doesn't do that by default. Unfortunately, You will have to re-install KSP, since you deleted everything in those folders when you overwrote them.

@Motokid600: Deleting all the FARAeroStress categories probably caused everything to break, since I don't believe I'm checking for null there (note to self, add that for people who delete everything). There is a toggle in the debug and cheat menu that first comes up when you click on the FAR settings tab; use that to turn off structural failures.

@DaMichel: For some reason those particular cargo bays have slightly larger included areas in the SPH than they should have. Not sure why, since the code works fine in-game. I also don't know what could be causing that particular error with wing parts, since I've never seen that before, though I did fix an issue similar to that a few versions ago.

[icecubecookie]

Hey ferram i noticed that in the current version v0.13.3, i am unable to set negative AoA in the FAR control and analysis when i'm trying to see my plane's characteristics.

The analysis would change my negative angle to positive (eg. set at lower AoA to -7 degrees, it becomes +7 degrees). No red or orange texts in the debug menu so... =/

Also there is this problem when the analysis is dealing with high AoA (normally at 90 degrees), the only the grid is shown, and is very fine.

The wings and control surfaces used are all stock.

sometimes at 80 degrees AoA and below, the analysis would show up as the fine grid again, but can be fixed (50% of the time) if fuel status is changed from the original analysis with full fuel to empty fuel then back to full.

Thank you for your time on debugging and making this mod awesome =)

Edited May 6, 2014 by icecubecookie
additional bug report

[ferram4]

The current version on GitHub (not the release, the actual GameData folder in the source) has a fix for that, I simply screwed up the regular expression and didn't allow negatives.

The errors at 90 degrees I'll have to look into, it's probably a trig error somewhere.

[DaMichel]

Ferram, i believe you fixed the shielding in the dev version on github. Thanks!

I found the origin of the NaNs. It was the ElectricCharge Resource in the SABER engine! Simple Fix ... (well ok i should use MM for that ...)

    //RESOURCE
    //{
    //    name = ElectricCharge
    //    amount = 0
    //    maxAmount = 0
    //}

But tell me someone, am i missing a B9 fix? I have the ones from B9 KSP 0.23.5.zip but they include nothing about the engines.

[phoenix_ca]

The errors at 90 degrees I'll have to look into, it's probably a trig error somewhere.

Trigonometry? Eugh. You know the math involved in this is pretty heavy. Still. Trig. Ew. Terrible at it, I am. Now, hand me an integral...

I appreciate that it's you swimming in the sea of maths to code this beast.

[Gwincraft]

@ferram - I'm having issues getting FAR to graph anything in the Sweep Mach or Sweep AOA modes. I suspect that this is due to the electric charge NaN issue talked about by NavyFish here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-0-23-5-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-13-3-4-30-14?p=1100336&viewfull=1#post1100336

I have applied the fix talked about here by NathanKell: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-0-23-5-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-13-3-4-30-14?p=1106997&viewfull=1#post1106997

After I did this, I made a brand new craft, but the issues still happens! Obviously, I can fix it by right clicking on the engine in the VAB and setting the electric power to something other than full, but I'd really like this to work as intended.

Any ideas? Also, how do I acquire the output log that seems to be linked so commonly in this thread?

[bludclot]

Though I love the disintegration effect being added, I think it is WAY overkill how it is now. I never stall out get into a spin any more. Everything just disintegrates. I have no problem creating craft that compensate for this but when the settings are this overkill it just takes away all the fun of flying. At least give us an option to adjust it or remove it entirely. I am swapping back to the previous version.

[ferram4]

DaMichel: That is likely due to the fact that the ElectricCharge tweakable is supposed to be solved by a different ModuleManager fix, which is mentioned by Gwincraft.

@Wincraft: I suspect that ModuleManager is not functioning properly; go into your GameData and make sure that you only have one copy of ModuleManager in any of the folders there and see if it works then.

@bludclot: Keep in mind that KSP results in a really messed up sense of scale. There are lots of people who think that 300 m/s is slow (for some reason), and that the aerodynamic forces on a vehicle at those speeds shouldn't cause it to break up. When most vehicles stall, they do so at low dynamic pressures (most real life planes never even get above about Q = 15 kPa), and anything higher generally results in overstressing the airframe before stalling ever occurs. Stalling and spins don't occur at high Q, breakups occur at high Q. Stalls and spins are (for the most part) low Q phenomena.

FWIW, most lanes should fly apart much sooner than they currently do, since FAR doesn't even bother trying to handle flutter.

Oh, and there has been an option to remove it and adjust it. It's been there from the start. Settings menu in the space center scene. What's the point of adding a settings menu if no one ever looks for it?

[softweir]

Maybe they look, but fail to spot where to look. With some people, choosing to put it in just one place is asking for them to miss it - you have to put it everywhere - even if all it does is tell them to go to the Space Center scene.

I know whereof I speak - I used to inhabit the Hell that is Database Development.

[Gwincraft]

@Ferram4

I have one copy of ModuleManager and it is called ModuleManager.2.0.5.dll

Perhaps my copy is broken? Any suggestions for where I should get a new copy of it?

[Motokid600]

I missed the setting to disable failures as well. I ended up deleting everything in the failures tab and screwed the whole mod up . Reinstalled, found the setting, had a big "omg I'm so dumb ITS RIGHT THERE how did I miss it ?!" moment and everything is fine now.

[Starwaster]

@Wincraft: I suspect that ModuleManager is not functioning properly; go into your GameData and make sure that you only have one copy of ModuleManager in any of the folders there and see if it works then.

FYI, since MM version 2.x, there's a definite problem in the election process at least up to version 2.0.8 if not 2.1.0, resulting in node processing failures.

[StevenRS11]

Though I love the disintegration effect being added, I think it is WAY overkill how it is now. I never stall out get into a spin any more. Everything just disintegrates. I have no problem creating craft that compensate for this but when the settings are this overkill it just takes away all the fun of flying. At least give us an option to adjust it or remove it entirely. I am swapping back to the previous version.

Honestly, I think that the disintegration stuff is pretty spot on, in terms of gameplay. Its at a point where I need to be aware of it and at least plan for it, but it doesn't really limit what is ultimately possible. It took me a while, but I make a relatively heavy plane that can pull a continuous 20g loop with Q hovering around 25 kPa and if I'm really careful, pull out of dives up to 28g at 35 kPa. Haven't got it up to 30g yet, but I will.

You can still get into fast spins, too, at high altitude. Its just if you don't recover fast, the denser air tears you to pieces before the ground does. And its nice that I can't do loop-de-loops with rockets anymore. I have launched many rockets with too many boosters that used my patented doughnut maneuver to prevent in-atmosphere overspeed.

And yea, scale gets really lost. Try switching the readout to mph or km/h sometimes, if you are more familiar with those. M/s is generally reserved for projectiles, in my experience, so its tough to get a scale from it. Consider that the strongest recorded windspeed in a hurricane is like 95 m/s, and that can level buildings and toss cars around. My airplanes generally don't even take off until they are going faster than that.

The worst tornadoes, which literally will rip roads off the ground and pulverize them never reach windspeeds over 150 m/s. Could you picture what an F5 class tornado would do to an airplane? It would turn it into scraps of aluminum foil.

Now, imagine what the FAR Hypersonic Demon going Mach 2 at sea level, or ~600 m/s, is dealing with. Twitch once, and it should disintegrate to confetti. Honestly, its fuselage should probably just implode regardless.

[CaelumEtAstra]

I'm a bit unsure how to install...do I copy over the gamedata files (like with any other plugin) or do I have to do some unimaginable thing to my game? BTW, I do have the modulemanager files from another pack so I don't have to worry about that.

[ferram4]

You would want to copy over all the folders in GameData, and you want to make sure that you only have one copy of ModuleManager, which must be version 2.0.x or higher for FAR to function properly. So same as any other plugin that relies on ModuleManager.

[CaelumEtAstra]

So same as any other plugin that relies on ModuleManager.

This is the first plugin I have that uses ModuleManager besides RealChutes (it came with it, but it was optional as far as I know) so that's why i'm unsure. I'm guessing that you have to merge the GameData folders, then put in the ModuleManager files?

[Gwincraft]

FYI, since MM version 2.x, there's a definite problem in the election process at least up to version 2.0.8 if not 2.1.0, resulting in node processing failures.

@Starwaster & @Ferram4

Ok, I've now updated to ModuleManager version 2.1.0 and I'm still having the issue with NaN electrical charge.

I was trying to avoid it, but I've just broken down and done the second fix (modifying the .cfg file for each individual engine) suggested by NathanKill in this post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-0-23-5-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-13-3-4-30-14?p=1106997&viewfull=1#post1106997

This fix has finally seemed to do the trick (Thanks goodness!) Back to building Spaceplanes!

[Playful1510]

I'm not sure if this has been seen before, but I don't have drag indicators when I right click in flight anymore. I am running RSS, RO, and many other mods.

[ferram4]

@Mrsupersonic8: Merging the GameData folders will also bring ModuleManager over. What you want to do is make sure you don't have multiple copies of ModuleManager floating around, since that can cause issues.

@Playful1510: Those are disabled by default now. You can change them through the settings menu in the space center scene.

[Aedile]

@bludclot: Keep in mind that KSP results in a really messed up sense of scale. There are lots of people who think that 300 m/s is slow (for some reason), and that the aerodynamic forces on a vehicle at those speeds shouldn't cause it to break up. When most vehicles stall, they do so at low dynamic pressures (most real life planes never even get above about Q = 15 kPa), and anything higher generally results in overstressing the airframe before stalling ever occurs. Stalling and spins don't occur at high Q, breakups occur at high Q. Stalls and spins are (for the most part) low Q phenomena.

FWIW, most lanes should fly apart much sooner than they currently do, since FAR doesn't even bother trying to handle flutter.

Oh, and there has been an option to remove it and adjust it. It's been there from the start. Settings menu in the space center scene. What's the point of adding a settings menu if no one ever looks for it?

Ha ha, yeah, if only they could also notice that there is an option in flight data to change the speed unit.

[DaMichel]

Ah i see NavyFish had the same issue. Ofc i didn't look at that at the time. Now i just removed the electric charge with a MM config and this works perfectly.

@PART[B9_Engine_SABRE_*]
{
	!RESOURCE[ElectricCharge] {}
}