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

[ferram4]

No reason why it shouldn't; in the end, they both work through the same system.

[Nori]

Does it work with 0.24.2?

[brusura]

Anyone want to help me fix this plane? While flying straight it has "roll tremors" O_o

KSP 0.25 FAR v0.14.2 ( stock ) https://www.dropbox.com/s/24d4u2cumojve2m/Dagger%20Mk1.craft?dl=0

EDIT: Ok I thnk I got it, at least so far no more sudden bank on the left or right, I had overlapped two new "Elevon 4" in the tail.... overlapped control surfaces bad , somehow even if they were only set for pitch, induced some unexpected consequence °_°

Edited October 7, 2014 by brusura

[Climberfx]

Hello Ferram4, the update to .25 is not working for me. It loads, the icons and menus too work, but it remove the lift factor of all parts.

Is there a fix already?

I'm on a Mac.

[brusura]

I think it is intentional Climberfx from what I can read in the changelog:

Removed vector from CoL indicator to reduce confusion

[Climberfx]

Thanks brusura. I don't link the lift with CoL.

I got confused, because in the SPH the CoL have no Upper Arrow anymore, and that is the vector of CoL. Not the description that i miss in the part (Lift, like we have for Heat, fuel, battery, etc)

You are right, is working fine

Edit 1:

Must be something i am missing here, but for all that surface wing i have, the speed i put in was 40 m/s on ion, 2 of 3 tanks of xenon are empty to be lighter, and all sort of try and error i did not been able to make this thing fly.

It pitch up, but the only thing it really did is slow down the inevitable floor touch again, this on the declive on end of runway.

What an i doing wrong? I don't think in real life such wing area and 40 m/s won't be enough in a super light eight soar.

Old ship that worked on stock physics:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xqgfgfuussfoph8/Delta%20Soar.craft?dl=0

Delta Soar by Climberfx, on Flickr

The changes i made to try put this thing up and didn't work:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xu7xrwlzn383j41/Delta%20Soar%20FAR.craft?dl=0

screenshot39 by Climberfx, on Flickr

Edited October 7, 2014 by Climberfx

[Grunf911]

Alright, v0.14.2 is up, with a ton of new features and 0.25 compatibility.

As a note, FAR will now disable itself on win64 due to the previous stability issues that have only worsened with the 0.25 update.

Ferram, would it rather be possible to have a pop-up that would say that 0.25x64 is not supported, use at your own risk, but not disable it.

FAR is actually one of the plugins I would like to include in the x64 Stability testing, and this basically does not allow that.

Why disable functionality, when you can just put disclaimer, stating: Use at your own risk ?

[NathanKell]

Because that's what we tried in .24.2, and nobody read the warnings.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Maybe put in big red letters that cover up half of all FAR GUIs something like 'DO NOT REPORT ANY BUGS FROM FAR WHILE USING X64'

[KerbMav]

Hm, then maybe disable it by default and let the more rational users have a switch in a config file?

[Guest]

Hm, then maybe disable it by default and let the more rational users have a switch in a config file?

Why go through all that trouble programming when you can simply check OS version and disable if needed? Basically this is because people don't read and heed.

[Tortoise]

Thanks for the update, FAR is mandatory for me in KSP

The first mod I ever install after I download an update.

[SSSPutnik]

Just launched the new KSP 0.25 version. Found I needed to upgrade FAR. So I quit, nuked the whole folder and installed the latest.

Just curious - why does the new space plane parts (cockpit) show 0 for drag value in the parts list?

Also: The new cargo bays say 0 items shielded when I put parts in them.

Any tips/assistance appreciated.

Edited October 8, 2014 by SSSPutnik

[Climberfx]

No one help me... (is that possible no one read what i write above?)

[Juncoph]

No one help me... (is that possible no one read what i write above?)

Getting no response happened to me twice when I asked about winglets. To answer your question, though, (and this is from my personal experience, I don't know if it was just a matter of me misunderstanding issues or if I actually got it right-- it'd be nice if ferram4 happened to see this and gave us an in-depth answer as he usually does)

Wings generally don't get as much lift in FAR as they do in stock KSP, and I *think* that this is because of stock KSP using a basic speed-based exponent for multiplying the lift value of a wing. Also, you are only working with 2 thrust... the fact that it works in stock KSP is a miracle in itself. Try mounting a couple extra engines in the wings.

My guess is that you're not getting the desired lift that you need to not fall out of the sky like a rock, pulling up and stalling. So.. improving your thrust-to-weight ratio via more engines is exactly why I suggested that. Again, though, this is experience speaking. Not actual knowledge on how FAR works, or why that powered glider works in stock KSP.

[ferram4]

@SSPutnik: Because that's the stock drag parameters that are shut off because the cockpit originally had some crazy stock winglet thing that made no sense. So it's gone, and the cockpit and all the other mk2 parts are treated just like any of the other ones.

@Climberfx: The problem is that you need a higher AoA for your wings to work better. I'd actually advise getting rid of the sweep on he wings if you're going to try and take off at 40 m/s so that you have a better L/D at high lift coefficients. Put the wing on with some angle of attack built in, and get rid of all the weight that you don't absolutely need.

[Climberfx]

The version i put in that post above was with 4 or 6 ion engines. I manage to lift off with 10 ion and that big wing on the post, but if stall after take off and got filled with solar panels, just getting out of purpose.

The thing i have in question here, is that a soar or an ultra light plane can take of with 120km/s to 140 km/s in real life (or less). More and less 35 m/s.

Here it only take off above 180 km/s at least. (50 m/s).

This is the absurd. My point is "Well, lets have a more realistic system that calculate area, etc, etc, etc", but forget the little and light crafts that don't fly, and in other side reward space planes and overkill speeds.

I just think that need some extra effort on balance.

Without it, i prefer to go back to stock alike, because i don't think this is more realistic than that.

My comment here is not to provoke or to yell with Modders that i love so much.

My point is, try to consider this extreme uses of your mod to get little ones like me too. Englobe everyone, no only the majority.

FAR is with us a long time and time enough to go far (Go far with FAR, rsrsrrsrsr).

In the past i put a similar point to the creator.

But thank you by your help Juncoph.

I still gonna try to use it some more, seen if i can get used with.

Cheers

[Climberfx]

...

@Climberfx: The problem is that you need a higher AoA for your wings to work better. I'd actually advise getting rid of the sweep on he wings if you're going to try and take off at 40 m/s so that you have a better L/D at high lift coefficients. Put the wing on with some angle of attack built in, and get rid of all the weight that you don't absolutely need.

Thank you Ferram4. Don't be mad with my comments. Is only my humble point of view. And i am new again to far (because i use it a long time ago), so need some tryout's and experience. And you Help helps.

What you type make sense, but i don't understand 100% of it. going to more digging here. The things i cold rid of was out there already.

Gonna try that angled wing and without the sweep.

Cheers

Edited October 8, 2014 by Climberfx

[Teutooni]

Here I was afraid I would have to wait for a couple of days before the mods get updated to the new version. Or even worse, play with stock aerodynamics! *shudders*

You, sir Ferram, are awesome!

[Voculus]

Alright, v0.14.2 is up, with a ton of new features and 0.25 compatibility.

As a note, FAR will now disable itself on win64 due to the previous stability issues that have only worsened with the 0.25 update.

Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!

[NathanKell]

Climberfx: the problem is it's *not* a light craft. It's not a sailplane, it's a spaceplane, with a multi-ton fuselage and heavy wings. Suggestion: open the FAR dialog, go to the stability derivatives page, click calculate. That will give you reference area (wing area). Now, take the craft's mass in tons, divide by the wing area, and multiply by 1000, and you'll get kg/m^2 wing loading. Now compare that to some actual sailplanes.

And that's not even accounting for sweep and for aspect ratio; sailplanes, as ferram mentioned, have very long, narrow, unswept wings. That's best for slow speeds.

[Climberfx]

Thanks NathanKell and Ferram4. That plane (i called a soar, but in that terms isn't anymore) was abandoned.

Going back to abandon ion with far. At least to planes. The ratio power/weight won't work.

But still using far for now.

Thank you again.

[NathanKell]

Climber: here's an ion glider I built just before .25 (shown in .25). Note that with the changes current FAR makes to wing mass, it doesn't work as well as it used to. Ferram, you really need to make it tweakable...

(The ion engine is hidden by the gear; it's attached via a cubic strut to the back of the xenon tank, below the fuselage.)

[Camacha]

Alright, v0.14.2 is up, with a ton of new features and 0.25 compatibility.

As a note, FAR will now disable itself on win64 due to the previous stability issues that have only worsened with the 0.25 update.

I am glad I picked that up before I installed FAR. Guess I am going back to x86.

[Climberfx]

Ferram4 and NathanKell. For sure.

Ion got un fly able. After some digging and listening what you two say to me, here what i did. Is basically wing and 4 ions, one xenon and some structure parts. Plus 3 gears and the amount solar panels needed to sustain 100% power on almost top sun.

Can't take off. non. Niente. Nada. And got the plane i don't like anymore. (Ugly)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited October 8, 2014 by Climberfx