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

[etheoma]

I know the current test version is well obviously a test version and is at its very best only meant to work with the base game if that but will the release version be compatible with tweak scales?

[flamerboy67664]

Hey sir Ferram, are you able to take the 0.7.3-0.90 Errordynamics into a new mod? I missed those things.

Cheers, flamerboy67664/SpaceEagle

[BudgetHedgehog]

Hey sir Ferram, are you able to take the 0.7.3-0.90 Errordynamics into a new mod? I missed those things.

Then go play one of pre 1.0 KSPs.

[Juandimix]

Damnit, ever couple hours I look up this post to see if Ferram has relased the update

[StoryMusgrave]

Ferram: Before with oldFAR I was under the impression that node size determined a lot of things. So for drag on say the bottom end of an engine a node there was needed. Am I correct to say that now a node is no longer required with the voxel/nuFAR.

[tetryds]

Ferram: Before with oldFAR I was under the impression that node size determined a lot of things. So for drag on say the bottom end of an engine a node there was needed. Am I correct to say that now a node is no longer required with the voxel/nuFAR.

You are right to say that, but the node size was not used before, it was the cross section.

The node was only to determine if it was facing the airstream without cover or not, which allowed a few exploits.

nuFAR does not need any of that, it does not need anything, it simply picks the shape of whatever you throw at it (half-clipped parts, etc.).

[Guest]

<- climbs out of the burrow: What's happens there? What is nuFAR? It is new unreleased FAR? I used FAR so far

[StoryMusgrave]

Perfect. Thanks!

[Ser]

You are right to say that, but the node size was not used before, it was the cross section.

The node was only to determine if it was facing the airstream without cover or not, which allowed a few exploits.

nuFAR does not need any of that, it does not need anything, it simply picks the shape of whatever you throw at it (half-clipped parts, etc.).

Have serious doubts that it would act well in a perfect-physics fashion. The problem is the developers and part creators don't take into account the fact that such aerodynamic-wise mod exists. So in common most of the parts are aerodynamic disasters and we cannot affect their shape in any way. That's why aerodynamic model gonna need some serious relaxations to be playable. Or we start getting two types of parts soon: nuFAR-angry and nuFAR-friendly ones.

Anyway, FAR is an amazing mod. Can't launch rockets and fly planes without it. Can't play KSP at all.

[StevenRS11]

OH MAN Github commit for the mod compatibility stuff just happened! Its getting closer!

[John FX]

Have serious doubts that it would act well in a perfect-physics fashion. The problem is the developers and part creators don't take into account the fact that such aerodynamic-wise mod exists. So in common most of the parts are aerodynamic disasters and we cannot affect their shape in any way. That's why aerodynamic model gonna need some serious relaxations to be playable. Or we start getting two types of parts soon: nuFAR-angry and nuFAR-friendly ones.

Anyway, FAR is an amazing mod. Can't launch rockets and fly planes without it. Can't play KSP at all.

From what I have read it does not matter. As long as the parts you have are covered by *something* then they will be shielded. It will work on proc fairings, stock fairings, clipped objects or structural panels equally well.

I too can't stand even nu-stock air and I'm holding off trying 1.0 properly until I can use it with FAR.

You hear that Ferram? You have ruined me for anyone else's air, I hope you are happy. I know I am.

Well, I will be when the update drops...

[MiltiTrace]

yea. and then 1.0.1 will come, and poor ferram again must rewrite his code)

seriously, i cannot play without FAR anymore)

[CDRW]

All I know is that my rockets are acting weird without FAR. They're much harder to control.

[Surefoot]

For those who say flying with FAR is easier than stock, that's true for simple stuff, but try orbiting an oddly shaped payload, or re-entry with a heavy vehicle (no to mention tumbles and other mishaps).. For me FAR is actually setting the game in "hardcore realistic" mode, which *seems* easier to anyone at least a bit inclined towards engineering, but is actually much more challenging than the base game. With stock dynamics i built stuff that would go round the whole system in one go after a few hours. With FAR i've spent hundreds hours fooling around with supersonic shapes, wing configurations and so on Really not the same level of challenge.

[ola]

With FAR i've spent hundreds hours fooling around with supersonic shapes, wing configurations and so on

Aka having loads and loads of fun, for hundreds of hours!

[Hodo]

I am glad I just moved my .90 install so I can keep playing. Still not sure what I am going to do though, was planning on going to Jool finally, but not sure I want to bother. I designed an SSTO and everything, even tested it on Kerbin for VTOL landing and take off. But not sure if I want to bother going now.

[Robotengineer]

I am really hyped for NuFAR. With the voxel based aero, will it make more sense to hide landing gear?

[Juncoph]

I am really hyped for NuFAR. With the voxel based aero, will it make more sense to hide landing gear?

i'm also interested in the answer to this... lots of gear bays tend to not look good for high speeds, so...

[Crzyrndm]

will it make more sense to hide landing gear?

Very much so.

Edited May 1, 2015 by Crzyrndm

[DundraL]

So uh.... any idea if the new voxel system will take struts and physics-less parts into effect? If so I will eventually be posting a plane with wings made entirely out of struts...

[blowfish]

So uh.... any idea if the new voxel system will take struts and physics-less parts into effect? If so I will eventually be posting a plane with wings made entirely out of struts...

AFAIK wings are still handled separately. Not sure if struts will count toward the fuselage though.

[Juandimix]

I hope you'll be able to post the update this friday so I can play kerbal the whole weekend

[StevenRS11]

Very much so.

I was playing with the dev version, and let me say this. Don't deploy your landing gear going mach 2 at sea level.

[Gfurst]

FYI, I'm pretty sure stock does count strut for drag, and mostly sure for gears too. Did have some fun with the fixed landing gears, and it wouldn't have any sense to upgrade them if they didn't add to drag.

Also with new voxel, I'm pretty sure too that wings will not be handled separately but instead as the whole body lift thing. Isn't that the point? Anyway if I'm wrong, I just thought I read ferram talk something about not needing specific wing cfg and such.

[blowfish]

Also with new voxel, I'm pretty sure too that wings will not be handled separately but instead as the whole body lift thing. Isn't that the point? Anyway if I'm wrong, I just thought I read ferram talk something about not needing specific wing cfg and such.

Although the current wing model is the legacy oldFAR wing model, I also expect that the voxel approach can be used to calculate wing shapes and provide a much more accurate model of the wings as well as the fuselage.

So for now they're still using wing modules, but that could change in the future.