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

[ferram4]

And, FAR version 0.15, "Euler" is now out, containing all the voxel-aero updates that I've been working on. Changelog is extensive and crazy.

Thanks to everyone who has helped with testing, especially tetryds, NathanKell, awang, and probably some other people who I've forgotten. Also thanks to stupid_chris for the RealChuteLite implementation to do break all dependence on stock parachute modules, and a last-minute addition by mjn33 to make some GUI stuff behave better.

There are two things that I think that should be acknowledged right off the bat: 1) the wing code is still legacy old-FAR wing code. This is simply because I haven't had the time or the inspiration on how to pull wing shape data from the voxel model, so I'd rather have the new stuff out now rather than wait for several months bashing my head against the wall. 2) All the engines have been given a 1.5x boost to gimballing range, because flying a rocket with a wide payload fairing through Mach 1 is rather tough. This isn't applied for Realism Overhaul (whenever that comes back) but will be for all other setups because, frankly, it's kinda necessary.

As a final thing, since apparently this describes a significant vocal portion of my userbase, I've added a nice little "throw ferram money" link in the first post. It doesn't entitle you to anything, but it's nice.

Alright, now try not to break everything immediately, alright?

Edited May 8, 2015 by ferram4
typo

[blowfish]

As a final thing, since apparently this describes a significant vocal portion of my userbase, I've added a nice little "throw ferram money" link in the first post. It doesn't entitle you to anything, but it's nice.

It should be this . But anyway, amazing work as always.

[Hodo]

So yeah.... Ferram4. I think I speak for everyone here.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh and by the Ferram4, thanks to your advice I did get a delta-wing that works quite well, I decided to go with a "cranked" delta design that works surprisingly well, I know it has a lot of wing area but it is a test craft for now.

Now I am working on other things to expand from this and to improve. I have been doing a lot of reading on real delta wing designs, the hows and whys of some designs and trying to integrate them into the NuFAR.

And will the NuFAR take into account changing the sweep angle of the wing in flight? Like the Su-17 or the F-14?

[ferram4]

The wing code will account for it right now. The voxel though will need to get an event from IR; it'll need to send an event to each child part on the deflecting part in order to update the geometry.

[UnusualAttitude]

Simply outstanding. KSP with FAR is the most entertaining and educational experience I have enjoyed from a computer game to date. Thank you.

[Veskenapper]

As a final thing, since apparently this describes a significant vocal portion of my userbase, I've added a nice little "throw ferram money" link in the first post. It doesn't entitle you to anything, but it's nice.

You're a magical wizard doing magical things on a stone-age laptop. Here's to hoping people will chip in and try to remedy that XD

[Praetorian]

Stock KSP isn't what I play this game for, it's all about FAR, thank you for everything

[biohazard15]

Couple of questions...

1) The old "way less dV to orbit" issue - is it still there when compared to 1.0 stock aero?

2) Pre-1.0 FAR wasn't very fond of small lifting body planes (like Spiral or Dreamchaser); in fact, it did not like anything with small wings, making un-assisted landings pretty hard due to increased landing speed. What about now?

[Hodo]

The wing code will account for it right now. The voxel though will need to get an event from IR; it'll need to send an event to each child part on the deflecting part in order to update the geometry.

Ok I will hold off on those designs for a bit.

[Ziw]

The wing code will account for it right now. The voxel though will need to get an event from IR; it'll need to send an event to each child part on the deflecting part in order to update the geometry.

Where can I read about the API? I can add this functionality to IR, just need some docs.

[ferram4]

This doesn't technically work through the API. Instead, what you want to do is to call part.SendMessage("UpdateShapeWithAnims") on the animating part and all its children, and that should do the trick. Rate limit sending it though, or else you'll lag everything out.

[bossbrigand]

The wing code will account for it right now. The voxel though will need to get an event from IR; it'll need to send an event to each child part on the deflecting part in order to update the geometry.

Is this why this contraption won't fly? It's using IR rotatrons to turn the blades, and it just sits and spins. FAR flight data window says it's generating 500 kN of lift but it's not going anywhere.

Edited May 8, 2015 by bossbrigand

[ferram4]

That's probably because it weighs more than 50 tonnes. If the window says it's producing 500 kN of lift, it'll lift if it's under 500 kN of weight, alright.

Edited May 8, 2015 by ferram4

[bossbrigand]

That'd be it. It was 38 tons before I put the shrouds on and it totally slipped my mind to check. Turns out the shrouds are somehow almost 20 tons each.

e: Well, after pulling the shrouds off and going to test-fly, we're still sitting on the ground while pushing now 800 kN, weighing only 41 tons, even with assistance from jet engines intended for use as attitude control.

Each engine is pushing 500 kN of its own as well.

Edited May 8, 2015 by bossbrigand

[stupid_chris]

Just a note to everybody here:

The parachute implementation in nuFAR is effectively all my work. Ferram did nothing more than give me a collaborator access and told me to get loose. This means that reporting this kind of bug to him is going to be pretty pointless and a tiring experience. I'm going to try to take a look at this thread as often as I can, but I can't guarantee anything. If you believe you found a real bug in the parachutes, I invite you to PM me all the needed information, and I'll take a look at it.

[BigNose]

I just donated 7$, it isn't much but all I had handily available

This is amazing!!

[Camacha]

Looks like the voxels are showing and working, though whenever trying to select a pre-built FAR craft in the SPH KSP tells me the craft are not for this version of KSP. It there something I did wrong? Selecting a KSP stock craft and flying it works (and subsequently does not work when you actually try and fly it, but that is no fault of FAR ).

Again, many thanks Ferram, it is truly stunning what you pulled off here.

There are two things that I think that should be acknowledged right off the bat: 1) the wing code is still legacy old-FAR wing code. This is simply because I haven't had the time or the inspiration on how to pull wing shape data from the voxel model, so I'd rather have the new stuff out now rather than wait for several months bashing my head against the wall.

Does that mean that wings will need actual working wing shapes in the future?

[ferram4]

And it is actually only 41 tonnes? This is what it says in the flight info thing in mapview?

If that doesn't fix it, kick it off the ground and then see if it works. Maybe it's the sticky pad bug. Maybe it's tweakscale messing with the mass of the parts that you think are low mass.

[Hodo]

That'd be it. It was 38 tons before I put the shrouds on and it totally slipped my mind to check. Turns out the shrouds are somehow almost 20 tons each.

e: Well, after pulling the shrouds off and going to test-fly, we're still sitting on the ground while pushing now 800 kN, weighing only 41 tons, even with assistance from jet engines intended for use as attitude control.

http://i.imgur.com/Lxiwpyy.png

I can tell you exactly why it isn't getting off the ground.

You have the VTOL attitude adjustment mod, which is for VTOLs in flight. It kills the engine power of the craft in Vertical mode to keep it level. So if you looked at each engine you would find that it actually cutting the available power back a good bit keeping the available power below the 410kn to get the craft off the ground.

I know because I had the same problem last version with a VTOL I was working on with that TCA mod.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Awwwwwwwww yeah, lovely FARy goodness. Have a pizza on me, ferram

[bossbrigand]

I can tell you exactly why it isn't getting off the ground.

You have the VTOL attitude adjustment mod, which is for VTOLs in flight. It kills the engine power of the craft in Vertical mode to keep it level. So if you looked at each engine you would find that it actually cutting the available power back a good bit keeping the available power below the 410kn to get the craft off the ground.

I know because I had the same problem last version with a VTOL I was working on with that TCA mod.

Well, TCA isn't messing with the IR rotatrons that turn the main fans, and those alone should theoretically be enough to lift it, since, combined, they're producing a total of 500-800 kN on their own. The jets are there for attitude control, but are each producing 500 kN themselves. We should have a total of 1500 kN of lift, but we're not moving. The engineer in the hangar says it's 41 tons, but apparently he's lying because...

And it is actually only 41 tonnes? This is what it says in the flight info thing in mapview?

If that doesn't fix it, kick it off the ground and then see if it works. Maybe it's the sticky pad bug. Maybe it's tweakscale messing with the mass of the parts that you think are low mass.

... it didn't even occur to me that the actual mass could be different from what the engineer says. I just assumed TweakScale adjusted the mass in the hangar. That's what I get for trying to throw together a helicarrier on what's basically the first time I've started KSP in 2015. The map view says it's 413.52 tons, and that would explain our lack of flight. Back to the drawing board.

[DSM20T]

Thank you Ferram!

[conklech]

the wing code is still legacy old-FAR wing code. This is simply because I haven't had the time or the inspiration on how to pull wing shape data from the voxel model

This has been talked about on and off throughout the development of nuFAR, but I've never quite grasped what this means. Are the aerodynamic effects of "wing" parts calculated differently than the aerodynamic effects of, say, tank parts? Is a "wing" different from an ordinary rectangular part? And in particular, does building a fuselage/fairing out of (perhaps clipped) wing parts have unexpected side-effects?

I'm excited to start my first nuFAR designs this afternoon!

[ferram4]

Yes, because wing parts have to account for the fact that the sharp trailing edge at the back of the wing forces the flow to separate right there, which is what actually creates the flowfield that produces large amounts of lift on a subsonic wing. Supersonic wings are a little easier, but if the trailing edge is swept back enough the same trailing-edge effects need to be accounted for. For now, wing parts are different from ordinary rectangular parts unless they are flat against something or used as a structural piece to enclose, say, a fairing. In that case, the legacy wing code is shut off.

[rabzoue59]

thank for your patience folks and your work.