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

[steve_v]

Nobody likes a backseat hacker. While the settings page being broken is a valid bug, "you're doing it all wrong" isn't going to fly here without some impressive math and proof-of-concept code.

Your extraordinary claim that FAR is somehow fundamentally broken and doomed to imminent extinction requires extraordinary evidence, otherwise it is just noise.

If you really don't like how it works, FAR is GPL. Fork it, fix it, and prove your case.

Edited June 10, 2015 by steve_v

[Solar71]

@Solar71 maybe you can't help it but you have a very aggressive posting style that really doesn't help matters at all. Why do you keep harping on how ferram is unwilling to fix things? He answered you that it would be fixed by removing the feature because it is not being used as intended.

Ok I'll try to write in a less aggressive style.

Can I ask you a question then?

Lets say I want to tweak something regarding physics.

Lets assume I have nu FAR installed again.

Can I tweak some of the values in the ksp physics.cfg file? Not the nu FAR files, but

the original 1.0.2 ksp physics.cfg?

Does nu FAR look at that file at all? Or is that file only for stock physics?

Because I could just manipulate a few lines in that file easily. Like maybe the drag exponent value.

Or would doing that, not have any effect on nu FAR?

thanks in advance.

Ps: I'm just trying to make ksp require a bit more delta V to achieve a given speed and or orbit.

also I'm trying make ksp generate more friction heat. Not only for reentry, but for all friction.

I already have reentry heat set to 2.5. But I still don't always need heat shielding. I want to ALWAYS need a heat shield during reentry.

thanks again

[ferram4]

Solar, do you realize that I have been asking you for constructive criticism? All you've been doing is insisting that it, "feels wrong" and making assertions that your way of using incorrect numbers will somehow make things more realistic. I've been asking you for you to cite the data, theories, and models that you've used to make this assertion, but you've given me nothing.

Look, I get it. You think that if you declare your assertions to be "constructive criticism" that you'll instantly get what you want. But the fact of the matter is, it won't. You have not provided any information that would bring the mod closer to its goal of realistic aerodynamics. You have not explained why the USAF Stability and Control DATCOM methods that it has implemented are horribly inaccurate, nor why they would be more accurate by using incorrect numbers. All you've done is act as if your subjective feelings are somehow more realistic than the models used in the preliminary design and evaluation of aircraft and missile designs.

And you did get the answer you wanted. From me. About how it wasn't working, that it was a bug, and that because of that, I was simply going to remove the feature because it wasn't working. That instead, you would have to manually edit the config files and everything would work.

Of course, that was unacceptable for some reason. Why, I don't know. Maybe because in the same post I asked why you wanted air to have the viscosity of engine oil?

You know what I'd like to see? A user that was a complete and total jackass, actually did talk about how inaccurate FAR was, all the errors it made, and bad-mouthed me in the process, but then actually cited some damn data, theories or models to back it up. That would be a breath of fresh air compared to the "constructive" criticism that I normally get to hear. Seriously guys, have good data, you get to be a rude jackass and get more consideration than everyone else. The moderators won't like it, but I don't particularly care so much as the smack-talk involves valuable info.

So Solar, you wanna step up? Have some data and theory to go with your criticism? You know that you can't keep saying someone doesn't accept constructive criticism when they're asking you to back up what you're saying and prove that it fits the scope of the mod, right?

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm just trying to make ksp require a bit more delta V to achieve a given speed and or orbit.

also I'm trying make ksp generate more friction heat. Not only for reentry, but for all friction.

I already have reentry heat set to 2.5. But I still don't always need heat shielding. I want to ALWAYS need a heat shield during reentry.

I would suggest you look into planet resizing mods, increasing the size of Kerbin produces both a greater dV-to-orbit requirement as well as faster, longer, hotter reentries.

[Schmonzo]

also I'm trying make ksp generate more friction heat. Not only for reentry, but for all friction.

I already have reentry heat set to 2.5. But I still don't always need heat shielding. I want to ALWAYS need a heat shield during reentry.

How about using deadlyreentry with ferram? I feel like heatshields are needed in that constellation.

Apart from that I would like to thank ferram4 for his mod and all the time he invested in it so we can play with proper (there I said it Solar, ferrams aero is awesome) aerodynamics. I have used it for since it came out pretty much and am not playing without it since and eventhough it keeps on getting better, I always had the feeling that it gave me a rewarding challenge in comparison to stock aerodynamics.

[Solar71]

I would suggest you look into planet resizing mods, increasing the size of Kerbin produces both a greater dV-to-orbit requirement as well as faster, longer, hotter reentries.

AHA!!! something constructive. Thank you.

So there is a nice mod to make it harder to get out, into orbit?

is it possible to make kerbin the size of earth?

also. Would you happen to know the names of such a mod?

or maybe I should just simply search for ksp mods planet resizing?

ps: would you happen to know if I were to edit the ksp file physics.cfg with unFar installed, would that change at all the flight characteristics of nuFar? Or does nuFar ignore that file?

thanks again.

- - - Updated - - -

How about using deadlyreentry with ferram? I feel like heatshields are needed in that constellation.

Apart from that I would like to thank ferram4 for his mod and all the time he invested in it so we can play with proper (there I said it Solar, ferrams aero is awesome) aerodynamics. I have used it for since it came out pretty much and am not playing without it since and eventhough it keeps on getting better, I always had the feeling that it gave me a rewarding challenge in comparison to stock aerodynamics.

Lol. Thank you for the tip.

The mods name is Deadly reentry? I will look that up.

Ps: in my earlier post I said that I very much liked Far. I never ever said is was bad.

I was just reporting that a feature wasn't working. And that I wanted to change some of the physics characteristics.

But some people took offense to that. I still don't think Far is perfect. But with a little bit of tweaking I would be very happy with it. In fact it was while trying to tweak a few numbers in Far that I discovered said bug. It was just a menu that allows you to change the viscosity of atmosphere. Once I made the changes, it would work perfectly as I wanted it to, for a short time, then it would revert itself eventfully. That was all I was reporting. Next thing I know. It's world war three in here.

[Red Iron Crown]

Real Solar System, there are configs for solar systems ranging from realistic size down to 1/10th stock, the 6.4x resize seems to be a good fit for stock KSP parts. Not sure how well it's working on 1.0.x, though.

I can't really speak to what values in physics.cfg FAR ignores (ferram or someone else more familiar with the code could say more). I would be surprised if any of the aero ones are still relevant though, FAR basically supplants the stock aero system entirely.

[Solar71]

Solar, do you realize that I have been asking you for constructive criticism? All you've been doing is insisting that it, "feels wrong" and making assertions that your way of using incorrect numbers will somehow make things more realistic. I've been asking you for you to cite the data, theories, and models that you've used to make this assertion, but you've given me nothing.

Look, I get it. You think that if you declare your assertions to be "constructive criticism" that you'll instantly get what you want. But the fact of the matter is, it won't. You have not provided any information that would bring the mod closer to its goal of realistic aerodynamics. You have not explained why the USAF Stability and Control DATCOM methods that it has implemented are horribly inaccurate, nor why they would be more accurate by using incorrect numbers. All you've done is act as if your subjective feelings are somehow more realistic than the models used in the preliminary design and evaluation of aircraft and missile designs.

And you did get the answer you wanted. From me. About how it wasn't working, that it was a bug, and that because of that, I was simply going to remove the feature because it wasn't working. That instead, you would have to manually edit the config files and everything would work.

Of course, that was unacceptable for some reason. Why, I don't know. Maybe because in the same post I asked why you wanted air to have the viscosity of engine oil?

You know what I'd like to see? A user that was a complete and total jackass, actually did talk about how inaccurate FAR was, all the errors it made, and bad-mouthed me in the process, but then actually cited some damn data, theories or models to back it up. That would be a breath of fresh air compared to the "constructive" criticism that I normally get to hear. Seriously guys, have good data, you get to be a rude jackass and get more consideration than everyone else. The moderators won't like it, but I don't particularly care so much as the smack-talk involves valuable info.

So Solar, you wanna step up? Have some data and theory to go with your criticism? You know that you can't keep saying someone doesn't accept constructive criticism when they're asking you to back up what you're saying and prove that it fits the scope of the mod, right?

no no, I did edit the Far cfg files. And sometimes it would work for a short period. Then it would revert back to stock.

I would then go and look inside the Far cfg file. And my changes were still there. But In the game ksp, Far would revert back to its original numbers. That's why I was so confused. That's why I came in here.

So I deleted far and reinstalled it, made a few changes to the cfg file, then it would work again. For about a day. Next day I wake up. Try to play ksp. Far is back to stock. It's an intermittent problem. It works, then it reverts. Sometimes after hours. Sometimes after a day. Even with the cfg file edited.

Thats why I came in here, report this bug.

the fact that I don't think Far does physics totally accurately is actually, a mute point.

I just want to change Far physics to make it feel more realistic, TO ME...

i don't mind if you disagree with me.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Solar71

[Whovian]

You might also want to look at SKY; can confirm that it works in 1.0.

[Solar71]

Real Solar System, there are configs for solar systems ranging from realistic size down to 1/10th stock, the 6.4x resize seems to be a good fit for stock KSP parts. Not sure how well it's working on 1.0.x, though.

I can't really speak to what values in physics.cfg FAR ignores (ferram or someone else more familiar with the code could say more). I would be surprised if any of the aero ones are still relevant though, FAR basically supplants the stock aero system entirely.

Thank you very much. REAL solar system sounds like something I would like.

Also, yeah, I kind of suspected Far would ignore most or all of the physics cfg file.

I was just wanting to make sure. Wishful thinking I guess.

Thanks again

[Streetwind]

Planet resizings aren't currently working well at all, because the RSS plugin is dead (or something to that effect). Everyone was looking at Kopernicus instead, as far as I'm aware. Kopernicus did release a new version a few days ago, so maybe we'll see resizing make a comeback soon. Paul Kingtiger did mention in his K2 dev thread that there was little elft to finish besides getting the Kopernicus update.

I too am hoping that this turns out to be true because I've personally been eager to play with doubled planet sizes. I think that plus FAR probably will hit a sweet spot for me.

EDIT: Ah, apparently SKY updated? Neat, will have a look at it later.

[ferram4]

Solar, FAR always loads what's in the config files. It can't not load what's in the config files; you must have edited the wrong config or edited the config while the game was running (which would not cause things to update). This is especially true if you edited the base config rather than the custom config, because then it wouldn't have anything to overwrite it with.

Also, wrt "it's more realistic TO ME:"

[jrandom]

Its literally impossible for a home PC to do this at 30 fps +

LITTERALLY IMPOSSIBLE!!!

So according to you, realistic flight simulators don't exist. Boy, that's going to come as a shock to the developers of X-Plane and other programs that are so realistic in their aerodynamics you can actually get legally instrument-rated in certain planes with them.

[Kitspace]

Ferram!

There is a lot of people in this community including myself who do respect you and absolutely love your mod!

I really like the mod and think that what it does for the game is awesome!

[Kitspace]

By the way.

What is the blue line on the transonic design overlay graph in the new dev build?

[jrandom]

I like this mod so much I donated real actual cash money. Keep fighting the good fight, Ferram!

I think a lot of people who complain about the behavior of FAR are getting hit by the Reality is Unrealistic trope.

[Jovus]

Indeed. :%s/realistic/plausible/g

[Mipe]

I reject your realism and substitute it with an approximation.

[theend3r]

I hope this clearifies things for you.

Good day.

It did, in the most... enlightening... way possible.

I haven't laughed like this for quite a while.

[damerell]

infinite numbers of finite forces, turbulence, to be calculated. Its literally impossible for a home PC to do this at 30 fps +

I suspect it's quite tricky for any computer to calculate an infinite number of things at all, but what do I know?

[salsathegeek]

Just wanted to chip in my two cents here. I've never taken any classes on aerodynamics or fluid dynamics, but I have taken classes on Physics, I have a computer science degree, and I do web development for a living. I've also had friends that were taking classes dealing with dynamic systems. Let me just say, I would never have tried doing what Ferram has done, and I give him massive kudos for it. I've heard that solving problems in dynamic systems is a a bear, and I know how even a simple script can drive you mad trying to debug it.

As for what Solar is saying, there's an acronym I think you might want to look into, GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out.) From what I've seen of the "conversation" between you and ferram, I think you may need to look at brushing up on your physics, or maybe even actually talk to a pilot. Planes can slip, slide, and move around a lot during flight, look at examples of the X-31 flying around to see the more extreme things that can happen. Beyond that, though, this is a game. FAR may not be 100% accurate, but neither is any other simulation program out there. It can't because of the limitations of translating an analog system into a digital one. You simply can't achieve that kind of fidelity. It is, however, accurate enough to be fun, and that's what matters, to be honest. If you're having trouble getting things to fly or whatever, look at what's going wrong with the design first. More than likely, you'll see something you hadn't considered.

Again, just wanted to say Thanks to Ferram for both FAR and KJR. And to Solar, lighten up dude. It's just a game, and if things bother you that badly, download unity and crack open some C# tutorials. Trust me, you'll probably walk away with a new appreciation for the guys who code things like KSP and FAR.

[Abdu]

hello guys i'm having a bug that make my ship explode when warping at 1000x i tried clean install just using FAR and still happened i don't know if this was already known or not, just trying to help.

[DaMichel]

Playing devils advocate again, it is totally legit however to change some settings to make the game more enjoyable for yourself.

But increasing the viscosity of air by three order of magnitude and saying it feels more realistic, is going to raise an eyebrow. Sure subjectively it may feel better but Ferram4 cannot please everyones subjective feelings. The goal is to make FAR as realistic as possible according to hard real world measured data.

[Bakase]

hello guys i'm having a bug that make my ship explode when warping at 1000x i tried clean install just using FAR and still happened i don't know if this was already known or not, just trying to help.

Are you sure this is to do with FAR? You can't warp at 1000x in atmosphere, and FAR shouldn't be affecting anything in space!

[FireFaced]

Are you sure this is to do with FAR? You can't warp at 1000x in atmosphere, and FAR shouldn't be affecting anything in space!

Unless he/she's using BetterTimeWarp, but I guess he/she said he/she isn't

- - - Updated - - -

Seems like FAR is giving up on life. On win32, and there seems to be no aerodynamics-ish. Parachutes still work, but drag does not exist aside from that.