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

[Traches]

Haha nursing a hangover now; sorry to everyone who has to scroll past that on the way to relevance.

Surefoot, you haven't made a point, you've just restated your definition without giving logic behind it. How can you experience acceleration without changing velocity?

Google "gravity definition". The entire first page of results all say something to the effect of "Gravity is the force of attraction between 2 masses."

egreSS,, you're absolutely right haha. I won't touch that.

[Surefoot]

Surefoot, you haven't made a point, you've just restated your definition without giving logic behind it. How can you experience acceleration without changing velocity?

Mind blowing isnt it, that's what gravity is. Submits all bodies with a mass to its acceleration, within its field of reach of course. Food for thought, try to think why gravity is also in m/s^2, or why the state of weightlessness aboard an orbiting ship is called "microgravity" One other way to present it: you are aboard an orbiting ship, engines are off - you are weightless (tell me why), and then you ignite the engines, which produce a force, which is applied to the mass of the ship, which results in an acceleration: tell me what happens to all bodies INSIDE the ship (for example, a sitting astronaut)... And as a conclusion, explain to me how a sitting astronaut aboard that accelerating ship (say, accelerating at 9.8m/s^2) is any different from us sitting geeks in front of their computers, apart from the obvious awesomeness of being in space ?

Really, bring that very question to science forum because i dont want to pollute Ferram's thread with irrelevant discussion (what would be relevant is talking about aerodynamics).

Edited November 23, 2013 by Surefoot

[Camacha]

Surefoot, you haven't made a point, you've just restated your definition without giving logic behind it. How can you experience acceleration without changing velocity?

Because there is a second force that balances the first one out (the chair). Hence, no velocity change.

[Traches]

Alright y'all, I'm letting this one go. Should have several posts ago. Ferram, sorry for clogging up your thread!

[Bobhendly]

It's his dry CoM. There's a wonderful, magnificent, delicious, compelling and uncannily attractive mod called "RCS fuel balancer" that will tell you not only where your center of mass is with both full and empty tanks of various types, but will tell you how much torque you'll experience about your CoM due to the force from your engines or RCS thrusters.

Where has this been all my life!?

[Reign Of Magic]

I have a question.

When I start up ksp after getting the latest version of FAR, it says module manager is out of date. If I download the latest version of module manager it also says it is out of date. But the remote tech module manager doesn't come up with any such warning. What am I doing wrong?

[mhoram]

Currently I am asked to extend my Payload Fraction Challenge by a FAR category.

Since I am a total beginner with FAR, as I just played around a bit, I have a few questions about this AddOn.

Does FAR V0.10 depend besides ModulelManager on any other AddOn?

Does the VAB, SPH or in-flight controls change the FAR-physics?

I assume that the answer to both questions is no, but I would appreciate a confirmation.

[KerbMav]

Only MM is needed to change some aerodynamic parts such as control surfaces to work with far.

Is your second question missing a "with" (FAR-phyisics)? Then no(t really), but FAR comes with optional SAS-like support controlling aerodynamic surfaces to help steering (which is overridden when activating stock SAS).

[ferram4]

@Reign OfMagic: Then you must be using Kerbal Updater, and this is an issue more suited to its thread rather than this one. Odds are that you're either keeping multiple copies of ModuleManager floating around somewhere (which you shouldn't be doing) or that you just installed FAR and that Kerbal Updater is attempting to make sense of it.

@mhoram: No, FAR doesn't depend on anything other than Module Manager, which is packaged with FAR.

No, nothing you can change in the VAB, SPH or in-flight changes the physics; the upcoming version will allow some changes in physics through a config.xml though, mostly to allow for more realistic parameters for RSS while keeping the less-accurate but more stability enhancing higher drag values for stock KSP.

[mhoram]

Thanks for the fast and detailled responses!

Edit: I extended the Payload Fraction Challenge by a new category for FAR.

Edit: ... and require V0.11 for entries

Edited November 24, 2013 by mhoram

[Surefoot]

We need more FAR challenges

[ferram4]

Version 0.11 is out, changelog below:

0.11v------------------------------------
Features:
Cylinder crossflow drag is now more accurately modeled; cylinders make less drag when the crossflow Mach number is below the critical Mach number (M = 0.4)
More updates and fixes to Editor GUI and Center of Lift indicator
Reduced stability of command pods and reentering objects to more reasonable levels; lifting reentries are now easier to manage, but sane mass distributions are required for proper stability
Optimizations in all constantly-running code and some reductions in memory usage

Update to use ModuleManager 1.5, by sarbian
Some attach node corrections for stock parts that had incorrect attach sizes, causing poor drag modeling

Ability to modify some aerodynamic properties in the config.xml, including:
	--Area Factor: a multiplier to increase or decrease aerodynamic forces; 1 by default
	--Attach Node Diameter Factor: how many meters in diameter an attach node size applies to; 1.25 by default
	--Incompressible Rear Attach Drag: the drag coefficient of a rear-facing attach node at Mach 0
	--Sonic Additional Rear Attach Drag: additional drag above incompressible at Mach 1

Includes set up for Kerbal Updater

BugFixes:
Fixed an issue where cargo bays that started closed would not properly shield parts unless it was opened, then closed

[Camacha]

When I use the AIES pack, are the engines automatically nerfed towards FAR standards or do I need to do that myself?

Nice, an update!

[ferram4]

Only stock jet engines are nerfed. Anything else is left alone.

[NathanKell]

FAR only changes jets, not rockets. What "FAR standards"?

Ferram: awesome! What's the recommended Rear Attach values for RSS?

[ferram4]

I sent updated config values to MedievalNerd when he asked about including FAR in a pack with RO and all the other RSS thingies, so he has that data as well.

You can figure out the diameter factor, obviously. Incompressible should be set to 0.01, sonic to 0.2.

[NathanKell]

Yeah, diameter was obvs.

Thanks!

[Motokid600]

Hm. Not sure what I did, but as of today my SAS seems to be acting as if its .19 It hard locks onto the heading. The aggressiveness is nice, but it makes ascents a pain. I cant find a setting anywhere. Is there a key I hit perhaps? When I first installed FAR the SAS was fine.

[ferram4]

SAS has always hard locked onto a heading. Perhaps you've been using rockets that SAS is better at being aggressive with.

[jyoumon]

maybe you guys can help me out here, apparently after installing FAR, every single rocket i build has this MASSIVE amount of horizontal (or maybe its angular) lift that just completely throws my rocket off course as soon as it hits anything over 50m/s....is there something i need to change?

[ferram4]

First, tall, thin rockets, not pancake-asparagus things that have lots of dV but no aerodynamic ability.

Second, small changes in angle of attack; letting your attitude drift outside of the prograde circle can cause problems. No sudden 45 degree pitch-over maneuvers.

Third, make sure that your payload is of similar density to your rocket if you're not using fins; this includes empty space. A mostly empty payload fairing will shift the aerodynamic forces further forward on the rocket while not shifting the mass that far forward, so the rocket will become unstable. If you must launch something like that, use fins at the bottom of the rocket to counteract it.

Fourth, don't have a crazy TWR. TWR over 1.6 is generally bad enough; if you're the type of person that starts with a TWR of 3 (yes, I have seen that in screenshots) you will have a very bad time.

Fifth, consider posting pictures if you're stumped after reading this; there are a lot of people here who will be willing to help if we have something specific to critique and work with.

[Hodo]

Fourth, don't have a crazy TWR. TWR over 1.6 is generally bad enough; if you're the type of person that starts with a TWR of 3 (yes, I have seen that in screenshots) you will have a very bad time.

.

I chuckled at this part. Because I have a space plane that has a TWR in atmosphere of 3.5:1. But it has no wings and is a lifting body design.

[mhoram]

Currently I am asked to extend my Payload Fraction Challenge by a FAR category.

I have an additional question.

Are there any issues with FAR, that are considered imbalanced, that I should be aware of?

I want to make the challenge fair and would like to prevent abuse of such imbalances.

[stevron]

I have no FAR window during flight, like at all. It's in the VAB but there is no FAR window or minimized button when in actual game. Was something changed that I've missed or is my mod borked?

EDIT. LOL I'm a f*&^ing moron, ignore what I just said.

Edited November 24, 2013 by stevron

[Surefoot]

Are there any issues with FAR, that are considered imbalanced, that I should be aware of?

If you mean exploits, none that i am aware of.

You just have to know that it changes the game quite radically, as launching big payloads becomes a lot more difficult, but small payloads is easier as long as you keep a reasonable ascent profile. Also re-entry changes totally and becomes a death trap if your vehicle is not aerodynamically stable. In short, easy small stuff becomes easier, planes now behave as they should, rockets too, so for people aware of the rules of aerodynamics it's easier, for people just used to the stock game it's a lot more difficult.

One consequence is payload fairings become a must have, there is no real way around them for many payloads, so that means installing another mod at least (proc fairings), also stock game lacks a lot of aerodynamic parts which are in turn provided by B9 for example (i suspect that B9 might become stock though..) or those procedural wings which are another must have with FAR.