[0.90]NEAR: A Simpler Aerodynamics Model v1.3.1 12/16/14

[Creat]

I have a general question regarding compatibility of other mods, and KW Rocketry in particular. Should mod authors handle the fact that FAR is installed (with MM configs à la :FOR[NEAR]) or are you including these in your package, at least for well known mods?

I'm mainly asking because the new 2.6( version of KW is out for and it contains fins now, I assume I need to modify the configs (they even look quite different in the part view). Having taken a look at NEAR.cfg it seems you only adjust stock parts and the adjustment is non-trivial. Then again the NEARPartClassification seems to suggest that there is already at least some special treatment for anything with a 'ModuleControlSurface'. So, are there any formulas or hints as to how to convert values intended for the stock model? I assume ctrlSurfFrac is equivalent to ctrlSurfaceArea and maxdelect to ctrlSurfaceRange, can any reasonably general formula even be given for the rest?

[NathanKell]

NEAR needs the same level of cfg-making FAR does: all wings and control surfaces need the appropriate module with the appropriately-calculated stats added. The part classification is for stress damage of parts, which is disabled in NEAR anyway.

[PeteroDactilus]

So, I tried this mod, I put a mk1 command pod, an Rt10 booster, launched, and my apoapsis is like 105, Is that right?

[camlost]

Renegade: you've convinced me it's time for someone to make SJE. I can't right now, but I will in a week or so if no one has by then.

Well I'm not totally convinced. I think the main reason for NEAR is that many people complaining FAR being too hard/too complicated, which is not the case in the AJE thread. SJE seems a good idea, but we should discuss the math model first. I never studied aerospace engineering that's why I copied from NASA in the first place

[Prismatech]

What must i make that my parachutes (realchute) correct funktionel . Must i make a cfg for realchute ? must i open at higher athmos?

Edited July 22, 2014 by Prismatech

[KerbMav]

From the RealChute thread:

Q: Is this FAR compatible?

A: It should be without problem now, but the graphics might not show the right values concerning drag coefficient.

I am not sure if you would need more parachutes than without FAR, but with FAR the vessel itself has less drag, so maybe yes.

[Renegrade]

By the way Ferram - I'm not entirely convinced there isn't some big change in drag going on. I've moved back to FAR, and I'm still getting very fast planes, and comparisons with the same designs in previous versions of FAR. They're slightly slower than the NEAR versions of the same, but only by a little..

Well I'm not totally convinced. I think the main reason for NEAR is that many people complaining FAR being too hard/too complicated, which is not the case in the AJE thread. SJE seems a good idea, but we should discuss the math model first. I never studied aerospace engineering that's why I copied from NASA in the first place

Actually, a quick question about that -- how computationally expensive is AJE? I was interested in it previously but KSP isn't exactly framerate-happy to begin with. Part of me poking around in NEAR is the potential decreased computational complexity...

That, and often very simple approximations are all that's needed to give the 'look and feel' of the real thing...

I am not sure if you would need more parachutes than without FAR, but with FAR the vessel itself has less drag, so maybe yes.

I think FAR/NEAR both still use stock code for parachutes... there does seem to be an exception in FAR's default config for "RealChuteModule" ...

[Porkjet]

I'm having a blast with this mod! It's just the right balance between fun and realism. Thank you for this.

[TheReaper]

so about my previous problem the planes i saved BEFORE installed Far has CoL on very weird places. the planes i make and save after works just fine, the planes ive remade from the saves before the install also works fine. i love this, somewhat legimate aerodynamics without the punishing features of Far, great for a wuss like me!

[biohazard15]

Having great times with this mod. It made rocket design fun again! Especially when you're trying to design it to fly with Mechjeb.

Also, a question: where can I find delta-v map for NEAR?

[Renegrade]

Having great times with this mod. It made rocket design fun again! Especially when you're trying to design it to fly with Mechjeb.

Also, a question: where can I find delta-v map for NEAR?

delta-v costs are the same on any airless world, and anywhere in orbit. Worlds with air will depend heavily on how sleek your craft is, so you can't really have a firm map of that.. Ditto with aerobraking.. that now depends on your craft a lot too.

That is one of the oddities of the stock drag model. Your coefficient of drag in stock is basically 0.2 regardless of how well or how poorly you made your rocket (unless it's entirely made out of parachutes and RCS quads or such), so for any air-based situation, a single calculation can suit ANY rocket at any angle of attack..

That being said, I think the general consensus is that for an average, non-crazy rocket, it's roughly ~3500 dv to reach Kerbin orbit (I personally budget 3800 and have yet to come up short in any case)..

[Black-Talon]

Ferram, I don't know why anyone is in doubt about players learning how to handle aerodynamic principles of planes and rockets. This guy is clearly demonstrating how Kerbal Space Program allowed him to "learn." Pretty hilarious!

http://youtu.be/l2pJM1xAALM

[tygoo7]

I'm having a blast with this mod! It's just the right balance between fun and realism. Thank you for this.

My thoughts exactly!

[biohazard15]

NEAR mod installed. Payload - test parts (two Rockomax engines, decoupler and stack separator to test them in 90 km orbit. Weights slightly less than 10 tons).

On the payload's tip is a test weight fron NRAP mod, 10 ton.

Rocket itself is KW parts, rated for 30 tons to LKO, start TWR 1.7 (tweaked), MJ is set according to this.

Thing is, this rocket with this particular payload will tip over without NRAP counterweight. With it in place, it flies perfectly stable. Nothing can correct that - it just too bottom-heavy.

Now, I am:

- completely fine with this

- do not want to design new rocket for each payload (trying to role-play here)

- do not want to launch several rockets (I'm not Rockefeller, you know)

- NRAP is good, but it's not inline - there is only one node at the bottom, which means I need to attach it on very top. Not every payload would allow me that

Is there any mods that can provide counterweights in various (preferably tweakable) sizes and attachments?

[tygoo7]

Do parts with FAR configs work with this? The KSO has them for example.

[Woodstar]

Ferram, I don't know why anyone is in doubt about players learning how to handle aerodynamic principles of planes and rockets. This guy is clearly demonstrating how Kerbal Space Program allowed him to "learn." Pretty hilarious!

http://youtu.be/l2pJM1xAALM

You ever get the feeling that somewhere Scott Manley is judging you? <----- EPIC!

[shifty803]

The new version of KSP seems to have broken this and a few other mods. Or at least you get the incompatible message when starting up.

[Creat]

For those who didn't see, it's been updated for 0.24.1

[CaelumEtAstra]

Sorry if i'm being dense, but where's the changelog? I like knowing if there has been a major change or not seeing as this is a newish mod.

[Quiana]

The title itself lists what version it is, as well as the date the change was made. Ferram's very good about ensuring that the dates and versions are listed. It may not have a change history/record (which is likely in a txt file inside the download) but it will at least be easy to spot that when you're used to looking for it. It's nice seeing more modders ensuring that date stamp is on there as well, as sometimes it is difficult to tell the difference between a version change.

[OwDoge]

Sorry if i'm being dense, but where's the changelog? I like knowing if there has been a major change or not seeing as this is a newish mod.

Check the Github release link, it has somewhat of a change log.

[Creat]

Sorry if i'm being dense, but where's the changelog? I like knowing if there has been a major change or not seeing as this is a newish mod.

When you click the download link to Kerbalstuff, there's a sort of 'Tab' conveniently labelled 'Changelog' roughly in the middle of the screen (above the description). Copy-Pasta below for convenience.

Changelog for v1.1, compiled for KSP 0.24.1

Tweaks:

• Reduced thrust of turbojet and RAPIER to be more appropriate for NEAR
  
• Added tweaks to reduce thrust of all airbreathing engines
  

Bugfixes:

• Fixed issue with payload fairing and cargo bay modules not being added to vehicles in flight
  
• Fixed issue with pre-defined NEAR modules having a reference area of 0
  

[CaelumEtAstra]

Thanks everyone! Now its time crash...I mean...fly some spaceplanes!

Edited July 25, 2014 by Mrsupersonic8
dat grammar tho. Also discount caps lock.

[Baleur]

0.24.2 has broken a ....ton of mods too

[tygoo7]

0.24.2 has broken a ....ton of mods too

My mods that I had installed in 0.24 didn't break for me in 0.24.2 as far as I know. I still get an incompatible message but I just close that.