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

[AbhChallenger]

IMO, that's out of the scope for an aerodynamics mod. FAR does have some very simple stability systems, but those were cut from what would become NEAR after user feedback was basically, "NO GUIS!" for a FAR-lite kind of thing.

Even so, no amount of control system can save a poorly-designed vehicle, and that's where most of the problems come from. Too much TWR. Too severe a turn. Not enough restraint.

If you've built something good, I suspect MJ should be able to handle it. I've used it for launches in RSS so I don't have to wait for everything to finish, it works good enough, though I'm not the best MJ guru out there.

Saddening to hear of the hate for a GUI. Oh well. For now I will likely just wait on KSP 0.91 and what it will bring for aerodynamics and how the various control mods will adapt. Thank you for your time.

[AetherGoddess]

Saddening to hear of the hate for a GUI. Oh well. For now I will likely just wait on KSP 0.91 and what it will bring for aerodynamics and how the various control mods will adapt. Thank you for your time.

use FAR, plenty of GUIs over there.

[Alshain]

Yeah if you want NEAR with a GUI, download FAR and disable aerodynamic dissembly. It's nearly the same thing. (Pun intended )

[Shania_L]

The key isn't to chase terminal velocity, the key is to go as fast as you can without losing control; going slower in the atmosphere reduces the chances of losing control.

Wait... what?

So if I can get a rocket stable at 600 m/sec off the pad then its better than throttling back to maintain 200m/sec till the atmosphere thins?

Truth be told I generally build rockets with a calculated pad TTW of around 1.5 to 1.8, (solids can bork this) I run full thrust until I hit around 200m/sec then throttle to maintain a TTW of around 1.1 until I break through 30km altitute roughly when I hit the throttles to the stops and try to claw enough orbital velocity before gravity does a number on me.

Are you saying I would do better designing closer to TTW of 2, and just Jebbing the throttles from the get-go? if I can get it to stay pointing skywards then all the better, if not then there is always revert flight?

[Mystique]

Yeah if you want NEAR with a GUI, download FAR and disable aerodynamic dissembly. It's nearly the same thing. (Pun intended )

Doesn't NEAR have that cool feature? Yesterday I lost my wings when turned my "figher" jet too sharply. Tried to land it using canards and drag chute, but, well, no luck =\

Wait... what?

So if I can get a rocket stable at 600 m/sec off the pad then its better than throttling back to maintain 200m/sec till the atmosphere thins?

Truth be told I generally build rockets with a calculated pad TTW of around 1.5 to 1.8, (solids can bork this) I run full thrust until I hit around 200m/sec then throttle to maintain a TTW of around 1.1 until I break through 30km altitute roughly when I hit the throttles to the stops and try to claw enough orbital velocity before gravity does a number on me.

Are you saying I would do better designing closer to TTW of 2, and just Jebbing the throttles from the get-go? if I can get it to stay pointing skywards then all the better, if not then there is always revert flight?

I usually build with starting TWR around 1.3 (I don't like it less than this - lift-off is quite slow and heavier rockets may get unstable during that slowest phase of ascent and/or hit launch clamps) with final TWR for 1st stage (either SRB or LFE) 1.8-2.5 depending on design, usually more for SRB and less for LFE. After I reach about 1 km altitude and about 60-100 m/s speed (the higher TWR is, the earlier I may start) I start gravity turn by making pitch 85-80 degrees.

Then, depending on how rocket will behave: if prograde marker stays stable, i.e. rocket is going up steadily and vertical speed is increasing fast, I continue turn by keeping rocket's not around lower edge of prograde marker until I reach ~30 km altitude, then I turn much faster until reaching pitch of ~0 degrees; If I see that rocket for some reason tends to keep turning towards the ground even though I don't ask it to do so, i.e. if prograde marker starts falling down faster than pitch, I keep pitch above prograde marker, but better not exceeding 10 degrees angle of attack (otherwise there is a risk of flipping). 2nd case is worse, because you'll be flying at an angle and fighting gravity while also losing fuel, but if thing don't go FUBAR, I'm making it to 80-100 km orbit with much less than standard 4500 km/s delta-v.

[Sakata]

Is there a way to get the GUI to work in NEAR? I'm tempted to run the somewhat cheaty FAR-no-spontaneous-disassembly trick to get them back. It's difficult figuring out what the heck is wrong with a craft without it aside from moving tons of parts around and seeing if it works. Is far with aerodynamic failure literally the same as NEAR? Bit confused on that. FAR seems to indeed be a bit much, but NEAR without a GUI is... meh. Heck Stock without a GUI is meh for that matter.

Also I had one other question. With cargo bays, does FAR/NEAR 'care' which side is facing 'up'? I wanted to make an SSTO with a cargo bay inverted so it would deploy downwards, but when I do that, the stability is crazy weird.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Sakata

[AetherGoddess]

Is there a way to get the GUI to work in NEAR? I'm tempted to run the somewhat cheaty FAR-no-spontaneous-disassembly trick to get them back. It's difficult figuring out what the heck is wrong with a craft without it aside from moving tons of parts around and seeing if it works. Is far with aerodynamic failure literally the same as NEAR? Bit confused on that. FAR seems to indeed be a bit much, but NEAR without a GUI is... meh. Heck Stock without a GUI is meh for that matter.

Also I had one other question. With cargo bays, does FAR/NEAR 'care' which side is facing 'up'? I wanted to make an SSTO with a cargo bay inverted so it would deploy downwards, but when I do that, the stability is crazy weird.

the problem with the GUI is that it's designed for all the complexities of FAR, like Mach effects, compression effects, etc. most of those things are not in near, so the GUI would give you bad answers.

[NathanKell]

People asked for something like FAR "without that complicated, confusing GUI." Ferram delivered exactly what people asked.

[Pokletu]

Yeah, I uploaded the wrong dll. Somehow. O_o Should be fixed.

Hey Ferram,

I've been trying for 2 days to get a download that doesn't have a problem with .25. Somebody says they got it, but the 2 locations I know to download from both have the same problem.

Just to make sure: all I have to do is copy your GameData folder into the Kerbal Space Program folder, right?

I've now downloaded the latest version of NEAR 4 times, and none of them get along with .25. Is the wrong DLL still in there? Can you check? Sorry if I'm an idiot. Thanks a lot.

[ferram4]

@Shania_L: Yeah, pretty much. For FAR (which has Mach effects that will increase drag a bit), the terminal velocity of a fully-loaded rocket is ~900 m/s at SL. You are going to lose control long before you reach those speeds, so stop worrying about terminal velocity. That people think about it at all is one of the worse effects of the stock model.

@Mystique: No, NEAR doesn't have aerodynamic failures explicitly coded in like FAR does, they just come about as a consequence of removing Mach effects from affecting wing lift. Not a thing I can do about it, turn onunbreakable joints if it bothers you.

@Sakata: No, NEAR is never getting a GUI. You want a GUI, upgrade to FAR.

NEAR doesn't care whether the bay is facing upwards or downwards. The stock bays are symmetrical when closed, so it doesn't matter. Attaching them sideways, now that will matter.

@Pokletu: All of the zips are correct. They have NEAR v1.3, which is compatible with KSP 0.25, on all OSes and builds of KSP with the exception of win64, where it shuts itself down. This is the fourth time I've checked it; they are fine.

Edited October 17, 2014 by ferram4

[xXIndestructibleEVAXx]

Nice mod, have some Rep! on my list to get Soon!TM

[mcirish3]

Love, the Mod. Bummed about not being allowed to use on Win64 KSP. Any chance you could release a "use at your own risk in really big red letters" version so I can use it again on my install? I used it just fine on 0.24 Win64 KSP with no troubles at all.

PLEASE!!!!!

[AetherGoddess]

Love, the Mod. Bummed about not being allowed to use on Win64 KSP. Any chance you could release a "use at your own risk in really big red letters" version so I can use it again on my install? I used it just fine on 0.24 Win64 KSP with no troubles at all.

PLEASE!!!!!

ya, it's probably not going to happen until the flaky Win x64 is better, and the disable code isn't for your protection, it's for Ferram's. there is a fairly obvious function in the source code that does the disable. if you can pull and compile the source, and make that very minor change to the code, then you probably have the programming skills to interpret crash logs and not blame FAR/NEAR for crashes that are actually KSP stock bugs in the x64 version. if you can't, then you don't have the very specialized coding skills required to make those subtle distinctions in an experimental environment.

[Alshain]

Any chance you could release a "use at your own risk in really big red letters" version so I can use it again on my install?

That's how it used to be and people came here to report bugs with it, despite being constantly told it was not the mods. You can't blame the plugin developers for getting tired of repeating themselves, though repeating this explanation is getting to be almost as bad.

[mcirish3]

Well then I guess I will have to figure out how to compile the source code. I think I have enough skill to read the code but I have not compled any thing since college and besides don't I need a unity compiler? Pardon my ignorance.

[ravenousjoe]

Ever since the .25 update, my lift node in the SPH and VAB no longer has a vector arrow. Just having a blue dot makes it very hard to accurately line up my lift with my mass, as it is basically invisible when inside the yellow center of mass node.

[ferram4]

@mcirish3: Same as compiling any other plugin; there are tutorials down in the addon development section.

@ravenousjoe: That is intended. The vector doesn't actually mean anything and shouldn't be there to start with. It's just a point in space, that's all that matters.

[ravenousjoe]

Ok thanks for the info, I do not have a full grasp on aerodynamic properties, so I always assumed that the arrow was a vector showing the direction of lift in the game. Is there any easy way to get it back for ease of precise building?

Edited October 19, 2014 by ravenousjoe

[xXIndestructibleEVAXx]

Hey, I need help. I just cant figure out gravity turns! I try to turn slowly, starting low, following the prograde, but i still just can't get it! any tips? Plz?

[ferram4]

@ravenousjoe: No, because even calculating it is more complicated than was needed. You don't need the arrow at all, just the location of the center of pressure.

@xXIndestructibleEVAXx: Initial TWR between 1.2-1.7. Start turn at 100 m/s. Keep close to prograde until atmosphere is mostly gone. Then continue to orbit like any other time.

Just make sure your rocket isn't a great big asparagus pancake or has no thrust vectoring control and you should be fine.

[xXIndestructibleEVAXx]

@xXIndestructibleEVAXx: Initial TWR between 1.2-1.7. Start turn at 100 m/s. Keep close to prograde until atmosphere is mostly gone. Then continue to orbit like any other time.

Just make sure your rocket isn't a great big asparagus pancake or has no thrust vectoring control and you should be fine.

What do you mean 'no thrust vectoring' why would that be bad? (and just make sure we're both talking about the same thing, you do mean gimballing, right?)

Edited October 19, 2014 by xXIndestructibleEVAXx
forget something

[ravenousjoe]

Ok, thanks for the info. I will learn to deal with it, and toggle the nodes off and on. By the way, thanks for the wonderful mod as it alone makes this game so much more enjoyable for me, and keeps me logging lots of hours.

[NathanKell]

xXIndestructibleEVAXx: If your engines don't gimbal, you won't have enough control. In stock, where the "air" doesn't really apply much force, it doesn't take much torque to turn. In FAR (and real life) where things reorient to keep the center of mass in front of the center of pressure, it may take quite a bit of torque to turn at all. Reaction wheels won't cut it.

[xXIndestructibleEVAXx]

OOOOOOHHHHHH... sorry, I miss-read Ferram's post, I thought he said NOT to use thrust vectoring.

[Cos]

How do I force enable this on Win_x64? I know you don't support it. My game crashes about once a day due to 64 bit instability anyway. I don't care. Due to memory issues, I refuse to go back 32 bit, and I really do hate the base aero model. What do I need to decompile, edit, etc.

And yes, I promise not to harass you about sh*t breaking. I know I'm straining the game's stability and I accept whatever hardware wrecking bugs I bring upon myself.

Anyone concerned about memory issues (which I can understand if you are running mods) who is using Win x64 as a 'fix' should revert to Win32 and run Active Texture Management. Maybe there should be a link in the OP? - some new users born and raised on 64 bit may not be aware that there is another way....