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

[Ryusho]

Blargh, I have to use this or Far, It's driving me batty because I want to do planes, and rockets, but I can't do planes well at all in Far, and my Rockets -hate- trying to do gravity turns in the slightest too with this, as it always either is 'straight up' or 'flip wildly' from even trying to do a gravity t urn X_X I never used to have this issue with constant flipping *though maybe it's an issue with the procedural fairings...*

[Scar3tactics]

Hey all, I'm having trouble using the tri-coupler with this mod. Whenever I install it on a craft, the center of lift ends up offset to one side. I've checked it in my stock install and confirmed that the center of lift stays smack in the middle when adding a tri-coupler, so I think it has to be an issue with the way the lift generated by the part is calculated. Unfortunately I'm at work all night, so can't add any pics but I'll try and grab some when I get home. Is there any way to fix this, or should I just not plan on using tri-coupled rockets?

Otherwise loving the mod, really like the changes to rocket design/flying (once I figured out how to keep my gravity turns under control)

[panzer1b]

Not bad, while i still prefer stock aerodynamics as ive just gotten used to it, something like this should be implemented in teh stock game.

Biggest thing i LIKE about this mod (and far, although far's just to overbloated for my tastes) is the drag based on profiles. It makes longer less wide designs work like they should, while giving fatter stuff more drag (realistic). Also, i do like that clipped wings still work here (unlike far that just outright screws over all my "for looks" designs.

Also, i strongly encourage you to add a x64 friendly version (i had to muck around in ur source code to force it to work in my x64 bit version). From my personal experience it doesnt crash much if at all (or no more then KSP x32 did), and instead of forcing your mod off, just make a clear disclaimer that its not officially supported in any way. And plz if you consider this, dont do something like modulemanager did (that took some time to remove that stupid annoying nyan message from the source), its annoying and all it takes is a bold text in the mod's download site saying x64 is not reccomend or supported whatsoever, but still let us use it there without having to edit source code).

Good job on this, and i actually hope at least teh drag/profile gets officialized, but until then, ill prolly stick to stock aerodynamics which well all my craft are optimized for.

[ferram4]

@Scar3tactics: Nope, not seeing anything that indicates it's wrong. It flies perfectly fine regardless of what the indicator says.

@panzer1b: Considering that I originally took that route, and got nothing but people complaining about how it caused win64 crashes, rather than blaming the actual cause, the underlying game, I am not going to bother with it. Too many people have proven themselves completely and totally incapable of actually reading any of the disclaimers and messages added; they will simply ignore that message, willfully or unintentionally, unless they need to type something like this every time they load the game:

Yes, I understand how unstable win64 KSP is, and I understand that by using [mod name] on it that I am asking more code to run on an already unstable and broken foundation, and that it may crash randomly and without warning due to the instability of the underlying engine and game. I will not submit bug reports to the author, as I understand it is not his fault that win64 KSP is as unstable as it is and that there is nothing he can do to fix this/

And even if that showed up only once, everyone would complain; for example you're already complaining about ModuleManager's method, which is so unobtrusive that it's ridiculously easy to deal with, so why would you accept something like that? Every single suggestion of this type runs into the same problem: it is always proposed by people who have not tried to provide support to our users.

Also, thanks for remind me, I need to get rid of wing clipping as a viable thing. That was always way out of the bounds of what should be viable.

[Ziff]

Also, i strongly encourage you to add a x64 friendly version (i had to muck around in ur source code to force it to work in my x64 bit version). From my personal experience it doesnt crash much if at all (or no more then KSP x32 did), and instead of forcing your mod off, just make a clear disclaimer that its not officially supported in any way. And plz if you consider this, dont do something like modulemanager did (that took some time to remove that stupid annoying nyan message from the source), its annoying and all it takes is a bold text in the mod's download site saying x64 is not reccomend or supported whatsoever, but still let us use it there without having to edit source code).

There really isn't much sense in making these things work with the x64 version until Squad starts making x64 more stable. You said "From my personal experience it doesn't crash much" , heck , in my experience I can barely get the KSP x64 version to run for more than an hour or two without crashing, with no mods, on a $3000 gaming rig I built that runs everything else on the planet without any issues.

[TheWired]

There really isn't much sense in making these things work with the x64 version until Squad starts making x64 more stable. You said "From my personal experience it doesn't crash much" , heck , in my experience I can barely get the KSP x64 version to run for more than an hour or two without crashing, with no mods, on a $3000 gaming rig I built that runs everything else on the planet without any issues.

i personally think its a platform issue rather than a game issue, though both are likely true. i have an AMD FX-8150 8 gigs of RAM and it never crashed on me... unless i literally ran out of ram or some other access violation in the game engine, but running chrome in the BG does not do much to help alleviate 98% RAM utilization. again i wonder who and why people are running into these crashes.

but it would be nice if someone could release a "NO-SUPPORT" version, on a PM link basis or in some other way. i like FAR and seems like i will like NEAR a little better but (given that i need to clear out my GameData folder) i need it because of mods...

or someone could release a variation that supports it. i read the licence... correct me if i am wrong but it seems we can do that.

Edit: more like want. don't think when i am running chrome in the BG even with out the game running i am hitting below 4gb so...

Edited December 14, 2014 by TheWired

[panzer1b]

I kinda understand ur position on the x64 support, but im still gonna be recompiling every bloody mod i come across and decide to use in my KSP without any anti-x64 junk. I hope squad actually fixed x64 for most people that have issues (i have no problems, x32 crashes just as often), but until then, its recompile every single mod out there that bugs me about incompatibility (MJ, ModuleManager, ect ect ect).

Although considering i program a bit for fun (i do mods myself for KSP/other games), and i know how to do this, i see no reason not to well edit out stuff i dislike (actually made a micro MJ version that has only dV stats and nothing else, really nice as all i really ever used MJ for is those features), or just modify the code in whatever way i deem fit.

[Wjolcz]

Anyone can confirm this mod working in 0.90?

EDIT: It doesn't : (

Edited December 16, 2014 by Veeltch

[ferram4]

Well, now it is, if you update.

[worir4]

Thanks for the update.

[malkuth]

Hell even the stock game doesn't work well with 64Bit anymore. Just read the ksp reddit about people complaining about upgrade building being all messed up in 64bit. Don't expect mods to do much better wish they would can it for now.

't e

[LABHOUSE]

Two updates down, 13 to go.

[MonkeyLunch]

Thank you for making this mod. I don't use far because as you say in your pitch, its too much analysis and not enough build and go. This is exactly what I wanted.

[tetryds]

Thank you for making this mod. I don't use far because as you say in your pitch, its too much analysis and not enough build and go. This is exactly what I wanted.

After you get used to NEAR I highly recommend you to try FAR, it will be fun

The great majority of your NEAR and FAR airplanes will work interchangeably, you will just get to see what happens when you fly too fast.

[Eskandare]

Does FAR and NEAR work on x64 because from what I can tell x64 is stable.

[tetryds]

Does FAR and NEAR work on x64 because from what I can tell x64 is stable.

Well, there is a topic with x64 versions of mods that don't work on it.

Both FAR and NEAR normally don't work with it, so you will want to pick the version from that other source.

I don't really recommend you to play with x64 unless even with memory reducing methods you have so many mods that you run out of memory.

[Eskandare]

Well, there is a topic with x64 versions of mods that don't work on it.

Both FAR and NEAR normally don't work with it, so you will want to pick the version from that other source.

I don't really recommend you to play with x64 unless even with memory reducing methods you have so many mods that you run out of memory.

I used 0.25 x64 and got it working... it appears x64 is fine (well almost, career is bugged). FAR never gave me trouble on .24 x64

[ferram4]

Yes, Linux 64 is fine, and it has never been disabled on that. In fact, Linux 64 has been quite stable and well-behaved the whole time, and so FAR and NEAR have never been disabled on those, I don't know who told you they were...

Oh, I misunderstood, saying "x64" includes both Linux and Windows versions, when only win64 is the version that's borked. And it has been getting less and less stable every KSP update, and so FAR and NEAR are both disabled on win64.

[godefroi]

So, in CKAN, it shows 1.3a installed, and 1.3.1 as latest, and if you install 1.3.1 it actually installs 1.3a, and if you uninstall 1.3a, it says it'll uninstall both 1.3a AND 1.3.1, interestingly.

Doesn't seem to be an issue, just an oddity. My guess is metadata typo, but I haven't investigated to confirm.

[AlternNocturn]

Yayyy, you got it to work! Thanks Ferram!

[ferram4]

@godefroi: Dunno, I don't support CKAN specifically because of the inevitability of weird issues like that. Ultimately, that's not my problem, that's CKAN's issue, same as it would be for any of the other mod managers.

[godefroi]

@godefroi: Dunno, I don't support CKAN specifically because of the inevitability of weird issues like that. Ultimately, that's not my problem, that's CKAN's issue, same as it would be for any of the other mod managers.

Sure, not blaming you, I just didn't know whether you were maintaining the metadata or whether the CKAN people were.

[ViAlexis]

I'm not sure if something drastic has changed between .25 and .90 or if I'm just doing something differently, but now when I turn if I turn too much my wings pop right off and my craft falls apart, whereas in .25 I could turn as much as I want and it would be fine. Anyone else have this happen to them?

[tetryds]

I'm not sure if something drastic has changed between .25 and .90 or if I'm just doing something differently, but now when I turn if I turn too much my wings pop right off and my craft falls apart, whereas in .25 I could turn as much as I want and it would be fine. Anyone else have this happen to them?

That is because stock joints are not indestructible.

I am not sure if the joint reinforcement mod would help, but it's worth a try.

[ViAlexis]

That is because stock joints are not indestructible.

I am not sure if the joint reinforcement mod would help, but it's worth a try.

I know they're not, but my point is that they didn't break in .25 and they do break in .90. I'm not sure if it's because I'm attaching them differently because of the gizmos or if something in part structuring has change, but now my wings snap off in a light breeze and it's kind of disappointing, especially since they don't snap off without NEAR even if I re-enter perpendicular to my velocity vector. I tried KJR and it seems to not affect the situation at all, unfortunately. I'm going to keep playing around with wing setups and see if it's just my construction method that's breaking them.