<kmath_>
<Samathy_Barratt> Petition to start using ? instead of FLOP. Taihu-Light acheives 93 peta?s https://t.co/0yK6i88ire
<egg>
!u ?
<Qboid>
U+1F430 RABBIT FACE (?)
ferram4 has joined #kspacademia
<egg>
!wpn ferram4
* Qboid
gives ferram4 a doomed paywall with a hexahexaflexagon attachment
<ferram4>
?
<egg>
ferram4: tbh I'm mostly using !wpn as a greeting lately
<Iskierka>
!wpn egg
* Qboid
gives egg a hippomobile snek/dynamo hybrid
<egg>
!wpn Iskierka
* Qboid
gives Iskierka an omicron ray
<egg>
ferram4: also apparently I brought you a new user
<ferram4>
hmm
<egg>
ferram4: in distantly related news, Thomas|AWAY made this, which you may find useful https://logs.tmsp.io
<ferram4>
ah. Cool
<egg>
ferram4: is FAR's KSP_update branch usable? I was pondering playing a bit of KSP in a lull in principia dev :-p
<ferram4>
It is quite usable, it just has a few polish-related bugs. Nothing that eats ships or anything
<Iskierka>
no acidic polish?
<egg>
ferram4: I gather that one builds it oneself?
<egg>
oh hey one of your users noticed the names :D http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/19321-113-ferram-aerospace-research-v01572-lanchester-7116/&do=findComment&comment=2970833
<ferram4>
It's the same as always, I jut have the dll in the repo because bad practices. :P
<egg>
ah :D
<egg>
right, I had forgotten that :D
Thomas|AWAY is now known as Thomas
<egg>
ferram4: uhm, I've probably encountered this before and this is probably known, but there seems to be some nondeterministicity in the wave-drag area thing? cycles of retract/deploy on the nose antenna yield all sorts of numbers
<egg>
because otherwise I'm going to make a supersonic airliner again
<ferram4>
What speed is it intended to go?
<ferram4>
Because it looks a little chunky for supersonic.
<ferram4>
Also, it has a tumor on its top.
<egg>
ferram4: it's intended to be supersonic, but from trying it out the range is shitty
<egg>
ferram4: as for the bulge, it's sort of compensated by wing/intake placement as far as area ruling is concerned
<ferram4>
Yeah, supersonic things tend to have shit range.
<egg>
not entirely though
<egg>
I gave it a couple of AL-31FMs
<egg>
so it supercruises at Mach 1.2 easily around sea level, and I can probably do it at Mach 2 or so at a reasonable altitude
<egg>
ferram4: dual to your "what is its purpose" question, what does it look like its purpose should be
<egg>
it handles well, so there's that
<ferram4>
Mostly high subsonic flight, with the ability to jump to supersonic if needed but only as an emergency, looks like it's some kind of bomber, tbh.
<egg>
ferram4: yeah, range is pretty much exactly 1000 km on this test flight
<egg>
(well, plus whatever you can glide from flame-out at 10 km)
<egg>
~20 min
<egg>
yeah, add to that 100 km of glide to a crash on the side of a mountain
regex has joined #kspacademia
<egg>
ferram4: huh, I got some exceptions popping up for NaNs at some point while my aircraft was tumbling backwards
<ferram4>
From FAR?
<ferram4>
Post a log and repro steps to the github and I'll take a look.
<egg>
I *think*? it's mixed up with revoxeling things
<egg>
tbh I'm not sure I can reproduce it
<egg>
ferram4: nah, from AJE
<egg>
at Sign, at AJE.SolverJet.CalculatePerformance, at SolverEngines.ModuleEnginesSolver.UpdateSolver...
<egg>
tumbling backwards, so flaming out
<egg>
I am bad at takeoff
<egg>
or this aircraft is bad
<egg>
or both
<ferram4>
Either too much mass or too little stability ot too much pitch authority.
<egg>
or all of the above
<egg>
oh joy, my scrollwheel zoom control got inverted somehow?!
<egg>
this game has the strangest bugs
<egg>
continuously
<egg>
ferram4: answer was apparently too much speed
<egg>
taking off at half-throttle works fine
<ferram4>
Ah. That makes sense.
<egg>
ferram4: it's this new version, with less wing and less cockpit warts http://imgur.com/a/moUMk
<egg>
oops, tweaked a control surface setting mid-flight and sent the thing in a flat spin
<ferram4>
Yeah, that's what happens when you do that. :P
<ferram4>
Looks alright, though extremely lacking in pitch stability or control.
<egg>
funnily I don't really have issues with pitch?
<egg>
the Roll PID was being a bit wild, hence the control surface tweaking leading to flat spin
<egg>
but now I recovered
<egg>
need to get my speed back though
egg|phone|egg has quit [Ping timeout: 190 seconds]
egg has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
GreeningGalaxy has joined #kspacademia
egg has joined #kspacademia
<egg>
ferram4: huh, splashdowns got a lot more survivable?
<ferram4>
Yes, they tend to be. Although parts of the vehicle tend to be destroyed in the process.
<egg>
yeah, lost the engines and intakes
<ferram4>
Sounds about right
GreeningGalaxy has quit [Ping timeout: 201 seconds]
pizzaoverhead_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
GreeningGalaxy has joined #kspacademia
GreeningGalaxy has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
Iskierka has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<egg>
also, rare thing, I managed to land a plane >_>
<egg>
(admittedly there's no way this lands on the KSP runway without retrorockets)
<ferram4>
Yeah, once you get to > Mach 1, going faster gets you more range. So going for Mach 2 is good, going for Mach 3 is better. At least as long as you're using airbreathers.
<egg>
but hey, gets you to the pole in ~15 min \o/
<egg>
ferram4: powered by 4 of those J58s :D
<egg>
most of the flight was around Mach 3.6 I think
<ferram4>
Yeah, those engines are a little... special.
<egg>
:D
<egg>
pretty much anything else in the AJE collection (except the ramjet, but that's even more special) would melt at that speed :-p
<egg>
ferram4: I'm quite happy with how the area ruling turned out though
<egg>
there's probably room for improvement, but the plane doesn't look insane like it sometimes does
<kmath_>
<eggleroy> @whitequark It motivates things like the aircraft below: double-delta, fuel tank bulge for area ruling (also moving… https://t.co/JIM4TrHFcK
<egg>
ferram4: though back then I hadn't figured out the antenna-on-the-nose thing, that's surprisingly effective
<ferram4>
I'm still not sure if that's fully realistic or bullshit
<ferram4>
On the one hand, it might be. The shaping is correct. On the other hand, the benefits might be too much.
<egg>
ferram4: what happens if you reduce the voxel size
<egg>
(i.e. could the effect be amplified by coarse discretization)
<ferram4>
Doesn't make it go away.
<egg>
interesting
<ferram4>
So the behavior is part of the model, the thing I'm wondering is: "Is my model fucking wrong?"
<egg>
ferram4: I guess contrary to principia where if the effect stays under step size reductions it's probably a thing, here you'd need a supersonic wind tunnel
<egg>
do you have one of those lying around
<ferram4>
No.
<egg>
... fundraiser for FAR?
* SnoopJeDi
fires up the oven
<ferram4>
While that wold be fun, I don't have a place to put it, and I don't think the police would think well of it. Considering it requires lots of high-pressure gas to run.
<egg>
hah
icefire has joined #kspacademia
<ferram4>
egg, there are also the questions of ensuring that the shape is structurally sound (in supersonic flow, that can be interesting) and trying to handle the effects of Reynolds number in there. For example, it's quite possible that the scale of the spike is on the same scale as the boundary layer, in which case ignoring viscous effects in the initial pressure analysis is completely wrong.
<egg>
yeah, I was wondering about slapping an antenna straight into a Mach 3.6 airstream
<ferram4>
Trying to handle that is... difficult. Very difficult.
<ferram4>
Without also causing everything else to break apart.
<egg>
though it's roughly the shape of the spiky bit in the SR71, so it has to be ok
<egg>
it can't be FAR's job to decide whether it's an antenna or something structurally sound
<SnoopJeDi>
cool, this software doesn't support multiplication when the right-hand is a negative real literal, i.e. 5*-7
<SnoopJeDi>
I feel great about this ??
<egg>
SnoopJeDi: parentheses?
<ferram4>
egg: You see the difficulty, both options are valid.
<egg>
indeed
<SnoopJeDi>
egg, there are many ways to get around the suckage of this software...
<SnoopJeDi>
none of them change the fact that it sucks
<ferram4>
Exactly how much does it suck?
<egg>
hmm
<SnoopJeDi>
I should be thankful that it threw an error instead of taking that as permission to do whatever the hell it feels like doing
<egg>
I wonder how the Ada grammar is wrt that
<SnoopJeDi>
"Oh, invalid operation. Don't worry, NaNs are all [weirdly specific value] inside of the integrator, we're good"
<SnoopJeDi>
"Uninitialized variables? What're those? Oh, you mean zero."
<egg>
the unary_adding_operator makes it a simple_expression, so to turn that back into a factor, you need to wrap it in parentheses (making it a primary)
<egg>
ferram4: do any actual planes have jowls like this, or is it something I made up
<ferram4>
Generally, it is more subtle.
<egg>
yeah, I guess you can just tweak the fuselage shape rather than having to glue on cylinders :-p
<ferram4>
And I don't believe that they're quite as prominent. Making them from the KSP parts makes the shapes stand out more than the smoother, integrated designs should have.
<egg>
[insert part rant here]
<ferram4>
FUN
<egg>
?
<ferram4>
The reasoning for parts rather than something more flexible in designing vehicles.
<egg>
hah
<egg>
mind you they're sort of useful for the physical simulation, but they could be a low-level thing, rather than *literally what the user manipulates*
UmbralRaptor is now known as SpectralRaptor
Thomas is now known as Thomas|AWAY
GreeningGalaxy has joined #kspacademia
GreeningGalaxy has quit [Quit: SIGNAL LOST]
SpectralRaptor is now known as UmbralRaptor
GreeningGalaxy has joined #kspacademia
GreeningGalaxy is now known as Guest67831
Guest67831 has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
egg is now known as egg|zzz|egg
<egg|zzz|egg>
ferram4, UmbralRaptor, et al.: goodnight!
<ferram4>
o/
<soundnfury>
ferram4: it is well known that Losing is Fun (Adams et al., 2006). From this we can derive the following simple corollary: Fun is for Losers! ∎