"Far is hard" in Add-on Discussions Posted January 19, 2015 · Edited January 19, 2015 by PDCWolf I find that FAR makes building good planes substantially more difficult. Sure, I can make just about anything fly with enough thrust (KSP Interstellar fusion thermoturbojets could fly a city bus or herd of goats into orbit, with enough struts), but the tricky part for me is making it fly well. I've wrestled spaceplanes into orbit in heated, seat-of-the-pants pilot-versus-aircraft fights, but only rarely can I build something that doesn't wobble horrendously. Mostly depends on your definition of "flying well". I'm one of those that believes exposure to stock aerodynamics creates false expectations of how stuff should behave or even how it should work at all. Dihedral, incidence and things like the relative position and angle of main wing vs tail stabilizers are all factors that make for more stable planes, incidentally stock ignores all of this (by ignoring wings except when the Z axis is not exactly vertical), which means at all times you are trying to make a cylinder fly horizontally, so when transitioning to FAR, one still expects wings to have almost no effect, even if not knowing it, it's like a cognitive continuity thing. In FAR, all those factors come into play and yeah, you can't just slap wings anywhere, and this is what most people -i believe- find difficult, but it doesn't come from FAR, it comes from stock aero being bad (or rather nonexistant).Recently I spent a while figuring out how to make a very maneuverable fighter jet, and I did eventually succeed for the most part (analysis of the Firehound helped), but it was a challenge. I find that I really have to think on my feet when designing FAR aircraft, particularly super-/hypersonic ones or ones that are designed to maneuver especially well. Well, take a look at those that have already invented the wheel. Maneuverable supersonic fighters have short, slender wings because at high speed you don't need that many wing surface area, big control surfaces relative to where they are placed, and arrow look-a-like designs (most of them are delta or a variation of delta). Again, you have to think now because you are no longer trying to fly a cylinder, you now have wings you can rely on.I have met an especially large number of people who claim that FAR makes things easier - sure, it's possible to fly much faster at low altitudes (and in general) with FAR, and you can apply more real-world design points to your planes, but in terms of just sticking some wings on a tube full of fuel and getting it to fly nicely, stock aero is substantially simpler.Because wings don't matter, you are trying to fly a rocket horizontally, as long as you keep it mostly symmetrical or withing reasonable asymmetry weight wise it will work. I still have yet to see any craft in FAR that can remotely compete with the most agile stock planes, for instance, and you'll never end up in a catastrophic stall in stock. Stock aero enables more planes to fly with fewer complications, so in stock, arbitrarily-designed craft are far more likely to fly satisfactorily. If they don't fly well, usually they just flip out and crash; there's not a lot of middle ground like there is in FAR.Stock doesn't simulate air or wings, so there are no stalls.So does it make the game harder? Yes, in the sense that it makes it more complicated. There's no real way around that; I don't think FAR will ever be easier than stock aero for someone who's used to the latter. Once you get used to airplane design in FAR, though, it's potentially possible to do a lot more with your aircraft than you can in stock."Makes things actually matter" would be the correct wording.