Something I have to get off my chest...about to FAR or not to FAR.

[Hodo]

I am going to start by saying I don't care if you use FAR or don't use FAR, my "problem" is to those who use FAR and then complain that it is to confusing or to difficult.

What I don't understand is how is it to confusing? If you have no idea how a plane flies, use GOOGLE it will tell you. If you suck at reading, look it up on Youtube. I don't understand how is it that difficult to look up something or ask a question instead of making a 5000 word post about how it is broken or is to hard because you can't wrap your head around the concept of high dynamic pressure, even when there is BIG BOLD YELLOW WORDS that say "HIGH DYNAMIC PRESSURE!" And there is even a visual indicator in game without the FAR window up, the vapor affect that encompasses the craft as you approach the sound barrier.

While I admit using FAR is completely different than the stock KSP soup, but it is easier to understand then the stock game. Why because you deal with it every day! You can look around outside, online or in a book, to find the answers to your problems. FAR doesn't make things easier or harder, it just makes them different then stock. Again, I have nothing but love for those who choose to play stock or stock aerodynamic model, but I do have an issue with those who do nothing but complain about FAR and continue to use it.

In closing, if you choose to use FAR understand that it does change things quite a bit. But if you have the common sense of Bob Kermin you can figure it out without to much heartache. If you don't use FAR, don't think you are better than those who do, expecially if you have never tried it. And for those of us who do use FAR, we are no better then those who don't. If you are having problems with FAR and aerodynamic failures, I suggest Kerbal Joint Reinforcement and or hiding your struts in the wings of the craft. Real aircraft the wing roots are some of the strongest structures on an aircraft, so if yours isn't one of the strongest on your aircraft then that is your design issue, not a flaw in the plugin/mod.

Safe flying!

[horndgmium]

I don't want this to die because I agree, but I just want to say that FAR isn't perfect, although when compared to stock aeros it's basically God.

Aerodynamic failures especially are unique in KSP though... in real life, an aircraft is made on one frame, and aerodynamic failures entail the breaking of the parts, whereas in our system it entails parts falling apart from each other. And currently that makes sense, because that's how crafts are built in KSP - as a bunch of parts thrown together. So I guess I wish that there was a way for FAR to act upon an aircraft as a whole rather than than on individual parts, because it seriously hinders G-tolerances and performance. In real aircraft, there isn't really a critical point, but when you gradually contribute to the stress by pushing the edges of the safe and tested flight envelope, you might then get a failure. So like I mentioned on the FAR thread at one point, it's really frustrating when my wings fall off pulling 2.5 G's for only an instant just because FAR didn't realize that the wing/body connection won't ever break, but maybe the wing itself will.

Many aircraft that are tested for 7-9 G's can sustain 4-6 indefinitely, and aerodynamic failures will NOT occur from hitting only 9 Gs, but instead aircraft stress will occur. THEN on future flights or future times you hit 7-9 Gs, your aircraft is more likely to have a stress failure, and will certainly at least contribute to stress at an accelerated rate too (maybe even my stress).

After-thought Edit: But seriously though, I am continually peeved by people complaining about add-ons being difficult or not perfect. 1. It's free. 2. YOU CHOSE TO USE IT 3. It's under development. Contribute in a productive manner or leave.

Edited July 13, 2014 by horndgmium

[Hodo]

So like I mentioned on the FAR thread at one point, it's really frustrating when my wings fall off pulling 2.5 G's for only an instant just because FAR didn't realize that the wing/body connection won't ever break, but maybe the wing itself will.

Thank you for keeping this alive.

I couldn't agree with you more here. But I have found a "work around" for this problem. The aircraft pictured in the first post can actually hold a 9G sustained turn in high dynamic pressure situations without its wings coming off. I have placed a few dozen B9 strut connectors inside the wings acting as wing root structure to reinforce the wing attachment to the airframe. It increases the parts count but it gives me a much stronger wing structure then normal. I was inspired by someone elses idea where they did the samething with Procedural Wings and then expanded the wing over the strut. I just move my POV into the wing and build the strut bracing that way. I also looked at how real wings are attached to most aircraft, and they are often attached by more than 1 or 2 points, there are in some cases hundreds of load bearing points along the fuselage and the wing root. Between these design improvements and Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, my aircraft are now far more like real aircraft in structural soundness, granted it doesn't mean sometimes things go HORRIBLY wrong.

[horndgmium]

Haha, yeah things can always go horribly wrong no matter what you do. Yeah I took your advice before and I started using invisistruts and it really helps a lot. I suppose it's kind of a limitation of a game at the moment that we can't "reinforce" certain joints. As always though, more struts, more better!

[Shiv]

So I guess I wish that there was a way for FAR to act upon an aircraft as a whole rather than than on individual parts

There's a mod that I saw that allows you to 'weld' your craft together to reduce part counts. I imagine it'd do what you were talking about as well (making a solid frame vs several individual parts).

[Roaken Corporation]

Structural integrity is one of the best features of FAR, other than the simulation itself, because it makes things a lot more tricky and interesting.

Stock struts don't do much more than reduce some of the oscilation which can peak dynamic pressure and break the wings, but from tests it did not have any impact on the wing-ripoff tolerance itself (maybe B9 superstrong struts do though).

The thing is, it adds to the challenge, if you have ever seen a few real life aircraft you know how to make something that flies on FAR.

We at Roaken want people to lose fear of this awesome mod, and plans are to create tutorials or video tutorials teaching people how to use them.

In the end, FAR will make your aircraft crash a lot more, and getting it right is extremelly rewarding. And there is nothing as Kerbal as blowing up stuff.

[Alshain]

Well, I decided to figure it out because I can't say one way or the other without having tried it. I'm starting to get better at it, but the problem is while it may be realistic, it's too difficult to be a game. KSP has simulator elements but it's more of a game than a simulator, at least in my opinion. Though it is possible to do something, if it gets too complicated for some people that stops being fun and becomes a chore rather than entertainment. The fact that moving the wings a micrometer can mean ocean or space is part of the issue, and probably the biggest one. The stock aerodynamics you do have to put the wings right but they don't have to be n'th level precision to function.

Long and the short of it is, I'm starting to do well with FAR, but I don't think it should replace stock because it would likely chase player away from a great game. We all know where Microsoft Flight Simulator is right now, niche games just have trouble surviving. The arrangement we have now seems best. Those who like it, use it, those who don't like it... don't use it. Replacing the stock system would basically be taking away that choice.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Alshain

[MR4Y]

The problem is when you do the opposite. As soon as you get used to FAR, you'll find hard to fly using the stock aerodynamics. Everything has to be heavy and clunky and have tons of thrust to fly. Planes steer like bricks and have little to no control authority. Simple things that make sense in FAR can't be done in stock, because you're flying on air that's made out of oil.

And other things.

[O-Doc]

The only thing I hate is when someone gets into the gameplay questions section of his forum because they are having trouble with SSTOs and the response is a recommendation to use FAR. Use FAR, don't use FAR, just don't tell people how to play please or that FAR will solve a noob's confusion.

I don't use FAR because I cannot make fundamental design decisions like wing chord thickness and shape, lifting body surfces, etc. When I can design the aerodynamics of my plane then FAR is a better fit. Right now, stock lets me cheat the aerodynamics with hidden control surfaces. At this point in time X-Pane + Blender give you a better aerodynamics experience than KSP + FAR.

[Nori]

I tried FAR out and while I really appreciate the work that has gone into it; it is just too much for me.

Could I figure it out? Yeah probably, but some parts about it end up just being maddening and I feel like it would take a lot more time for me to learn than I feel that it is worth.

So I looked around and saw that Ferram made NEAR and decided to try that out and I LOVE it! Maybe it took some of the realistic parts out, but it fixed and improved what I wanted and get this. I actually can make a flying plane now and I enjoy flying it. Never had that experience with stock KSP flying.

It also gives me a nice reason to use fairings.

Thank you Ferram for the options here. I readily admit that FAR is too much for me and I like the option to use NEAR.