Going back from FAR to stock aero

[Ruahrc]

Wondering if anyone here has gone from using FAR back to stock aero?

I enjoy using FAR for the realistic atmo behavior however I find it simply too easy to launch things. I build a lot of lightweight payloads (probes) and as a result it is too easy to launch them to the farthest corners of the kerbol system. I rarely ever require anything greater than 1.25m parts and even then a couple of the longest KW 1.25m tanks stacked on top of each other is enough to fling a probe well beyond Eeloo orbit. The only time I go to 2.5m is because my payload is too bulky to fit in the 1.25m KW fairings, so I use 2.5m launch stage to match diameters. 2.5m launchers are way overpowered and I can lift giant payloads into orbit with ease. I have never ever built anything close (including space stations) to needing 3.75m parts.

With stock aero it may not be as realistic but at least the extra dV required to get to orbits means I get to build bigger rockets. With FAR I find myself sometimes building things inefficiently on purpose just in order to have bigger rockets and use more than 2 stages to get to Jool. Things like deliberately building poorly balanced stages, launching with tanks half full, etc. I find I can just play within the spirit of FAR if I continue to make sure my payloads all fit within fairings, use realistic launch profiles (no straight up to 10km then 45 degree turn) and make my rockets look like rockets (no asparagus pancakes).

I tried playing with the kerbal ISP difficulty thing and tried the setting that penalizes your atmo ISP to make up the difference, and still require 4.5km/sec dV to get to orbit. However I found it a little subpar because you get an enormous ISP penalty for the first 10-20s, then the same old FAR after that. It makes your stages very unbalanced because on the ground your engine is unbelievably inefficient but as soon as you cross 10km or so the inefficiency dies off very suddenly as the ISP ramps up to vacuum levels.

Not really interested in playing RSS scale KSP as I believe it interferers with some mods I want to play with and I do not want to get bogged down in playing the incompatible mod game.

Just curious if anyone else has run into the same thing I have? Is there another solution to keep playing with FAR but make it harder to launch to orbit? I am not bragging about my rocket building skills but I tend to approach it with some realism i.e. weight savings on payloads is critical and they should be as small and light as possible to get the job done. I guess I have gotten a little too good at that .

Ruahrc

[PDCWolf]

Nevermind, I'm retarded and blind.

Personally, I rebalanced KIDS a bit so that it penalizes both atmo and space instead of one or the other. I'm not on that exact 4.5km/s dV mark but I'm close and happy with it.

Edited August 5, 2014 by PDCWolf

[FenrirWolf]

Pretty sure there's some other ISP preset that just does a flat decrease in efficiency of engines vs loading all the inefficiency into the lowest layers of the atmosphere. I'll bet you could even tweak things to make a profile more to your liking as well.

[Master Tao]

Wolves,

I know the OP is long, but Ruahrc has tried KIDS and isn't interested in RSS due to conflicts with other mods.

Ruahrc,

I haven't gone back except when upgrading versions of KSP. I stick with FAR mostly because it introduces other challenges. Have you tried interplanetary return missions? I can't think of a way to land even a probe that's capable of returning from Eve because every design I come up with is ripped to shreds during the descent. Also, with ungainly payloads, I find myself building large, inefficient rockets just to increase aerodynamic stability. If you're interested in trying FAR again, you can absolutely find new challenges like sending planes to other planets.

[Wanderfound]

I haven't gone back except when upgrading versions of KSP. I stick with FAR mostly because it introduces other challenges. Have you tried interplanetary return missions? I can't think of a way to land even a probe that's capable of returning from Eve because every design I come up with is ripped to shreds during the descent.

Streamline, streamline, streamline, and come in shallow and nose-first. My Mun/Minmus landers these days have aerodynamic nosecones and heavy strut reinforcement, and I never pop the chutes until I'm thoroughly subsonic. A couple of cautious aerobraking passes aren't a bad idea either.

[Hagatora]

The simple answer is, no. I have not.

But to fix the delta-V requirements KIDS is the way to go, outside of the RSS mod. The other thing is adding deadly reentry, this will make flying at those speeds dangerous in lower atmosphere.

[m4v]

I played with FAR and went back to stock for the same reasons, it tries to hard to be realistic without regards to gameplay.

[Hagatora]

I played with FAR and went back to stock for the same reasons, it tries to hard to be realistic without regards to gameplay.

How so? The designer of FAR has introduced a air breathing engine nerf of 50%. He designed KIDS which nerfs rocket engines to bring them in line with reality without changing the scale of the planet. And ultimately I don't think he released FAR, for a more realistic gameplay on the stock sized Kerbin, which is about one third the size of the real world.

[Dangerous_Beans]

i went back to the stock aerodynamics when 0.24 came out. for about a day.

i got sick of flying in the soup

using the stock aero system isn't going to mean you have to build that much larger rockets. you clearly know how to build efficient (small) craft, so an extra ~1000m/s is just a 909 and medium tank, or maybe a couple of drop tanks. it sounds like what you really need is a reason to build bigger, more complex ships.

[NathanKell]

m4v: I couldn't agree more! Who wants to sit still for two minutes at low throttle waiting for the soup to clear? FAR takes the boredom out of KSP. Go gameplay--go FAR.

[Wanderfound]

FAR makes planes fly rather than swim. Never going back.

[Taki117]

I purposefully waited for FAR to be updated before playing .24 (and some other mods to go with it) and I must say, if you want to build bigger rockets get KIDS and then put it on the FAR to Real Life preset (adjusted). Basically makes it so you need about 9km/s just to make orbit.

[problemecium]

I've never used FAR. I don't care enough about the specifics of aerodynamics, so I'll just wait and see if SQUAD decides to change the stock ones.

[regex]

I can't play without FAR; building lolplanes and launching rockets straight up for 10km is just terrible. Matter of fact, I can't really play without RSS and all its accoutrements because stock is such a ... well, it's a total joke. Stock KSP could be so much better.

[Cirocco]

I actually have gone back to stock after FAR, yes (this was in 0.23 for those interested). I already posted at length about why in some other thread, but the bottom line is that I just find the stock aero model to be more fun. Why? because I get to launch big space station modules and huge interplanetary motherships that FAR would never allow. Normally such things would be constructed on site in space, but seeing as that's not a thing (yet?) I'll stick to hauling them up there in one piece.

Also, I actually like flying planes in the stock model. Don't ask me why, I guess I like the challenge of needing more delta-V of getting to orbit? Also, insane-o manouvers are funny

Finally there's one big reason why I want to (at least for a little while longer) continue using stock aero and that is Eve. That planet is a purple ball of death and I want to conquer it in stock dammit! I have a return lander ready to go, weighing in at 160 tons and capable of getting to orbit from Eve sea level, but I don't have a transfer vehicle or launch vehicle yet so I haven't yet flown the actual mission. Until I do and prove I can conquer the purple tartarus, I'll fly stock.

So yeah, as I stated before in my posts: I like both FAR and stock. Each has their own challenges and each has their own limitations. FAR is great. It's realistic, presents you with new and more realistic challenges and obviously Ferram has pourted huge amounts of time and work into it. My hat off to you good sir.

Stock on the other hand, while being totally unrealistic has had me laughing my butt off because of hilarious and totally insane launches and flights, as well as allowing me to put large, solid modules into space in one go.

Both have their merits and limitations, even if the stock aero model is only a placeholder.

Finally, I actually find all the different tweaking options and such in FAR a bit intimidating. Everybody seems to say "oh just tweak the parts until you find your comfort zone" but I can't seem to figure out how to decently do so

EDIT: I have to include this because it pretty much encompasses my point almost perfectly:

stock is such a ... well, it's a total joke.

it pretty much is. And I find the joke to be funny I can totally understand people wanting a more realistic experience of course, but I just read this bit of your post and it made me chuckle

Edited August 5, 2014 by Cirocco

[The Destroyer]

I used to use it, but I really like building "kerbal" designs and got rid of it.

[Wanderfound]

because I get to launch big space station modules and huge interplanetary motherships that FAR would never allow. Normally such things would be constructed on site in space, but seeing as that's not a thing (yet?) I'll stick to hauling them up there in one piece.

Eh? All of my big stuff is lifted by spaceplane in pieces and assembled in orbit. Wobbly docking clamps aren't a problem if you make a tug that can pull instead of push. Wagon train to the stars...

[Cirocco]

Eh? All of my big stuff is lifted by spaceplane in pieces and assembled in orbit. Wobbly docking clamps aren't a problem if you make a tug that can pull instead of push. Wagon train to the stars...

I know you can assemple with docking ports in space, but that doesn't really work for things like asteroid or planet-based stations. It's not really feasible to assemble things like an observation tower or a vehicle hangar/refuel station with docking ports on a planet or moon surface.

EDIT: also, this

I really like building "kerbal" designs

[palker]

I played with FAR and went back to stock for the same reasons, it tries to hard to be realistic without regards to gameplay.

This sentence just broke my mind. THAT ID THE POINT TO BE REALISTIC. Seriously anyone who has the faintest idea how real aircraft aerodynamics work cannot play in the stock aerodynamics as they are utterly and completely stupid.

[KasperVld]

This sentence just broke my mind. THAT ID THE POINT TO BE REALISTIC. Seriously anyone who has the faintest idea how real aircraft aerodynamics work cannot play in the stock aerodynamics as they are utterly and completely stupid.

http://www.lezebre.lu/images/21629-trollface-meme-jackie-chan-s.png

I think what m4v is saying is that for his taste FAR is too realistic and people who are not aeronautical engineers may be overwhelmed by the degree of difficulty it adds. After all, not everyone here has a degree in fluid dynamics, physics or engineering. It all comes down to personal preference. If you want the realistic experience go with FAR, but the stock aerodynamics work much better for people who like to build huge spacecraft, and then there is NEAR somewhere in the middle. Play how you want to play

[Wanderfound]

I think what m4v is saying is that for his taste FAR is too realistic and people who are not aeronautical engineers may be overwhelmed by the degree of difficulty it adds. After all, not everyone here has a degree in fluid dynamics, physics or engineering. It all comes down to personal preference. If you want the realistic experience go with FAR, but the stock aerodynamics work much better for people who like to build huge spacecraft, and then there is NEAR somewhere in the middle. Play how you want to play

I find flying in FAR easier than stock, because it makes planes actually fly like planes. And my doctorate is in psychopharmacology, not aeronautics.

But, as you say: each to their own. One of the great strengths of KSP's sandbox nature and the modding community is that everyone gets to play the game that they want to play.

[R0cketC0der]

Normally such things would be constructed on site in space, but seeing as that's not a thing (yet?) I'll stick to hauling them up there in one piece.

Ever heard of docking ports?

[DaMichel]

Yes, i went back to Stock for about 15 minutes to test KerbalFlightData I did a reentry with a spaceplane. First it was like hitting a brick wall. Then when i got really low and slow i pulled the nose up, slowed down to a halt and did a vertical splash down. Way too easy! And felt very unrealistic. So it is FAR or NEAR for me.

I find it a bit easy to get into orbit. But going back to stock where you don't have to be concerned about aerodynamic stability isn't really going to make it harder because i can just build a pancake asparagus monster. Going RSS is a much worthier challenge, which i will tackle eventually.

[Hary R]

Well if lift off and achive with a rocket require less delta V with FAR, aerobraking and landing are more difficult, especialy with the aerodinamic structural failure activated. I do pure stock when a new update is released but went for FAR as soon as ferram update it...

Well i'm a spaceplane builder mostly so going with FAR is the way for me. I don't like plane to behave... not like in reality.

[m4v]

I think what m4v is saying is that for his taste FAR is too realistic and people who are not aeronautical engineers may be overwhelmed by the degree of difficulty it adds. After all, not everyone here has a degree in fluid dynamics, physics or engineering. It all comes down to personal preference. If you want the realistic experience go with FAR, but the stock aerodynamics work much better for people who like to build huge spacecraft, and then there is NEAR somewhere in the middle. Play how you want to play

there's that, but that's only true for space planes, for rockets FAR makes putting anything in orbit a trivial task, you don't even need to do proper gravity turns, you can perfectly go 10km up, pitch 45º, do some cartwheels, and reach orbit with more dV to spare than with your best gravity turn in stock.

I don't follow the idea that just because it adds realism it must be good from a gameplay standpoint.