Going back from FAR to stock aero

[Motokid600]

I see a lock in this threads future. Anyway..

KIDS does NOT change Dv requirements. Just the engine performance. And it's difficult.. I find FAR+KIDS harder then stock. Much harder.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Motokid600

[NathanKell]

m4v: if it's so trivial, why do so many complain that FAR makes their rockets impossible to get to orbit?

[m4v]

m4v: if it's so trivial, why do so many complain that FAR makes their rockets impossible to get to orbit?

I don't know man, I don't try to use popularity for back up my arguments, I'm talking from my experience, which was what OP asked.

[Wiseman]

FAR drives me nuts. I get impatient on my launches, push too far, cartwheel my rocket and it flies apart. Even my best-designed lifters occasionally cartwheel at 30km two or three times if I'm not paying attention (and those are my SUCCESSFUL launches). NEAR is slightly less frustrating, but just slightly.

That said, I like flying in soup even less. I played a bit of stock when .24 came out, and I switched back almost immediately when FAR updated. I love engineering my rockets to need to deal with fairings and interstages, since it feels less goofy, even when launching space station bits and in-situ-assembled interplanetary vessels. Asparagus pancakes aren't for me. I feel a bit like I'm cheating since I don't use KIDS, but to be honest I like the lower dV to orbit requirements, since it keeps the part count down on my lifters.

[Jouni]

Launching rockets is easy enough with FAR. Make them pointy, never use winglets or other counterproductive parts, and keep the nose pointing roughly to prograde. The rockets need a bit more babysitting than with stock aerodynamics, as the correct turn rate varies from design to design.

My only problem with FAR is that it makes my rockets look ugly by doubling their payload capacities. A bigger Kerbin requiring 5000-6000 m/s to reach orbit would result in much nicer rocket designs. On the other hand, the rest of the solar system should remain small, as the low delta-v requirements allow for more interesting missions.

[Motokid600]

Launching rockets is easy enough with FAR. Make them pointy, never use winglets or other counterproductive parts, and keep the nose pointing roughly to prograde. The rockets need a bit more babysitting than with stock aerodynamics, as the correct turn rate varies from design to design.

My only problem with FAR is that it makes my rockets look ugly by doubling their payload capacities. A bigger Kerbin requiring 5000-6000 m/s to reach orbit would result in much nicer rocket designs. On the other hand, the rest of the solar system should remain small, as the low delta-v requirements allow for more interesting missions.

..Heh? Why's that? FAR is meant to inspire GOOD looking rockets.. er.. REAL looking rockets. The good or bad part is subjective.

[m4v]

..Heh? Why's that? FAR is meant to inspire GOOD looking rockets.. er.. REAL looking rockets. The good or bad part is subjective.

FAR makes you put fairings and nosecones on everything, with procedural fairings you can do some really silly looking rockets. But yes, this is subjective.

[Jouni]

The rockets look strange, because the payloads are just too big compared to the rest of the rocket. This rocket, for example, launches a 220-tonne engine module.

[NathanKell]

And that would be because Kerbin is 1/3 the size of the Moon. Not exactly FAR's fault.

[ferram4]

If everyone complaining that FAR makes things to easy dV wise would listen for a second, I can point you to something that will help:

In the Space Center, there is a FAR button that takes you to the debug menu.

In one of the tabs in the debug menu, there is an area factor that scales all aerodynamic forces.

Increase the area factor by 10.

Enjoy return of souposphere with ridiculous sideways lift forces and pods that reenter at 1/3 their original speed.

[WafflesToo]

@ferram4 - I am honestly really impressed that you never seem to lose your temper XD

Never going back to stock, not since discovering exactly how ludicrous it's behavior is with my sideways-flying badmitton bird experiment

I'm baffled when people say they have trouble launching rockets with FAR; just follow the prograde marker. I think a lot of trouble comes from everyone learning the wrong way to do things first then trying to do it the right way (I'm looking at you, "fly to 10km, kick it over 45-dg all at once" flight profile.)

[Alshain]

Well I prefer NEAR but I have to say I am never going back to stock. I simply don't want to be punished for enjoying a sleek looking rocket with proper fairings. Yes you can overdo it with some fairing mods, but that's your choice. It's not your choice to have a fairing which should improve aerodynamics detract from your so called "aerodynamics" because you put it on the ship in the first place.

[Renegrade]

I tried out NEAR, but I found that it didn't smooth out the kinda.. twitchiness of FAR, and lacked the analysis tools so I went back to FAR.

And that would be because Kerbin is 1/3 the size of the Moon. Not exactly FAR's fault.

I calculated that if Kerbin had the Earth's density, it's surface gravity would be 0.92 m/sec, or 0.094g (well technically that would be '1g' for Kerbals..but 0.094 Earth gravities)... If it had the Moon's density, it would have gravity similar to Minmus at the surface..

It's a weird system, to be sure

Enjoy return of souposphere with ridiculous sideways lift forces and pods that reenter at 1/3 their original speed.

I'm adding souposphere to my vocabulary. Hehe

I might try out that 10x setting for fun - would it have the exact same physics as a 10x as dense atmosphere?

[ferram4]

Effectively, yes. Since the equation for drag, lift, and pretty much any aerodynamic force is:

F = 0.5 * air_density * velocity² * ref_area * C_F

where F stands in for D, L, etc.

If you increase ref_area by a factor of 10, that's identical to increasing air_density by a factor of 10.

[Renegrade]

If you increase ref_area by a factor of 10, that's identical to increasing air_density by a factor of 10.

That's what I thought, but wasn't certain. Thanks!

I'm off to go simulate Venus...

To the Souposphere!!!

EDIT: ooh, some really weird things happen at 10x area factor... things seem normal for a while, but above a certain speed sometimes a very violent vibration suddenly cuts in...

Edited August 9, 2014 by Renegrade

[Ruedii]

Well, if you want something more in between you can always use something between 1x and 10x. I might go and try either 2x or 3x.

Is there a way you can scale down aerodynamic failures. I'm already getting them a lot at 1x, and I hate to imagine what 2x or 3x might do.

BTW, if you like the stock overpowered air-breathers, you can remove the segments on them. I recommend leaving the more realistic warm up and spin-down times as well as the better velocity curves, even if you remove the reduced thrust. Just remember, normal jet engines aren't normally run at full throttle any time other than take off. In fact, I was considering an alternate realistic limitation that would make them overheat after a few minutes at full throttle. (Ferram4 is free to try out this realism method if he wants to.)

Edited August 9, 2014 by Ruedii

[Master Tao]

Is there a way you can scale down aerodynamic failures.

You can click the FAR button in the Space Center to disable or modify aerodynamic failures. You could also try using Dynamic Control Adjustment (DCA button) to make your control surfaces adapt to flight conditions.

[TheReaper]

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

there are some mods from ferram 4 , that adds isp limitations and others to make it more chalanging.