What aerodynamic model do you use?

[Wanderfound]

FAR. Painful to fly without it.

Planes should glide, not plow.

[Wallygator]

Stock drag fix.

99% of my time is spent in space so a more complex aero model is not that necessary for me. However, I would accept any improvements to the stock model if and when they appear.

[InterCity]

When building spaceplanes, extra glide is always good. So I moved to FAR.

But beware, first several flights ended up tearing the plane apart upon re-entry, because of my bad habit of pitching craft up.

[Overfloater]

Stock sloppydynamics in stock game, FAR in RSS.

[John FX]

FAR.

It is closer to how a gas actually works so it is what I prefer.

[WuphonsReach]

Started with stock, switched to FAR because I got unhappy with how easy it was to get rockets without any nosecones or fairings into orbit. Now the fairing mod that I have installed has a purpose. I have about a 10% launch failure now due to over-controlling, or exceeding terminal velocity, or having something burn off the side of the craft.

Nonetheless, it didn't take too long to get used to it. I just have to put a nosecone / fairing on, add fins on the tail, then just use tiny control movements until above 15-20k altitude.

I like it because the breakups are more realistic when you screw up and start corkscrewing on the ascent.

[Pixel of Life]

FAR. Because I want my airplanes to behave like actual airplanes, not like bricks with random lift-y bits attached to them.

[LABHOUSE]

I'm just afraid that if I use near (used to use) my near planes won't work in stock (happened with a rocket too).

[Sobanaut]

FAR + KIDS. First mods installed

The stock aero is horrible.

.... This ^

[WWEdeadman]

*gently guides deadman in the direction of the linux thread*

I'd reply with a word starting with F and "linux" after that. Unfortunately the forum rules restrict my vocabulary in that regard to simply saying: No.

[foxkill2342]

I use planes and I prefer stock aerodynamics. FAR is just way to tedious to design around. I don't care to fly planes that won't slow down. All I want added to stock aerodynamics is for landing gear extension to make the plane go slower.

[Franklin]

FAR because I'm a grown man.

[Cuky]

I was using FAR for first month or two with the game, but than I switched to NEAR. It is much better than default, but is still easier and more fun to fool around with than FAR.

[technicalfool]

FAR because I'm a grown man.

Why yes. FAR is the correct aerodynamic model, and you have to make realistic aircraft with it. Like this one:

Seriously, less of the No True Scotsman fallacy, please. You're insulting the intelligence of people you don't even know.

[Agost]

Why yes. FAR is the correct aerodynamic model, and you have to make realistic aircraft with it. Like this one:

http://greenoctagon.co.uk/~dmpserver/gallery/dmpmodsfar/Technicalfool/2014-11-06%2023-03-10.jpg

Seriously, less of the No True Scotsman fallacy, please. You're insulting the intelligence of people you don't even know.

FAR flight assistant is showing High Dynamic Pressure, because it's in transonic speeds and has a non-aerodinamic front... it would probably get destroyed as soon as it turns.

Also SAS modules are OP in KSP, there are 2 there...

[technicalfool]

FAR flight assistant is showing High Dynamic Pressure, because it's in transonic speeds and has a non-aerodinamic front...

More than likely, not that it makes a difference in this case.

it would probably get destroyed as soon as it turns.

So do most things in FAR if you try to turn them at mach speeds (or even significantly less than mach) without majorly limiting the amount of swing on each axis.

Also SAS modules are OP in KSP, there are 2 there...

It works with one, but I like to play. Here, have another FARplane, only this one is built to take advantage of rapid and entirely planned disassembly:

[prophet_01]

I prefer FAR. Although I played my first year in ksp without it. I like the way planes and shuttles work with FAR. The only thing that still annoys me is that the stock SAS (not reaction wheels!) is not working properly, due to the slow and soft reaction... I can easily control crafts with the keyboard that SAS can't (with a joystick it's a cake walk).

Also, to me FAR doesn't make getting to orbit that much easyer. The lower delta-v requirements go hand in hand with a need for proper control. The extra mass for winglets and gimbaling engines (booster only stages are problematic) makes my small rockets less efficent. Allthough they are still smaller than they would be in stock, they are getting more complex

[StevenJ]

All though FAR is not prefect it is really darn good. Stock aero dynamics feel like you are flying through soup rather than air! Also if you feel FAR makes it too easy to get to space, use Ferram's KIDS mod to change how ISP works which puts it back in balance. I do, haven't flown any rockets in a long time though. I mainly build replica US fighter jet aircraft. Though I intended to play through career mode again after .9 is released. Right now sandbox is providing me with enough fun.

[antiquark]

Currently trying FAR, but it seems quite unrealistic. For example, how often do you hear real-world stories of jets whose wings just ripped off because they turned too fast.

[Warq]

They have built in systems preventing them from turning too fast. And years of research on structural integrity.

[Starwhip]

You don't need an atmospheric model when there's about to be no air left in the planet....