Sean Mirrsen

Isn't that... I don't know, the whole point of adding realism to aerodynamics? Adding aerodynamics, period? Good design flies good, bad design flies bad? That's already true in FAR as it is now. All that's left is taking FAR's range of bad to good, pick a middle point, and stick it right over the spot that stock KSP "aerodynamics" occupies. I don't know how to put it in simpler or better understandable terms.

Lowered Isp reduces engine efficiency on all counts of engine usage. Even supposing you don't decrease engine efficiency in space to account for the fact that FAR changes nothing in space, you are still changing performance of engines used for things other than tearing ridiculously fast through the atmosphere. It has more to do with the concept of FAR. FAR, by itself, does nothing to engines, only changing the aerodynamic interactions of parts. So, to use a convoluted simile, if you're freezing because your air conditioner is set too cold, you should really readjust it rather than turning on a heater. Cutting down engine efficiency because the air suddenly became too forgiving is rather looking for solutions in the wrong place. As for the "vertical climb". Like I said, experimentation is needed to pinpoint the exact changes required so that the result feels as "right" as possible. Using an "ideal" FAR rocket as a baseline would probably not be good, since if you want to reward good design, you should make it so that an "ideal" rocket flies better in FAR than in stock, but at the same time worse builds must fly worse - than those same builds in stock, not just the ideal rocket. FAR, right now, introduces realism blindly. It would, in my opinion, blend with KSP much better if it took the game's stock gameplay into account, and actually looked to augment it - punishing bad designs and rewarding good ones. It does do this right now, but on its own, within its own frame - barring extra control requirements you can take pretty much any station lifter and it'll fly up as well in FAR as it does stock, without so much as a Dynamic Fairing. It will do better with a fairing, but it won't do worse than it does stock, which in my opinion would need to be the whole point of introducing "realism" to KSP's aerodynamics. So in short, we do have to choose a baseline, but it should not be "ideal". The baseline would probably still need to get out of the thick of atmosphere before starting the turn. A better-built rocket might not have to.

The fourth point is possible by disconnecting your current core module from everything (leave it hanging as ghosts), and then delete the core. The new core you select will still be surrounded by ghosts, allowing you to quickly reassemble the whole thing.

I'd agree that points could be totaled for skirmish mode, but I find the experiment results themselves saying that it is meaningless (i.e. everything is already discovered) is perfect. More importantly though, science in KSP works in such a way that there is a finite amount of science to do in a given area. You won't recover any science in sandbox mode simply because all science has already been done - scientific values of all experiments are zero.

If you detach your subassembly from a surface, you will be able to attach it to a surface. Subassemblies function exactly the same as detached sections of ship you can leave floating around in VAB.

Check the scientific value of the experiment you're performing. It is possible that the experiment you're trying to run is useless on Kerbin, since the air is literally everywhere. If you ran the same experiment in the atmosphere of Duna, Eve, or Jool, you'd get a whole lot more science.

The design and the piloting I have absolutely no problem with. If it throws a challenge at me because of the improved aerodynamics system (or, yes, just aerodynamics system, as stock KSP doesn't really have one), then I will take it on and solve it. What I dislike is the reduction in difficulty that results. I regularly build designs that fly well, FAR or no, but I can't keep turning FAR on and off if I want to alternate between launching a rocket and a spaceplane, because the difficulty is dramatically reduced. I can put a non-aerodynamic 1-seat lander can on top of a small SRB, and that on top of a big SRB, and that configuration will easily achieve orbit with a periapsis halfway to the Mun. That's... really not encouraging good design. Not compared to stock. If a bad design flies better in FAR than in stock - and by "bad" I mean "shaped like a flat-top barrel" - then you aren't really improving anything. Yes, you are likely to need a few wings and control surfaces to keep the barrel-rocket from tipping over, but it simply shouldn't be as effective as it is, with FAR doing what it claims to. (note: I may be misremembering details of that lander-can/SRB thing, but I did do several tests with that, and that was one of the results I got - I just don't remember which it was at the moment, and I uninstalled FAR in lieu of playing through the new career mode)

Reposting this from the other thread: Probes really need instruments to gather data, and power to work. Without so much as using its reaction wheels, a typical probe will not last long enough on internal batteries to make it anywhere, plus the reaction wheels it does have are pitiful. Probes are thus nearly useless without RCS. So to recap, in order to do science - i.e. start the game - with probes, you need a probe core, some kind of instrument, either RCS or separate reaction wheels, and ideally some extra power because probe cores have pitiful reserves and actually need them to stay active. The power draw of the simplest transmission antenna, for the simplest report, is greater than what the probe can store, so you would be even more limited. A capsule, however, just needs a booster and a parachute - to go up and to come down, and everything else is done by the pilot. Starting the game with manned capsules thus makes more sense both from the game progression standpoint, and from the in-universe standpoint, that being the Kerbals' amazing incompetence in the face of their sheer engineering prowess. They have rocket engines and spacesuits, but need effort to put together space-worthy thermometers and battery packs or realize that landing legs are a thing that spaceships intending to land should probably actually have. Them not having remotely controlled probes from the start, in the light of all that, makes perfect sense.

Sent Jeb on the space program's first Mun mission. Second flight of the whole program. Jeb lands into pitch darkness onto a crater slope, goes out to collect samples, plants a flag, stumbles on the way back, falls, bumps into the lander and topples it. Rights it back up but nearly runs out of battery. Has no fuel to properly return to Kerbin, but is loaded with gooey science and soil samples. Establishes a 10x11km orbit around the Mun, inclined 45 degrees. Too much delta-V required to return, can't get out and push. Bill to the rescue. Miraculously, running out of fuel at the last second, Bill succeeds, but remains on a slightly higher orbit so that Jeb can safely land first. Bill is going to have to stay up there for a day or so more, but he's on an aerobraking trajectory, so he'll return. 360 science for Jeb and Bill's troubles. Yay!

The new version of KAS, Kerbal Attachment System, allows stuff to be carried in containers and placed during EVA. Including lights and science apparatuses, though I am far from sure that said science apparatuses will still count if they're still in their container when the craft is recovered, or if they will retain their previously stored science experiment if they're subsequently taken out and placed on the ship so they can be recovered.

The pods have reaction wheels because they need reaction wheels. The idea that a spacecraft may be large enough to require more reaction wheels than the pod itself has, may be a little too far beyond the Kerbals' imagination at the start of the program.

Probes really need instruments to gather data, and power to work. Without so much as using its reaction wheels, a typical probe will not last long enough on internal batteries to make it anywhere, plus the reaction wheels it does have are pitiful. Probes are thus nearly useless without RCS. So to recap, in order to do science - i.e. start the game - with probes, you need a probe core, some kind of instrument, either RCS or separate reaction wheels, and ideally some extra power because probe cores have pitiful reserves and actually need them to stay active. The power draw of the simplest transmission antenna, for the simplest report, is greater than what the probe can store, so you would be even more limited. Starting the game with manned capsules makes more sense both from the game progression standpoint, and from the in-universe standpoint, that being the Kerbals' amazing incompetence in the face of their sheer engineering prowess. They have rocket engines and spacesuits, but need effort to put together space-worthy thermometers and battery packs or realize that landing legs are a thing that spaceships intending to land should probably actually have. Them not having remotely controlled probes from the start, in the light of all that, makes perfect sense.

"Make your own" implies making an entire new mod for what is essentially a tune-up of the existing one. I don't want FAR to permanently change. I just want to be able to make FAR comply with a specific set of requirements, without compromising it for other players. KSP is set in a universe that is only an approximation of a real one, and it makes sense that physical laws in it would be, in at least some form, only approximations of real ones. Having fully realistic simulation may have undesired consequences. What FAR does alters the physics laws of the universe Squad have constructed, and at least in some respects, does it to the detriment of the game. In this case, the undesired consequences include making rocketry far easier than is intended by the core game. Spaceplanes are more difficult to make owing to the more complex/realistic rules of aerodynamics that FAR introduces, and that is perfectly fine. That's actually a very good thing, spaceplanes and SSTOs aren't supposed to be easy. (now if only it applied its airflow-shielding mechanics to air intakes... unless it actually does it already) Increasing atmospheric density could be an answer to the rocket problem, as Ferram points out, but: Would it not be far easier for you, Ferram, to make controls for those changes in FAR, and expose them in the config? There is no need for a plugin separate from FAR that does this, and you already have the functions in place - all you need is a multiplier variable for atmosphere density in them. Just for the lift and drag, no need to supercharge air intakes and hobble LFEs.I do admit that despite being a little bit of a programmer (stats in my sig are relatively up to date), I have next to no idea on how KSP plugins are put together yet, which is really why I am saying that. If I undertook that task I'd spend a week learning how basic things are done, and ultimately wouldn't do as good a job of it as the mod's original author could.

Presumably the same way a command pod always turns its downside into the airstream when it falls. They just exert a force that, in the air, attempts to keep the craft pointing forward.

You managed to release the update right on time with the .22 release. I guess if .22 breaks compatibility with mods, we won't be able to see KAS until 0.4.4. :|

I posted this one on a different forum, but it still applies: In other news, this forum really needs spoiler tags.

Um.. the rocket's efficiency? What other metric is there to go for?See, the way FAR works, there is a "perfect" rocket design. A perfect rocket shape, that, given the same TWR and delta-V, will achieve maximum performance. Stock KSP has no such preference, as only the mass and combined drag coefficients count - so long as the rocket is symmetrical. So, FAR in the end decides what is a "better" build. Kinda like it does now. The task of choosing the baseline rocket falls to us, however. The stock Kerbal-X seems to be a decent example of a typical stock rocket - full asparagus with a wide-ish base, short main stack with a Mainsail, and a heavy-ish lander that can only barely go to the Mun and maybe back. It has some room for improvement performance-wise, but that's the whole point. It's really a matter of experimentation. Maybe if FAR opened its aerodynamics coefficients in its config file...

Not "them". Just one craft to use a similar amount of delta-V, taken as baseline. A more aerodynamic shape than the baseline will be more efficient. A less aerodynamic shape than the baseline will be less efficient. More efficient rockets will get into space faster, lose less delta-V to air resistance, and be more stable and better controllable in flight. Less efficient, the opposite. The baseline, the "academic" build, would be a sort of a common rocket - not an outrageously bulbous stack of boosters, nor a slim space-bound needle. The "common rocket" should perform similarly in FAR and stock KSP both, allowing better designs to benefit and worse designs to suffer. I think you keep misreading my intent here.

Mine? Make atmosphere a little more obstructive at high velocities, add emullated turbulence to flat-top rockets, slightly increase overall perceived atmospheric density - probably. I don't really know how to change it yet, I'm no expert at this. Essentially shift the aerodynamic model's numbers around until an agreed-upon baseline rocket performs similarly both in FAR and stock, while at the same time realistically degrading relative performance of poorly-built rockets, and having a similar effect of well- and poorly-built airframes. The changes FAR makes to spaceplanes are a little too complex for me to quantify, but I am generally fine with what it does. Changing the numbers to balance rocket performance will likely mean that FAR spaceplanes will have a little more lift, and travel a little slower on the overall, and will have difficulty breaking the sound barrier close to the ground without being exceptionally streamlined. It will all have to be balanced, of course, what I'm suggesting is more or less just a direction. The details would need to be experimentally established.

I don't normally attach pylons to the ground. Then again, I don't use them much. But they work quite well even when simply dropped.

I haven't used them on interplanetary transfers yet, but my first experimental series of Kethane miners was a converted space tug, and it needed an extra kick to get into orbit because of all the extra mass... so I just slapped four small SRBs on the pusher stage. With predictable effects on Jeb. They otherwise worked quite fine, however.

A more aerodynamic build is more stable and has a smoother velocity/air-resistance curve (i.e. what being "aerodynamic" is all about, being able to go faster in the needed direction). Rockets are fairly single-purpose, and "going fast in the needed direction" happens to be that purpose. The reasons for using FAR are really primarily tied to spaceplanes - lift, control surfaces, aerodynamic shape, etc. Rockets are slightly secondary in that regard, which is all the more reason to try and not break them with the mod. Well-built aerodynamic rockets should benefit slightly from FAR, while typical barreloidal asparagus batches should suffer, and the spaceplanes will have the same changes going on with lifting and control surfaces. As it is now, thick barrel-shaped rockets fly worse in FAR than aerodynamic stacks do - but they still fly better in FAR than they do in stock. That's not really promoting good and/or realistic rocket design. And while I'm here, I think ferram's proposed balance solution to tweak engine Isp is honestly ridiculous. FAR is all about altering aerodynamic parameters, so why should it be balanced with engine efficiency? Why should VTOL rocketbases on Duna, that don't go very fast at all, suffer from increased fuel use intended to rein in suddenly overperforming lifters? Wouldn't tweaking the atmospheric values be a better way of going about it?

Not "a craft". Not any given craft. One, specific, baseline craft. A well-built, typical stock KSP rocket. Or the Kerbal-X, at least. The point is to make the baseline craft perform in FAR about as well on takeoff as it does in stock. From there, craft built worse will perform worse, while craft built better - slimmer, longer, more aerodynamic (which isn't all that hard in case of the Kerbal-X), will perform better. Once the values necessary for that behavior are established, everything else will work. (We called it "tailor-balancing" in Total Annihilation modding. Picking balanced points of reference and making any and all new material have performance and costs balanced against them. It's a slightly different application of the principle, but it's still relevant.)

Because I like it when design matters, plus I like FAR's control surface settings.I want FAR to be balanced against the game, picking a definite standard for performance and tweaking it from there. Hmm, I wonder. I do have some programming skill, maybe I could get permission and make a modified FAR version? Call it NEAR or something.

It's definitely a stock KSP problem, and happens with alternator-equipped engines that are fired at a throttle where they are running, but not generating enough power in absence of other power production sources. The easiest way to notice it is by using a jet engine with a probe core. If you don't set the throttle to at least 1/3rd before starting the engine, your probe core will deactivate despite there being power everywhere, because the jet will not rev up sufficiently to start producing power.