How to NEAR?!

[quasarrgames]

I just started playing with NEAR yesterday, and i don't understand it! All i understand is that stability is related to the com/cot like in regular KSP, and that narrower wings make the plane go faster.

If anyone gould give me a quick 10-second description of what i need to know, or direct me to some good tutorials, that would be a BIG help!

[agent 902]

first,whats the problem with you rockets/planes?

[quasarrgames]

mostly it's that they have no maneuverability. My best plane takes several kilometers to make a turn. some of them can't even turn up at the runway. Also, unlike the stock ksp that i know, putting control surfaces on the front of my planes hasn't helped this very much, if at all. Moving the wings forward seems to help, but only marginally.

[capi3101]

I've heard it said that NEAR is pretty much a joke - something Ferram created because he was getting complaints about folks not being able to figure out how to use FAR...

Recently I've made the switch to FAR; some of what I've learned there might be applicable to your case as well. You'll probably get at least one person on this thread who recommends switching to FAR instead of NEAR; haven't never tried NEAR myself, that person will not be me...

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I have tried NEAR (for quite a while until I recently switched to FAR) and maneuverability is dependent on speed and length i.e. shorter planes with higher aspect ratio going slower will turn faster.

Try canards instead of tails and making your wings look like real airplane wings is always a good idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#/media/File:Lockheed_Martin_F-22A_Raptor_JSOH.jpg

P.S. plenty of vertical surfaces near the tail is a good idea.

[Wanderfound]

There are minor differences, but NEAR is fairly similar to FAR (minus most of the GUI analysis tools). See the links in my .sig for "how to build in FAR" guides. The GUI tools help, but they aren't necessary; you can get to the same resuts by trial and error test flying and tweaking.

As a general rule, though: make it look like a real plane. If it looks like it should be able to fly in reality, then it probably will in NEAR/FAR. And try to avoid all of the bad habits encouraged by stock aero (e.g. intake spamming, wing stacking, part clipping, etc.); they won't work in NEAR/FAR.

[Van Disaster]

I've heard it said that NEAR is pretty much a joke - something Ferram created because he was getting complaints about folks not being able to figure out how to use FAR...

Truth. It's actually harder than FAR with the aero failures turned off...

Most info about FAR can be applied to NEAR, aside from anything relating to supersonic aeronautics which is a fairly rare topic, tbh - so hunting for FAR discussions will probably answer any questions.

To strengthen Wanderfound's points: forget anything you knew about KSP atmospheric flight whether it's aircraft or rockets - just pretend you don't know anything at all other than how to attach a part to another part. Now just look at a few real life planes & try and make something similar ( or even rockets ) and you should be ok.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Van Disaster

[cantab]

NEAR doesn't give you the analysis tools. Building planes in NEAR rather than FAR is thus analogous to building rockets with KER. Your only way to see how your design performs is to test fly it.

Otherwise, general aerodynamic principles will apply, with the exception of those specifically related to supersonic flight. I've found reading about real-world aerodynamics can be helpful for FAR.

[impyre]

I use NEAR, and it does simplify some things. I had this problem: When the plane can go fast enough to fly, it can't turn... and if it's going slow enough to turn it cannot fly. This means your lift-to-weight ratio is too low. Experiment until your plane can take off at around 80m/s. Once you can do that, you'll immediately notice a big difference in the way it flies. Other than that, just ensure that center of lift stays behind center of mass at all times. I find that raising center of lift a little above the line that runs through center of mass and center of thrust adds a bit of roll stability. As someone else said, adding forward canards can also help improve mobility (but be warned that your plane's ability to adjust its angle of attack can outstrip its ability to generate lift with highly maneuverable craft). The most stable vessel will have maneuverability that is slightly less than its lift capacity(max pre-stall AOA)... reducing the chances of stalls.

[Alshain]

mostly it's that they have no maneuverability. My best plane takes several kilometers to make a turn. some of them can't even turn up at the runway. Also, unlike the stock ksp that i know, putting control surfaces on the front of my planes hasn't helped this very much, if at all. Moving the wings forward seems to help, but only marginally.

1. Make sure your CoL is just very slightly behind the CoM (overlapping a bit). Too far back will make it hard to maneuver.

2. Make sure you right click on control surfaces and define them as their proper input.

3. Make sure your pitch control surface is as far back from the CoM as you can get it.

Be aware, you still can't turn your plane as quickly as in stock, because real planes can't do that. However you should be able to get them to turn fairly well. If you are still having trouble, post a pic with CoM and CoL showing.

Truth. It's actually harder than FAR with the aero failures turned off..

I've flown both and I've found that this is a falsehood too. If you go from FAR to NEAR, you may think so but going from stock to NEAR and then to FAR, NEAR is easier than FAR. Of course you think NEAR is harder if you've been flying with FAR for a long time and try to go backward, but the truth is NEAR is definitely easier coming from stock, and once you get used to NEAR it makes it easier to move to FAR.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Alshain

[impyre]

I agree with Alshain. I played with FAR before I switched to NEAR, but I hadn't used FAR for very long (just long enough to get frustrated at being unable to understand how the craft design was affecting the graphs... and how that was representative of flight... and how easy it is to stall... and how craft can be stable across some speeds but not others... not to mention how easy it is to shred your craft). By comparison, NEAR was much easier to adjust to and more intuitive (if you're used to stock and not an aero engineer). I have been contemplating trying FAR again though.

[Van Disaster]

I've flown both and I've found that this is a falsehood too. If you go from FAR to NEAR, you may think so but going from stock to NEAR and then to FAR, NEAR is easier than FAR. Of course you think NEAR is harder if you've been flying with FAR for a long time and try to go backward, but the truth is NEAR is definitely easier coming from stock, and once you get used to NEAR it makes it easier to move to FAR.

Differences:

* No analysis tools

* No supersonic effects - this includes no supersonic levels of drag, which makes a considerable difference aerobraking or re-entering. Aside from that it's just a little CoL shift and as you speed up flight surfaces start behaving more like boards than shaped wings, which means you can fly at absurd AoAs if you can keep the craft balanced.

* Not sure right now because I don't track NEAR, but I think it's using an older version of FAR; Ferram mentioned he wasn't updating the NEAR aero model a while ago

* No failures, but they're optional under FAR anyway.

So really the difference is no supersonic effects, no way of checking your plane out before flying it, and possibly an older version of FAR as a flight model ( and perhaps it doesn't have the engine nerf MM patches).

No supersonic drag would probably make getting a spaceplane to orbit easier, actually - but coming back, not so much.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Van Disaster

[Alshain]

Differences:

* No analysis tools

* No supersonic effects - this includes no supersonic levels of drag, which makes a considerable difference aerobraking or re-entering. Aside from that it's just a little CoL shift and as you speed up flight surfaces start behaving more like boards than shaped wings, which means you can fly at absurd AoAs if you can keep the craft balanced.

* Not sure right now because I don't track NEAR, but I think it's using an older version of FAR; Ferram mentioned he wasn't updating the NEAR aero model a while ago

* No failures, but they're optional under FAR anyway.

So really the difference is no supersonic effects, no way of checking your plane out before flying it, and possibly an older version of FAR as a flight model ( and perhaps it doesn't have the engine nerf MM patches).

No supersonic drag would probably make getting a spaceplane to orbit easier, actually - but coming back, not so much.

Yes it makes it easier to get to orbit but doesn't change really anything noticeable coming back. Your theorizing and I'm speaking from experience. It's easy to say what it will "probably" do but I'm telling you what saw. Moving from stock to NEAR is easier than moving from stock to FAR.

I agree with Alshain. I played with FAR before I switched to NEAR, but I hadn't used FAR for very long (just long enough to get frustrated at being unable to understand how the craft design was affecting the graphs... and how that was representative of flight... and how easy it is to stall... and how craft can be stable across some speeds but not others... not to mention how easy it is to shred your craft). By comparison, NEAR was much easier to adjust to and more intuitive (if you're used to stock and not an aero engineer). I have been contemplating trying FAR again though.

Basically the exact same thing I did. But now I've switched to FAR from NEAR and I found FAR to be much easier than it was before. FAR is like jumping into a pool head first while NEAR is like wading in slowly. Try FAR now, you will find it a lot easier to get used to.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Alshain

[Wjolcz]

Keep the CoL behind CoM and, well... Make your planes look like actual IRL planes. I dunno. I play with NEAR and it all just comes naturally. Sometimes I don't even have to check CoM/CoL placement.

Something really important, though: Fine tuning. The editor nodes are real blessing when it comes to fine tuning. Fly your plane, see how it behaves, think about what could be causing it's bad behaviour, go back to SPH, fine tune, fly again.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Veeltch

[Starchaser]

So I shouldn't like, put pylons and engines above the wings?

[BudgetHedgehog]

So I shouldn't like, put pylons and engines above the wings?

Why not?

[Starchaser]

It was something of a joke. I work for Honda Aircraft Company...

[BudgetHedgehog]

Heh, I was going to use the Honda jet as an example but I couldn't find a picture of it that didn't look photoshopped.

[Starchaser]

I have a pic taken by one of our quality guys of F-1 on the tarmac (the grey and white one) with Air Force 1 flying over it. Air Force 1 uses our airport to practice touch and go-s about every 6 months.

I'd post it, but our media team is squicky about unauthorized internet posting. The above is off of the website though, so they already posted it.

There are some nice shots in our gallery.

http://www.hondajet.com/gallery-and-downloads/

[jlcarneiro]

I'm having problems with spaceplanes using NEAR and DRE. I'm trying to desing three space planes, each using one set of parts (Mk1, Mk2 or Mk3).

I've done that on 0.25 (at the time with exactly THIS Mk1 - stock I think), but on 0.90 I just can't make it.

The space in between the two fuselage cilinders is intended (and on 0.25 was used) to hold cargo.

Can you help me debug it?

EDIT:

It goes quite fine (it's a bit hard to control, keeps rolling) until 25km, then it starts craving for air. I go back to 10 degrees to get speed (preparing for the final run) but it really burns in the atmosphere... I start loosing the RCS (that I'd need later on space), then struts, and so on...

EDIT2:

It seems my problem has something to do with DREC 6.5.3 beta. I downgraded to 6.4 and although I still have trouble, I've finally got into orbit. Any help would be appreciated, though...

Edited March 29, 2015 by jlcarneiro