to FAR or not to FAR

[jman508]

i know far might mess up some of my designs i know it makes planing a lot harder but I'm looking to enhance my career save so I'm wondering from a person who has had far for a little while should i switch?

thanks

Edited March 26, 2015 by jman508

[jarmund]

It's hard at first, but then you realize that it actually makes flying a stable craft more intuitive, so in the long run it's actually easier.

Just a couple of things you need to get hang on first:

- Planes are harder to design, but FARs tools helps a lot.

- Your existing crafts probably have to be redesigned somewhat. But they should fly with minor tweaks.

- Rocket launches can get tricky at first, until you realize that you just need to limit your angle of attack.

- The lifting body effect can screw you over until you learn to use it to your advantage

- Fairings become a must. I haven't tried out many mods for this, but Procedural Fairings works fine for me

Once you get the hang of it (shouldn't take that long, really), you can reap these rewards:

- Taking off without having to swim through the soupmosphere

- Lift is generated realistically, meaning that you get more lift. (If memory serves me right, lift should be a square of the speed, while in stock it's just linear)

- Swept wings work as they should

- Flying is more fun

- In most cases, getting to space requires less Delta V with winged crafts

- It might prepare you for 1.0, depending on how the new aero model works

Edited March 25, 2015 by jarmund

[Hodo]

Jarmund is dead on, on all points.

FAR is the best choice I have ever made in a mod since I started playing oh 2 or 3 years ago.

[Greenfire32]

If it were me, I'd wait for 1.0 as the stock aerodynamics is updating.

[Friend Bear]

Or practice with FAR and prep for 1.0.

Plus, the chicks totally dig a player with FAR...

Its how I got my wife (see above).

You can also consider NEAR. It is much more friendly with aircraft. FAR is pretty brutal, but I also play with deadly reentry so that may have some degree of effect. And yes, Jarmund is right on. It is absolutely worth it. Makes you play around a bit more with delta-v since it will no longer be a definite 4500 to attain orbit, dependent on drag variables, etc.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Friend Bear
Added actually helpful comment

[Pecan]

If you ask the opinion of people "who has had far for a little while" they will say yes, because that's the decision they've made.

If you ask the opinion of people who haven't they'll say no, because that's the decision they've made.

FAR is different, not harder, but it may also turn out to be different enough to the aerodynamics in 1.0 that you still have to re-learn everything.

Choice is yours ... we're all guessing what the future holds.

Please see huge discussion, for want of a better term, at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/111541-Thinking-about-making-the-switch-to-FAR

Edited March 26, 2015 by Pecan

[Claw]

If you ask the opinion of people "who has had far for a little while" they will say yes, because that's the decision they've made.

If you ask the opinion of people who haven't they'll say no, because that's the decision they've made.

Honest and truly, this is the most important aspect to keep in mind. It really just depends on what you want to get out of the game. It looks like you've been playing the game for a while. Usually people start to settle into what kinds of mods best suit their play style. Physics enhancements, visual enhancements, science reworks, etc... If you find that you tend to play in deep space a lot, something that affects atmospheric behavior may not be all that useful. If you tend to build a lot of airplanes or spaceplanes (or think you're going to get into them), it can certainly change how the game feels for you.

Bear in mind that you can also make a copy of your entire KSP install, and put FAR on that second KSP install. That would allow you to cleanly revert if it turns out you don't like it. That might make make the prospect of a test drive a little less concerning.

Cheers,

~Claw

[cantab]

IMHO if you're interested in planes and you want them to fly like planes you should get FAR. A plane that works well in it is a joy. A plane that works badly, on the other hand, is a diabolical Kerbal deathtrap.

[Starhawk]

Well, you know, 1.0 is not really near, but it's not too far.

I apologize for this blatant abuse of the topic.

Happy landings!

[QPDO]

The only reason you should play with or without FAR should be: You want an additional challenge simulation-wise or not.

FAR is one of the options that move your game into the simulation corner. As well as Deadly Reentry, TAC or the Scale Mods that resize Kerbin or even turn the System into the Solar System with original geometry.

Whichever you choose be aware that it WILL change your game, it WILL teach you things you did not know and it WILL make you bite through your desk at least once. But concerning FAR you can't go wrong.. there is a help button for everything, there is the flight assistant that keeps you able to control the plane with your keyboard, and there are a lot of tutorials for designing planes, rockets and spaceplanes with FAR.

[jarmund]

The only reason you should play with or without FAR should be: You want an additional challenge simulation-wise or not. ( ... SNIP ... )

Not necessarily true. I just wanted flying to be more intuitive, and have the ability to sweep wings with same lift and less drag as opposed to reduced lift and same drag. I do use Deadly Reentry and TAC-LS but not for the realism - I do it for the sheer awesome of seeing your heatshield catch fire as you decend into the atmosphere and hope it'll hold past max Q, praying that your food containers won't get torn off by the fact that

Whichever you choose be aware that it WILL change your game, it WILL teach you things you did not know and it WILL make you bite through your desk at least once. But concerning FAR you can't go wrong.. there is a help button for everything, there is the flight assistant that keeps you able to control the plane with your keyboard, and there are a lot of tutorials for designing planes, rockets and spaceplanes with FAR.

Very true.

Also, if you don't like it after a day or two of trying, you could always *GHASP* uninstall FAR.

Edited March 26, 2015 by jarmund

[jman508]

yeah. decision made ima get it. can anyone give ma a link? or should i just hunt it down on curse.

Edited March 26, 2015 by jman508
to edit or not to edit

[Starhawk]

You can find it here.

Happy landings!

[Jovus]

There's one big drawback to installing FAR that nobody's touched on here and I think is only fair to warn you about.

If you get too into FAR, it might turn you into a closet aerodynamics nut. I went from "planes are those people-things in the sky, right?" and "Air is that thing that makes it hard to go to space!" to *grumble grumble* "I wish FAR supported wingtip vortices, and intra-craft part interactions (like closely-coupled canards deflecting airflow onto the wing) and inter-craft part interactions like robbing something of lift by flying too close, etc. etc."

Previously, my definition of a good weekend was going on a hike with my wife. Now, my definition of a good weekend includes going to the Air and Space museum with my wife.

You have been warned.

[capi3101]

Big question of whether or not to make the switch is simple: how much do you rely on mathematics in your launches? If you utilize the math and want a plane-like craft to behave like a plane-like craft, you might like FAR. If you're more of a "throw it together and see if it works" type, or if you prefer supersonic tri-planes, avoid FAR like the plague. Myself, I made the switch because A) I had pretty much nailed down how to fly planes in stock and because I knew changes to stock aero were coming and I wanted to get to a state where, to the best of my knowledge, I could design and fly craft that would work in the new state of things.

Pecan gave you the link to the thread I started up last month that's detailing my adventures with FAR. Have I figured everything out yet? No. Obviously. But I am learning, and I haven't yet resorted to throwing bricks, so there is that. My big annoyance with FAR is that I am very much a figures and guidelines type of builder, and FAR has few solid guidelines. Or at least, it has guidelines that are more ambiguous than stock. For example, in stock, you fly with 1:1 mass to total lift coefficient ratio. In FAR, that much wing will give you too much drag in the critical region between 25-30k. What's the proper substitution there? Hell if I know...I haven't found a working solution with stock parts yet, let's put it that way.

Edited March 26, 2015 by capi3101

[Van Disaster]

You'll find after a while with FAR you'll just be throwing things together that work. I usually do half a dozen flights before I open the FAR tools, and most of the time don't bother with the FAR tools - only if there's some quirk I'm trying to get rid of or I think I can get a bit more efficiency out of it.

For guidelines, read real life aerodynamics stuff, realise there's only one wing cross section ( it's a NACA reference supersonic aerofoil iirc ) and no spanwise flows.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Van Disaster