Ferram vs. Stock

[warhunter676]

So now that we have the new aerodynamics and ferram has been updated will you remain using stock aero or will you download ferram again?

As for myself I think the stock aerodynamics are a big upgrade from what we had before but the new update has made several aspects of the game more complex than they should be and others are less complex than they should be.

Maybe I've just been playing with ferram too much but how about yourself? Do you now prefer stock over ferram?

Edited May 12, 2015 by warhunter676

[regex]

It's ferram, sheeesh...

[warhunter676]

I'm sorry

[raidernick]

It's ferram, sheeesh...

it's not like it says the name of the mod IN the mod right?

[warhunter676]

it's not like it says the name of the mod IN the mod right?

Fine don't even answer my question.

[Alshain]

it's not like it says the name of the mod IN the mod right?

In his defense, everyone just calls it FAR.

[Hyomoto]

I don't exactly feel the need to use FAR since the stock aerodynamics do behave in expected and believable ways now. Many behaviors FAR allowed for now exist in stock, albeit to a more forgiving degree. I played with AJE + DRE + FAR before 1.0, but stock emulates those behaviors on it's own and has many of the same results. I can no longer fly up to 20km with a simple turbojet engine, the forces of drag can flip my rocket. While I'm not the only one waiting on a 1.0.3 patch to fix some additional stock goofiness, for the time being I'll stick with stock. I'll probably dabble with these mods when they all update one day, but KSP isn't a hardcore simulator and trying to inject that into it is a large undertaking. Right now I'm far more interested in Scatterer than nuFAR because, for me at least, whether or not my ailerons stall 100% correctly isn't as interesting as having an atmosphere to fly in.

[regex]

To answer the question, as of 1.0 I think of FAR more as a mod for RSS/Realism Overhaul rather than stock; ferram's current work deserves much better than some rinky-dink solar system. Stock works just fine as-is and will be much better once the afore-mentioned tweaks arrive.

[SkyRender]

FAR is fantastic if you like to have your planes and rockets flip out of control and become impossible to regain control of the second their aerodynamic profile deviates more than about 5% from perfect. Stock is considerably more forgiving, both in terms of recovery potential and threshold for flipping out of control.

[federicoaa]

I believe main difference is that stock is oriented to gameplay (aka "being fun") whereas FAR is oriented to realism

[Bill Phil]

Since I managed to, on more than one occasion, make orbit after flipping in the air, I'd say FAR is much more realistic. But that's not necessarily better or more fun. It really depends on who you're talking to.

[Brotoro]

I'm sorry

You can edit your first post to correct the misspelling in the title.

[Hary R]

As a user of both, here is what i can say, stock is good as it is (even if some tweeking is more than welcome), it have make you craft behave like it should but still let's you have some (IMO considerable) error margin. Fun, forgiving, but gives you some realistic behavior.

FAR on the other hand, being testing it for a couple of days now and man it's not forgiving at all, but for realism fan it's a lot of fun, your design must be as good as you can. A plane of mine that was stable in stock 1.0.x become impossible to fly with FAR due to stupid design decision...

To summarize, I will just say that I agree with regex on the realism overhaul thing.

[mythbusters844]

I find the new FAR better, if not more fun, than stock. Something about the realism just makes it seem more fun and adds to the gameplay. It's hard to explain.

God, the voxel aero is so cool! It's literally a dream come true.

[Mipe]

With FAR you can stall. With stock you cannot stall (at least I haven't managed to with any of abominations I've built so far).

[Hobbes Novakoff]

I wouldn't mind extra gameplay challenge, as long as we can get that amazing voxel-mesh-sim-thingy in nuFAR.

[Aik]

Seeing FAR is available I don't see any reason not to use it. If we're going to have a game that simulates the atmosphere why stop at half-measures?

Is stock actually balanced for 'fun', or is it just a lazy simulation and thus slightly easier? I can understand that easier can be more fun depending on what you're after, but the whole balanced-for-gameplay vs realism argument feels a bit suspect to me.

[Kaa253]

I was a long time FAR & DRE user up to and including beta. Just now I am playing through a career of the 1.02 release mostly stock. I want to know exactly what I have given up when I decide to up the challenge. I will probably give nuFAR a go when I feel it is time to inject fresh life into the game.

Being able to fly through turns that should tear the wings off, being unable to stall and being able to perform extreme g fireball style reentry is like a holiday. Good for trying out the new KSP release but in the long run I know that some added difficulty and realism will be more satisfying and hence provide more sustained entertainment.

[Khazar]

Wondering if its better to focus on easiness or realism ? The answer is simple :

[KerbMav]

If I ever get around to reading where FAR differs from stock now I will make my decision. For now I am content with stock aerodynamics and have enough problems at hand with conflicting mods killing my save.

You can edit your first post to correct the misspelling in the title.

If he ever comes back here after the grumpybunch posted before their first coffee.

[Chaos_Klaus]

With stock you cannot stall

Yes you can.

A lot of the frustration people have had with FAR was that it made your rockets flip on takeoff and rip wings of when maneuvering too hard. That's just what stock aero does now. So everybody had to step up their game and build better rockets. That's a good thing.

Still, I think FAR is more fun. The reasonis, that while it is more complex and sophisticated unter the hood, it is actually more predictable to me than stock. With the new voxel thingy that nuFAR does, you actually get the aerodynamic behaviour you would expect from the shape of your craft.

Stock aero on the other hand does magic stability assists in the background even without SAS enabled. This way you do not know if your design is actually stable, or if KSP makes it stable. That kinda annoys me from a scientific standpoint. It makes sense from a gamplay standpoint though, because not everyone wants to focus on aerodynamics.

I've tried the new FAR yesterday and I really love it.

Stock aero will be great aswell, when they rebalance the drag. Don't believe the anti-hype. It's not crap. It's just not balanced well at the moment. The system is fine.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Chaos_Klaus

[Lukaszenko]

I started using FAR as soon as it was released. Not so much for its unforgiving realism, but for all those voxels!Seriously though, now when I make a realistic-looking streamlined rocket, I know that it's for a reason besides the one I have to make up in my mind.

Much appreciated also that Squad gave us more tools to make streamlined rockets with!

[Sky_walker]

So everybody had to step up their game and build better rockets. That's a good thing.

Funny considering that back in 0.24.x days any discussion about aero quickly lured tons of people saying that it'd do the opposite - make game "unfun" and "too difficult" and tons of other weird arguments in that style.

Still, I think FAR is more fun. The reasonis, that while it is more complex and sophisticated unter the hood, it is actually more predictable to me than stock. With the new voxel thingy that nuFAR does, you actually get the aerodynamic behaviour you would expect from the shape of your craft.

Oh yes, that's so very true.

You know I actually never managed to build successful spaceplane in pre-1.0.0 aerodynamics? I made numerous attempts and always failed. With FAR? Suddenly thing starts to behave as expected and I made my cool spaceplane

[Hyomoto]

That's because if you ask people what they want, typically they say things they already have. Humanity is, on average, bad at change. Couple those two and you have people who must be drug into the future only to discover, hey, it wasn't nearly as horrible here as I thought!

However, I don't think that nuFAR is more fun just because it's more accurate. I've been a FAR user since slightly after it became available, but the reason it was so mandatory is because the stock aerodynamics were so far departed from any semblence of reality they weren't fun at all. I respect FAR, and honestly I'll probably dabble with it again, but with the accuracy of the system it creates new problems in KSP. Suddenly I need all these highly aerodynamic parts, I need these procedural wings, because stack building just isn't the best way to design a plane. I think Ferram has included some wiggle room for this reason and I might be wrong, I might really enjoy nuFAR when I pick it up, but since stock does for me now what FAR did for me previously, it deserves at least spending time with it to try it out and it's most certainly nowhere near as terrible as many people want to describe it.

[Motokid600]

I just... Really like it when my vehicles disintegrate when I loose control with FAR.