Official FAR Craft Repository

[kcs123]

5 minutes ago, Cratzz said:

Thx, yea a mod wasn't loading...fixed, perceptive of you 

Ah, now I see that FAR icon was not showing up properly, probably whole FAR failed either. And if I'm right, it was some silly mistake while installing mod.

[Cratzz]

On 5/22/2019 at 7:17 PM, kcs123 said:

Ah, now I see that FAR icon was not showing up properly, probably whole FAR failed either. And if I'm right, it was some silly mistake while installing mod.

Everything is working as intended, the icon not displaying is just a old bug

Edited May 23, 2019 by Cratzz

[Cratzz]

EDIT

Edited December 31, 2020 by Cratzz

[Cratzz]

EDIT

Edited June 26, 2019 by Cratzz

[Chet]

Halsfury and Hodo have posted, WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION, a photo of the Chrysler Corporation Space Division • General Dynamics Convair Division conceptual cover art of their proposal for the C/D Phase of the Space Shuttle Program.  Note the Dodge pickup truck.  The orbiter with manned reusable booster was judged technically superior, but was an unaffordable solution in the post-Saturn/Apollo acquisition budget.  (While it had a higher acquisition cost than Rockwell,  it met ALL of the initial technical requirements, and had the lowest life cycle cost...go figure.)  Rockwell's shuttle was much smaller and did not meet the initial requirements established for the program, but it was cheapened up to meet the latest less rigorous technical requirements. The Chrysler/GD orbiter had a HOMOGENIOUS ablative heat shield, which could be rapidly scraped off upon her return to earth, and a new one rapidly applied - allowing one week turn arounds...NO TILES, glued on by migrant workers at Rockwell, and no Columbia diaster.

The selection of Rockwell removed Chrysler; Von Braun's synergistic partner in the Redstone,  Jupiter, and Saturn I/IB Programs; and turned the future of NASA over to the Air Force.

I was on a business trip when I watched, on airport TV, the fate of the Challenger.  I called my mother at my parent's home.  "Thank God it's not your father's shuttle"  she told me.

I then called my father "I would never launch a man with a SRB" he sadly and angerly told me.

YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.

 

[Vanamonde]

Hi @Chetand welcome to the forum.

That being said, the post you are referring to is pretty old and the discussion has moved on. One of those people doesn't even visit the forum anymore. At any rate, how about we resume talking about current events in the game and FAR? 

[Svm420]

So I have this awesome F-4E replica here. It performs amazing. Heavy as hell, but it has a ton of thrust so she can fly. It has one issue though. It has horrible roll angular acceleration with respect to yaw. So she just rolls constantly to the right. It is definately casued by the 23* anhedral on the tail, but everything I have read suggests the lateral instability should be resolved by the 12* diherdral angle on the outer section of the main wing. I get that fighter jets have inherent instabilities. Thoughts?

Spoiler

Click the pic for more

 

Edited June 15, 2019 by Svm420

[kcs123]

5 hours ago, Svm420 said:

It is definately casued by the 23* anhedral on the tail, but everything I have read suggests the lateral instability should be resolved by the 12* diherdral angle on the outer section of the main wing. I get that fighter jets have inherent instabilities. Thoughts

Most probable cause of issue you have already detected by yourself. Maybe to play around with angle on both, wingtip angle and on tail. Main issue with any replica attempt is that you can get a good look of craft, but you can't get exact mass distribution and mass amount with KSP parts. So, you might need to sway away slightly from real life craft in terms how it look, or you may need to alter part config files to get exact weight distribution as real life craft.

[Svm420]

On 6/15/2019 at 2:27 AM, kcs123 said:

Most probable cause of issue you have already detected by yourself. Maybe to play around with angle on both, wingtip angle and on tail. Main issue with any replica attempt is that you can get a good look of craft, but you can't get exact mass distribution and mass amount with KSP parts. So, you might need to sway away slightly from real life craft in terms how it look, or you may need to alter part config files to get exact weight distribution as real life craft.

I use RealFuel and lead ballast for weight and match listed specs for the plane. I use wing configs from RO so no unrealistically strong or heavy wings. I know though I can't match the exact airfoils used. For the COM/COL placement I go off any statements regarding craft handing. Not finding anything stating its unstable or even neutral and requires SAS, so I assume the COM is slightly ahead of COL giving positive static stability in the real thing. Individually parts may be more or less than the real life section, but overall its very close. It's hardest to get the fuselage the exact dimensions without using ugly Pparts. So maybe body lift/drag added stability that i'm lacking, or the airfoils. Those are the hardest things to account for. I just don't want to stray far from the replica look. It's the first time I've had a plane have this issue, but proves FAR is a decent simulation when you run in to issues that RL has had to deal with. I tried shortening the elevators slightly and lengthening the outer main wing and it reduced the number 4 fold but its still has the instability. It does get stable above 1.4M and it reverses and rolls left in the high transonic region. Weird thing is if I add exaggerated dihedral to the main wing it still doesn't resolve the issue. Surprises me how strong the instability is, and how it changes in flight. Just gotta find the right comprise i guess.

[Captain Buzz Alderaan]

Hi guys,

Haven't played KSP  or have been to this forum for that matter in the longest time (.90 days). I'm currently setting up my new game. I do however have my old .90 install still lying around with 2 jets i'm kinda proud of. Would this be the correct space to maybe post some pics or maybe some videos of them, or nah?

[tetryds]

On 6/23/2019 at 8:19 PM, Captain Buzz Alderaan said:

Hi guys,

Haven't played KSP  or have been to this forum for that matter in the longest time (.90 days). I'm currently setting up my new game. I do however have my old .90 install still lying around with 2 jets i'm kinda proud of. Would this be the correct space to maybe post some pics or maybe some videos of them, or nah?

This thread was created specially for that!

[Gr@y]

Very simple, cheap and low-science jet:

Spoiler

 

Easy take-off:

ceiling 24 km:

And just awesome maneurability:

 

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by Gr@y
hiding pictures under the spoiler

[tetryds]

@Gr@y While your jet is interesting, the thread is for sharing FAR aircraft, which use a more advanced aerodynamic simulation, you should try it out!

 

 

[sturmhauke]

He's using FAR though. Look in the 3rd screenshot.

[Gr@y]

On 7/10/2019 at 3:44 AM, tetryds said:

@Gr@y While your jet is interesting, the thread is for sharing FAR aircraft, which use a more advanced aerodynamic simulation, you should try it out!

Is it looks too cool for a FAR-capable craft? 

23 hours ago, sturmhauke said:

He's using FAR though. Look in the 3rd screenshot.

Yup, FAR 0.15.10.1 Lundgren. Normal flight status at Mach 2.9 on 24km (the screenshot don't display the best performance). Over the 24 Km engine suffocates and I don't count that as a flight, but I climbed to 30+.

I didn't upload the craft, because it's very simple, no hidden elements, just those visible 26 parts stacked together. Winglets - pitch 100 / heel 30, tails - yaw 100

No tricks, it flies really perfect, just build it yourself as on the picture and try. Nesterov's loop, half-loop, barrel roll in supersonic mode - just limited by parts' toughness, not aerodynamics.

Why am I so excited about this design? Because when I was just starting using FAR, my familiar crafts was just falling into a flat spin and I could do nothing with that. But not this craft. It is unable to drop into flat spin. I'm serious. I tried. Knock out Jeb by15G, break off the wings - easily. But flat spin - forget it. It just flies where you turn it.

UPD.

The simplier - the better, only 13 parts (testing model is not equipped with airbrakes or emergency parachutes, +4 parts). With one engine the craft is lighter, a bit slower, but more agile, and still, incredibly stable:

Spoiler

Maybe if I knew what those color lines means, I could do it even better

25.5 km ceiling is penetrated. One engine needs less air and suffocates at 26 km.

Actually, the maximum is 37.7 km  Jeb is excited, me too.

Trying to catch a flat spin...

Vain 

I called it Arrowhead

 

Edited July 11, 2019 by Gr@y

[tetryds]

On 7/10/2019 at 6:35 PM, Gr@y said:

Is it looks too cool for a FAR-capable craft? 

Indeed!

Nice one, it's not every day that you see such a short craft fly well on FAR.

[Beetlecat]

On 7/10/2019 at 2:35 PM, Gr@y said:

Is it looks too cool for a FAR-capable craft? 

Yup, FAR 0.15.10.1 Lundgren. Normal flight status at Mach 2.9 on 24km (the screenshot don't display the best performance). Over the 24 Km engine suffocates and I don't count that as a flight, but I climbed to 30+.

I didn't upload the craft, because it's very simple, no hidden elements, just those visible 26 parts stacked together. Winglets - pitch 100 / heel 30, tails - yaw 100

No tricks, it flies really perfect, just build it yourself as on the picture and try. Nesterov's loop, half-loop, barrel roll in supersonic mode - just limited by parts' toughness, not aerodynamics.

Why am I so excited about this design? Because when I was just starting using FAR, my familiar crafts was just falling into a flat spin and I could do nothing with that. But not this craft. It is unable to drop into flat spin. I'm serious. I tried. Knock out Jeb by15G, break off the wings - easily. But flat spin - forget it. It just flies where you turn it.

UPD.

The simplier - the better, only 13 parts (testing model is not equipped with airbrakes or emergency parachutes, +4 parts). With one engine the craft is lighter, a bit slower, but more agile, and still, incredibly stable:

  Reveal hidden contents

Maybe if I knew what those color lines means, I could do it even better

25.5 km ceiling is penetrated. One engine needs less air and suffocates at 26 km.

Actually, the maximum is 37.7 km  Jeb is excited, me too.

Trying to catch a flat spin...

Vain 

I called it Arrowhead

 

This looks great! do you have it uploaded to KerbalX?

On 5/9/2019 at 7:57 AM, Cratzz said:

Im trying to find a cockpit mod guys & gals that is just a simple glass dome that you simply put on top of a structure element for example.

Maybe this isn't the place to ask, however a general focus here is jet's so maybe anyone know's what im talking about?

To make this post a bit more...novel i quickly slammed together a ugly (and no way serious) F-4 drone on KSP v1.6.1 as my first build for you're viewing pleasure

 

F-4 Drone - take of & landing?

Have you ever checked out RetroFuture? It has such a snap-on cockpit feature:

 

Edited July 16, 2019 by Beetlecat

[Gr@y]

On 7/15/2019 at 2:55 AM, tetryds said:

Nice one, it's not every day that you see such a short craft fly well on FAR.

The secret is simple: move control surfaces as far as possible from the mass center.

On 7/16/2019 at 10:18 PM, Beetlecat said:

This looks great! do you have it uploaded to KerbalX?

I don't have an account there (OK, I'm too lazy) and, after all, I don't want to impose my vision to other creators. I'm just demonstrating just another type of design, that can fly too (everybody really bored by winged cigars). I mean... it's not a craft, no, much more better...

Spoiler

 

After all, it's really primitive: a cocpit, an adaptor mk2-1.25, an engine, two wings, two winglets, two talis, two intakes and four landing gears (and don't forget airbrakes as i did - it will not land without them ). Stick it together and it will fly not worse then my one.

Edited July 18, 2019 by Gr@y

[The-Grim-Sleeper]

'Iguas' on the FAR-continued main thread asked about helicopters, and I'd like to share my .craft files as a starting point...
But I have never actually shared files before. So... how do I do that?

Anyway, my experience thus-far:

• I was able to get quite far with Brikoleur copter tutorial (linked below), with a few key differences: he recommends using 'Control Surfaces' for the blades. This got me problems. I had great success using 'Structural Wing Type C' (the very skinny tri-angle wing) mounted on a 'Rotation Servo F-12' for pitch control, 4 of them on a 'EM-64 Heavy Rotor'.
• Speaking of angle control, I found them to be very delicate, very sensitive. It is still way better to use angle contol rather then Engine Torque for your up-down controls, but you need to adjust the Servo change speed to quite low to make the craft flyable. In my 2 craft, the magic angle seems to be about 13 degrees and change speed less then 30 degrees per second. Below that you don't get good thrust, above that and the drag on the blades will kill your RPM.
• The old Werner K. addage still holds: not going up? Add MOAR thrust. I needed 4 EM-64 to get an empty Mk3-style craft to go up at all.

Edited July 23, 2019 by The-Grim-Sleeper

[Cratzz]

Celebrating my new pc with a new Mig - https://youtu.be/apQ5gF_zF44

 

[GDJ]

On 7/30/2019 at 6:09 AM, Cratzz said:

Celebrating my new pc with a new Mig - https://youtu.be/apQ5gF_zF44

You're right: The frame rate recorded was very good. 

[ephemer3al]

 

https://kerbalx.com/lasali3/Contour-III

 

Edited November 2, 2019 by ephemer3al

[Mouhand]

[lucho]

ok, I'm reviving an old thread, hope it's not a too serious faux pas

I'm considering installing the FAR mod.. Anything I should know- how does it work with KSP 1.10/1.10.1?

 

[Matuchkin]

@lucho No need in worrying about reviving this, it's a repository and it probably wouldn't die based on how  long it has been active.

When you install a mod, I suggest you look at the version listed or the latest available version, but you probably already know this. KSP is not the type of game for which one would risk botching together mods that may or may not work.

In the end of the day, chasing mods themselves isn't important. What is important is knowing that the latest version of KSP should not be considered the "default" version by any means. I too have had a period where I simply accepted the latest version and waited for the other mods to catch up, but after I got into RO a few years ago I saw that the latest version is simply a bleeding edge of new game mechanics. In short, I recommend you go to steam and revert back to a version that works with the mods you like. Then all you have to do is download the older versions of said mods.