New player here, do I want FAR or NEAR or neither?

[shimrod]

Hi, I just started with version 1.0 in science mode and I've mostly been treating my rocketry program as a way of funding my (not yet space-)plane designs, and reading about planes I found about FAR, NEAR, and the complaints about the stock aerodynamics.

But a lot of those discussions relate to older versions, and I'm not sure which of them and to what degree are relevant for 1.0, so I can't decide whether I want the mods.

What I want: intuitive aerodynamics for someone with a casual knowledge of real world aerodynamics: nosecones on rockets reduce drag, sweeping back the wings reduces drag, overlapping wing segments don't add neither (full) lift nor (full) mass, it's better to put the goo canister in the center of the back of the fuselage than off to one side of the nose. Planes that look like the best approximation of real world planes ought to behave like planes (if not necessarily with the exact same performance of the specific plane).

What I don't want: to use a calculator or Excel to design my planes or rockets. To use the exact opposite of real world reasoning to optimize my designs: if something works IRL, it doesn't necessarily have to work in the game, but I'd rather it not be actively counterproductive.

What's best for me: FAR, NEAR, or stock 1.0?

[diomedea]

If you have (as I 'd expect) KSP 1.0.x, NEAR is no more a n option, was cancelled by the author.

If you are really a new player, my advice is to get used to the stock aerodynamics first. The new aerodynamic model in stock KSP 1.0.x is a lot more complex, compelling, accurate (and still as fun) than it was up to KSP 0.90.

If however (for some weird reason) you are sticking with a KSP version prior to 1.0.x, steer away from the stock aerodynamic model as soon as you can: it was built on some weird assumption and had lured a lot players into believing in magic lift, fantastic stability, no adverse drag (and thermal) effects.

FAR is more complex than stock aerodynamics, and learning to build and fly crafts correctly can be very compelling, however is very satisfying when that "skill" is achieved.

[Svm420]

If you master FAR first you will never regret it. If you master stock then try FAR you may suffer more trying to unlearn bad habits. YMMV

[Mecripp]

There is a downside to FAR and that not ever mod works with it so unless you know how to edit your cfg would stay away from it and really IMO when using FAR, I feel like, I'm cheating.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Mecripp2

[Svm420]

What are you talking about cheating?

[PringleMan]

The problem I find myself dealing with after having been playing with FAR since FAR was released, is that if I try to play stock I tend to WAY over engineer things.

FAR also changes a lot of the dV requirements in atmosphere, and it takes a bit to re-learn those behaviors from stock.

So my advice is if you are interested in using it at some point, especially if you want to build planes that look and act like planes, then you might as well start with FAR. But if it is just something that you are passively interested in, and want to have a little more freedom in plane design, stick with stock. As far as rockets go, it does not make a whole lot of difference between the two, as long as the rocket can get about 15 km in altitude without wrecking then it doesn't matter.

edit: Also, FAR will change re-entry behaviors. FAR does a better job emulating lifting bodies. So if you are trying to do a pinpoint landing, you are going to have a couple of failed attempts before you figure it out.

[Alshain]

If you master FAR first you will never regret it. If you master stock then try FAR you may suffer more trying to unlearn bad habits. YMMV

That isn't true in 1.0. FAR and Stock are much closer together, there is a lot less bad habits to learn from Stock than the ol' soup-o-sphere.

[Svm420]

That isn't true in 1.0. FAR and Stock are much closer together, there is a lot less bad habits to learn from Stock than the ol' soup-o-sphere.

Maybe to you? Have you played 1.0.X FAR or is this just what people tell you? Because I can make vert tailless planes, micro "planes" and other nonsensical things all day in stock that would crash and burn in FAR.

[Alshain]

Maybe to you? Have you played 1.0.X FAR or is this just what people tell you? Because I can make vert tailless planes, micro "planes" and other nonsensical things all day in stock that would crash and burn in FAR.

Yes I have, and that is because FAR does change the aerodynamic properties. The concepts are the same but the Center of Lift may not be, so just because you aren't learning bad habits, doesn't mean you can load a stock craft and fly it in FAR without changes. The general flight behavior in Stock and FAR is very close, not identical, but close. If you learn to fly in Stock, you should be able to transfer to FAR with little re-learning. This was not the case in pre-1.0 stock where they were so incredibly different, it was like playing an entirely new game.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Alshain

[Mecripp]

What are you talking about cheating?

Build a rocket and have FAR installed see how far you can go now un-install FAR same rocket try same path and you tell me.

[Motokid600]

Build a rocket and have FAR installed see how far you can go now un-install FAR same rocket try same path and you tell me.

The difference is like 200dv. That's it. 3,200dv to orbit as opposed to 3,400. That difference is easily countered and made up for with FARs added challenges.

Call it whatever you want. But don't call it cheating. That's ridiculous.

[Mecripp]

The difference is like 200dv. That's it. 3,200dv to orbit as opposed to 3,400. That difference is easily countered and made up for with FARs added challenges.

Call it whatever you want. But don't call it cheating. That's ridiculous.

added challenges lol thats funny and why not you are gaining dv and it's funny how you people think FAR makes things harder like in RSS it's not making it hard it's make it easier to get to space.

[windows_x_seven]

FAR.

Go full throttle on FAR.

If you manage to master it, you'll never live without it.

It also makes building planes more challenging and fun.

[PringleMan]

added challenges lol thats funny and why not you are gaining dv and it's funny how you people think FAR makes things harder like in RSS it's not making it hard it's make it easier to get to space.

You are not really gaining dV, you are having a better atmospheric TWR. There is a big difference. A speed boat and a pontoon boat might have the same engine and the same mass, but the speed boat goes faster because it can move through the water better.

FAR doesnt change any rocket properties, just the properties of the air, and in a verifiable (you can do the math yourself) better way. If FAR changed all the rockets to have better dV or thrust properties, that would be one thing. Instead it just makes it so that an aerodynamic shape moves through the air better and more realistically (and remember this is kerbal so I use the term loosely).

FAR is much less forgiving of early maneuvers, and a poorly built rocket will simply come apart under the aerodynamic strains. Same thing with planes. Perhaps not really a challenge, but it does mean you have to be more cautious.

[Mecripp]

You are not really gaining dV, you are having a better atmospheric TWR. There is a big difference. A speed boat and a pontoon boat might have the same engine and the same mass, but the speed boat goes faster because it can move through the water better.

FAR doesnt change any rocket properties, just the properties of the air, and in a verifiable (you can do the math yourself) better way. If FAR changed all the rockets to have better dV or thrust properties, that would be one thing. Instead it just makes it so that an aerodynamic shape moves through the air better and more realistically (and remember this is kerbal so I use the term loosely).

FAR is much less forgiving of early maneuvers, and a poorly built rocket will simply come apart under the aerodynamic strains. Same thing with planes. Perhaps not really a challenge, but it does mean you have to be more cautious.

O my the whole point is with FAR your rockets will go farther then stock point in blank.

[Svm420]

O my the whole point is with FAR your rockets will go farther then stock point in blank.

The delta v point seems rather pedantic and I won't discuss that any further, but the people who claim FAR is harder don't fully understand it. I know I never make that claim nor does ferram, so if you point was some minority make ignorant claims you are right

[Motokid600]

Just don't call FAR cheating. It's simple as that. That's one of the most if not the most ridiculous thing I've read on these forums.

Call it too easy if you like. Not cheating. That's just trying to start a fight.

[Sophistry]

Personally I'd say it depends on whether or not you're a Spaceplane nut. Having used both FAR and Stock aero, and being much more a VAB user than a SPH one, I'd say just stick with Stock. FAR didn't really cause enough noticeable* changes for me to stick with it.

*I may just have been oblivious

[Mecripp]

Just don't call FAR cheating. It's simple as that. That's one of the most if not the most ridiculous thing I've read on these forums.

Call it too easy if you like. Not cheating. That's just trying to start a fight.

O my and, I did say IMO which, I can have, Didn't mean to start any fight or hurt any ones feels.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Mecripp2

[Motokid600]

Your opinion can be that FAR feels too easy for you. That's fine. But FARs not cheating. That's fact. Choose your words more carefully in the future. Word. Actually. Just don't say "cheating" on these forums. Ever.

Wait until multiplayer hits before you start throwing that word around.

[Guest]

If you master FAR first you will never regret it. If you master stock then try FAR you may suffer more trying to unlearn bad habits. YMMV

^^ This. Stock aero is fine and fits the game (finally) but if you're at all interested in getting FAR at some point just do it now and get the learning curve over with. You'll be better for it.

[PringleMan]

O my the whole point is with FAR your rockets will go farther then stock point in blank.

I suppose that does depend on the person. To me FAR is about having planes that behave somewhat more reasonably. I go crazy with over-engineering, and FAR actually makes that careful planning into planes work for me.

As for rockets, FAR doesn't really help after the first, what, 20k or so of altitude? I engineer my rockets to have at least a few hundred dV to spare because I do stupid things with non-optimized orbital maneuvers, so even without FAR they would still work if I was more cautious with my planning.

No hard feelings, I was not trying to be rude either. Just opinions. I wouldn't call it cheating or feeling cheaty, but if it feels cheaty to you that is your call

[Mecripp]

I suppose that does depend on the person. To me FAR is about having planes that behave somewhat more reasonably. I go crazy with over-engineering, and FAR actually makes that careful planning into planes work for me.

As for rockets, FAR doesn't really help after the first, what, 20k or so of altitude? I engineer my rockets to have at least a few hundred dV to spare because I do stupid things with non-optimized orbital maneuvers, so even without FAR they would still work if I was more cautious with my planning.

No hard feelings, I was not trying to be rude either. Just opinions. I wouldn't call it cheating or feeling cheaty, but if it feels cheaty to you that is your call

There your right as for planes, I like just can't build them so Rockets is my thing

Edited August 9, 2015 by Mecripp2

[cantab]

Hi, I just started with version 1.0 in science mode and I've mostly been treating my rocketry program as a way of funding my (not yet space-)plane designs, and reading about planes I found about FAR, NEAR, and the complaints about the stock aerodynamics.

But a lot of those discussions relate to older versions, and I'm not sure which of them and to what degree are relevant for 1.0, so I can't decide whether I want the mods.

What I want: intuitive aerodynamics for someone with a casual knowledge of real world aerodynamics: nosecones on rockets reduce drag, sweeping back the wings reduces drag, overlapping wing segments don't add neither (full) lift nor (full) mass, it's better to put the goo canister in the center of the back of the fuselage than off to one side of the nose. Planes that look like the best approximation of real world planes ought to behave like planes (if not necessarily with the exact same performance of the specific plane).

What I don't want: to use a calculator or Excel to design my planes or rockets. To use the exact opposite of real world reasoning to optimize my designs: if something works IRL, it doesn't necessarily have to work in the game, but I'd rather it not be actively counterproductive.

What's best for me: FAR, NEAR, or stock 1.0?

NEAR is obsolete. The new stock aerodynamics is somewhat like the old NEAR.

For what you want though, I would say go with FAR. I don't think stock takes into account wing sweep. It certainly doesn't take into account wing interactions (though even FAR won't lighten a wing that's clipped into another wing). Because newstock uses a part-by-part approach it can have issues with complex designs, whereas FAR now works out drag based on the shape of the whole vehicle.

For me the biggest advantage of FAR is it gives me real, useful design and analysis tools in the SPH/VAB. I can have a good idea how my plane will fly at 30 thousand feet before I even leave the ground (though I still can and do encounter unexpected things too!) Without that I just feel like I'm designing blind.

[SAI Peregrinus]

For me the biggest advantage of FAR is it gives me real, useful design and analysis tools in the SPH/VAB. I can have a good idea how my plane will fly at 30 thousand feet before I even leave the ground (though I still can and do encounter unexpected things too!) Without that I just feel like I'm designing blind.

That's very true. FAR's analysis tools are to planes what KER's delta-V and TWR readouts are to rockets. They provide basic information the stock game is lacking.