[1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18

[TheReaper]

If they do any of those options and fall flat on their own aerodynamics, it will be the biggest mistake Squad makes in the entirety of KSP. I can't help shake the nagging feeling that the overhaul will be to NEAR what NEAR is to FAR - better than stock but way worse than it should be. If you're not on the experimentals/QA team, you should be. Say to them 'look, I know my stuff. Don't do it that way, do this instead. Trust me. Yes, it's a big leap of faith, but I have tens of thousands of players who use FAR and that shows what they want from an aerodynamics model. If you're going to do it, do it right, or at least don't mess it up so much that I can't fix it'. It would behoove Squad to pay attention to whatever advice you give about the aerodynamics, that's for sure.

i can actualy enlist as enforcement body guard, where if squad resists ferrams ideas, we punch them.

[StevenJ]

Squad has bought out numerous mods already, the two latest being Fine Print and Space Plane Plus. I still can't understand why they just won't make FAR apart of the game along with Deadly Re-entry. For all the people who don't want it, just let them turn off aero dynamic failure and re-entry heating in the game menu options. Ferram, KIDS and FAR are the two best non parts mods I've ever played! I understand your argument and hopefully it doesn't come down to them making changes that causes the termination of your great work! IF anyone deserves to have their work included into stock it's you!

[thorfinn]

It is in their power to kill FAR and pretty much the entire realism-focused modding community with this.

True... but... why would they WANT to?

[cantab]

Ease of coding on their part or simple carelessness would be the most likely reasons for rendering any aspect of the game difficult to mod, I think. Squad aren't likely to go out of their way to stop mods working, but equally they won't necessarily go out of their way to help mods work.

[camlost]

I think there's a reason why Squad don't want to incorporate FAR. What they are making is a video game they need to sell, thus the development focus has been always to introduce *shiny* new features. From this point of view, realism doesn't sell. Because that and the fact that their lack of knowledge in science and engineering, KSP did not,and probably will never satisfy people who are looking for "sims". The community however, is building a sim by heavily modding every aspect of the game. So I'm not too worried even if Squad make bad decisions, the community should be capable of dumping KSP and rebuild it from scratch, making everything right from the beginning.

[Wanderfound]

The fact that a large percentage of the KSP user base view FAR as essential suggests that the idea that "realism doesn't sell" is not entirely accurate. We're not seling to the same market as the other game companies here; the commercial strength of KSP rests in its appeal to non-traditional gamers. A large chunk of whom, apparently, do like relatively realistic aero.

Personally, I'm hoping that all of this is just the beginning of Ferram's elaborate trolling campaign, at the end of which he reveals that Squad have indeed hired him to add FAR/NEAR as realism toggles to the stock game.

[camlost]

First, how many people bought the game knowing there's FAR? Second, Squad is not EA, modder are not that keen to join it.

[tetryds]

This is of everyone's concern, but please try to not fight over guessings, thanks.

[Camacha]

First, how many people bought the game knowing there's FAR?

I bought it knowing that I could build and fly rockets in a semi-realistic setting. That the aerodynamics were a bit wonky is only something I found out later (and tried to ignore by using nose cones regardless), but orbital mechanics have been a big selling point pretty much right from the start. That is what made KSP big and that makes claiming KSP folks do not like realistic physics a bit hard.

Mind you, in no shape, way or form I am suggesting that this also means KSP should come standard with FAR, but that real world based physics are part of what is KSP is a given. What I can say beyond any doubt is that FAR to me is an integral part of the game. To me, there is no KSP without FAR.

Edited December 30, 2014 by Camacha

[NoPersona]

I'm going to add my opinion here.

Users on this board sometimes seem to be pessimistic/fatalist when it comes to things. When the destroyable buildings were announced for 0.25, the reaction that I saw was people not wanting to believe that it was the foundation for the upgradable buildings.

Unless there are major hints given or the plans are outright stated, we can't really know what is going to happen for any future release, so speculating on what to come is a waste of time IMO.

While it hasn't been totally satisfactory at times, Squad has been trying to make the game mod friendly, so besides finalising the internal API, I really couldn't see them turning around on that, especially with how popular the game has been because of the scope that you can modify the game. But well, this is my opinion on this matter, so obviously people will disagree with me.

The one major thing that I will say that I know isn't opinion, ferram4, this mod has added so much fun to the game for me. Rockets and planes falling apart, things doing cartwheels and other interesting dances in the air. I appreciate all of the hard work that you have put into this game, and I will be really sad if this mod does get blocked or you decide to stop working on it.

[Commissar]

Well, I came up with a fix for the intake issue, but I have no idea why it keeps thinking the parts are clipping. Dammit Squad, why'd you have to declare part clipping a feature rather than treating it as a bug like it is?

The requiring a second pass of the AoA Sweep was fixed. What the hell? *sigh*

I'm at the point of about-to-give-up for all of this. It's just not worth it, and let's face it, whatever Squad comes up with for their stock aero will probably make FAR incapable of working anyway, so FAR is probably a dead-mod-walking right now.

Edit: Found out why the editor GUIs were wrong; I was being overly paranoid about setting the initial conditions right and actually messed things up; dev build has it fixed. FAR v0.14.6.1 will be out whenever I get confirmation that there aren't more bugs that require fixing.

please don't. this is one of the must-have mods for KSP, because the stock aero is, well, not aerodynamic.

[Gigeran]

Have been playing kerbal for a long while and I love deadly reentry and ferram inside it.

Looking from a beginners point of view both of them might be a tad too hard at first.

Still if one would set the game to moderate then ferram should be active and hard then deadly reentry should also be looking around the corner.

But the base of the game may use the stock aerodynamics so people get used to playing, launching and having fun.

[taniwha]

Gigeran: Stock "aerodynamics" does not make launching easier, and doesn't do anything to help the fun, and I'm talking about rockets, not planes (planes are never easy).

Stock: build a crazy huge rocket (just to get to space, let alone orbit). Launch straight up, keeping velocity between 100-200m/s until 10km, crank over to 45 degrees, full throttle.

FAR: build a modest rocket (to get to Mun), have your TWR (not too hard to calculate, especially now that stock gives vessel mass in the VAB) between 1.2 and 1.8, launch up until vertical velocity is 50-100m/s, tap the D key, watch your rocket fly itself (if you got the timing right). Full throttle all the way.

Note that FAR does not stop you from building huge rockets, it merely removes the need to.

Now, if only I could get my space plane into orbit. My last attempt got it to 45km, but that skin drag is a drag: my apoapsis got to 100km, then I ran out of oxidizer.

[Deroven]

Well, I never really learned to KSP without FAR, but it does seem to make things follow actual logic that we see in the real life examples so I'd argue it makes things easy. Far as quitting goes, the game as it is in .90 is good enough for me, if it's the last version FAR supports it'll do. Just give early warning so I can make a decend backup of it. Far as planes go, FAR makes them actually easier in terms of "Oh ...." moments, as well as more fun (Flying Typhoon type of inherently unstable design). But your mileage may vary.

TLDR: Thanks and do whatever you feel best, but know you'll be missed.

[DaMichel]

First, how many people bought the game knowing there's FAR? Second, Squad is not EA, modder are not that keen to join it.

*raises his hand* decided to buy it after seeing

. I knew the game before that but the pancake rockets always appeared odd to me so i hesitated.

Stock Aero is just so wired. Stuff like infiniglide which makes you accelerate in a level turn without power. Just no!

Depending on how they do things, any of these are possible, and if they happen, there's not much I can do to keep FAR and NEAR alive. *snip*

I suggest you contact Squad before the new system is set in stone. I'm pretty sure they will be listening.

Edit: I'm surprised that you brought this up even. I was under the impression that all major modders are in contact with Squad on a regular basis.

Edited December 30, 2014 by DaMichel

[Gigeran]

Gigeran: Stock "aerodynamics" does not make launching easier, and doesn't do anything to help the fun, and I'm talking about rockets, not planes (planes are never easy).

<snip rest>

Agreed, I like the ferram aerodynamics way better and it even makes flying planes viable (easier), but a few extra warnings that may pop up (but should be able to be turned off) are near stall warnings (also for rockets) etc. so new players learn quicker about what is happening and why then. (should then improve playability of the game overall and lessen the possible learning curve) (think deadly reentry warns if the chutes are not safe to be deployed for example learned me quickly correct speed and height for chutes))

[bdito]

I find stock to be way way easier to launch rockets. No worries about TWR, aerodynamics or gravity turns. Just grip it and rip it. Planes are another matter though.

[TheReaper]

if you guys are talking about how easy or not launching rockets are.. you aren't playing the game.

[Rebelgamer]

Or their like me and part way through an hour long burn....

[Autochton]

I'll just pipe in to say that unless Squad's aero-overhaul is a lot more competent than I have any reason to expect, if it kills FAR, it kills my interest in the game. If Squad, taken together, have half a functioning brain cell, what they'll do is make Ferram's work easier for him.

[Rebelgamer]

Squad's best option would to use NEAR in the stock game, so new players don't get overwhelmed with information that they may not understand. That would leave FAR for those who either actually understand what the data means, or those who want to learn what that data means(I'll admit, I used to be in this category, despite working in aviation for years).

[Azimech]

FAR is THE main reason for me to PLAY KSP like it's meant to.

If I'm not playing career mode I'm designing weird things - aerodynamics not needed.

[Hodo]

If Squad makes FAR useless and substitutes some other half-gainer-no-brainer chop job of an atmosphere that isn't FAR I will never upgrade my KSP and likely quit playing it.

[steve_v]

Mmm, if this happens I suspect I'll be in the last-version-that-supports-FAR forever camp too.

Unless the new aero actually makes FAR obsolete, but I can't see that happening.

[Horus]

so new players don't get overwhelmed with information that they may not understand.

While FAR is quite complicated for newbies - there can be made a series of easy tutorials & explanations for it, so non-aviation pros could understand how to use simulations & build proper aerodynamics crafts. KSP is also about education in its' way. anyways