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

[Deizelpunk]

1 minute ago, mechanicH said:

Honestly it really IS. Unless your building some kind of crazy monstrosity that shouldn't ever possible fly  

*builds plane inside box* *plane flies fine* yeah thats a fine substitute. Stock aero doesn't even TRY to be realistic, flying with it feels like crap. FAR really revitalised ksp for me, I can barely play KSP anymore cus of how unrealistic and frustrating stock aero is.

[Vanamonde]

Keep it on-topic, guys. Stock aero is not the subject of this thread. 

[Redleg1]

Quote

Previous versions of FAR were including "light" version of real chutes. I can only assume that "llight" version of real chutes is not updated properly in current available development branch. So, you should stick to RealChute parachutes until proper FAR release and stop complaining. If you use development branch, you should know what are you doing.

@kcs123, I was not complaining I was simply asking if anyone that is using the update branch experienced the same problem. I fully understand the "light" version of RealChutes has not been updated yet.

Quote

If you are using the 1.2 Update Branch (which I admit to doing) and it works for you please just enjoy it silently. Do not come here expecting support since it is CLEARLY not meant for public use.

@Flashblade, I was not expecting support from the creator of the mod by any means. I don't think its unreasonable to ask a community of people who are obviously using the same branch if they are experiencing similar behaviors within the game. I mostly fixed the problem myself through editing some .cfg files.

Also, I don't see the necessity to imply that someone is stupid or doesn't know what they are doing. I see this a lot lately on the forums and it is disheartening.  There is a lot that can be learned about computer programming, aerodynamics, mathematics, and so on by playing and modding this game.  Why discourage it? 

[tetryds]

@Redleg1 Because in this specific case there is nothing to gain with it, any noise generated here can potentially turn into a headache for the mod creator and that is definitely what we do not want.

Hence the enjoying it silently, you know what you are doing, but most of people do not, and when they manage to put their hands on an unreleased version bad things happen, some important bugs are known, and other bugs may be affected by the fixes, which puts everything on a state where even reporting issues is not all that useful.

And yes, this kind of problem has happened before, many, many times, it's not what "we think" can happen.

You can easily see it as this thread has to be constantly moderated, and the worse hasn't even happened.

 

Anyway, enough of that, I will go back to poking ferram until he decides to wake up

[blu3wolf]

2 hours ago, Redleg1 said:

There is a lot that can be learned about computer programming, aerodynamics, mathematics, and so on by playing and modding this game.  Why discourage it? 

Because unless you are a mod author, your opinion does not matter

[FunnelVortex]

16 hours ago, Deizelpunk said:

*builds plane inside box* *plane flies fine* yeah thats a fine substitute. Stock aero doesn't even TRY to be realistic, flying with it feels like crap. FAR really revitalised ksp for me, I can barely play KSP anymore cus of how unrealistic and frustrating stock aero is.

You can honestly make anything fly if you design it correctly. A brick will fly given enough thrust.

I was able to make a replica of Snoopy's doghouse fly with FAR installed.  

[sarbian]

16 hours ago, Deizelpunk said:

*builds plane inside box* *plane flies fine* yeah thats a fine substitute. Stock aero doesn't even TRY to be realistic, flying with it feels like crap. FAR really revitalised ksp for me, I can barely play KSP anymore cus of how unrealistic and frustrating stock aero is.

Did you even try stock aero after 0.90 ? Saying that it is not even trying to be realistic is just an insult to the dev and a demonstration that you not know anything about what it models.

[JayPee]

On 12/4/2016 at 2:22 PM, FunnelVortex said:

As I said previously, this thread should just be locked for the time being and unlocked once ferram releases the update.

seconded

[lordcirth]

7 hours ago, sarbian said:

Did you even try stock aero after 0.90 ? Saying that it is not even trying to be realistic is just an insult to the dev and a demonstration that you not know anything about what it models.

0.90 was placeholder aero.  1.0 is game aero.  It works fine and it wouldn't be at all out of place in Space Engineers, etc.  And I'm sure a lot of work went into it.  But those of us who like making spaceplanes like real aero, or as close to it as we can get.  FAR is a big step past even 1.0's improved aero. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by lordcirth

[sarbian]

2 hours ago, lordcirth said:

FAR is a big step past even 1.0's improved aero. 

Yes it is, and I did not say otherwise. I called the posted on the "not even trying to be realistic" which is just plain false.

[blu3wolf]

1 hour ago, sarbian said:

Yes it is, and I did not say otherwise. I called the posted on the "not even trying to be realistic" which is just plain false.

That depends only on your standards.

[JJJacksonTyler]

RSS 1.2 is out!

 

So Ferram Aerospace Research can't be too...."FAR" away.

[Ser]

37 minutes ago, JJJacksonTyler said:

So Ferram Aerospace Research can't be too...."FAR" away.

As we all have made sure many times in the past, "better" is better than "faster" ;)

[softweir]

12 hours ago, blu3wolf said:

That depends only on your standards.

It tries. Doesn't mean it is good enough for aerodynamic purists, but it tries. And the stock aerodynamics improve continually! 

[Sol Invictus]

Hey, does anyone know why KSP developers didn't incorporate FAR into stock game already? It seems so obvious to me, I can't see any reason against making it so.

[Inf7nite]

12 minutes ago, Sol Invictus said:

Hey, does anyone know why KSP developers didn't incorporate FAR into stock game already? It seems so obvious to me, I can't see any reason against making it so.

from what I know it is because you spend most of your time in space, not in air, so they find its not worth the effort.

[DoctorDavinci]

15 minutes ago, Sol Invictus said:

Hey, does anyone know why KSP developers didn't incorporate FAR into stock game already? It seems so obvious to me, I can't see any reason against making it so.

Licencing is the reason

[Akira_R]

19 minutes ago, Sol Invictus said:

Hey, does anyone know why KSP developers didn't incorporate FAR into stock game already? It seems so obvious to me, I can't see any reason against making it so.

As DoctorDavinci said licencing is one reason, however another reason is that for many FAR is way to hardcore. The stock system is much "easier", more forgiving and "intuitive" (easier and intuitive are relative here) for the average player. I highly doubt we will ever see anything like FAR become stock because of this. While to us FAR is obviously better in every regard we are actually in the minority when it comes to the overall KSP player base, and not having FAR stock is perfectly fine and the right decision in my mind, it keeps KSP accessible for a wider audience. However it does have the drawback of no guarantee of being updated whenever KSP updates, and while the day that ferram4 stops developing for KSP will be a dark dark day for this community I have faith that the talented members of our community won't let FAR die so easily.

[tetryds]

No, licensing is not the reason, they didn't "implement FAR" simply because (for some reason) they did not want to.

Now the reason for them not wanting to do that is unknown for anyone outside of squad and nothing conclusive can be said about it unless it comes directly from squad.

[Sol Invictus]

1 hour ago, Akira_R said:

As DoctorDavinci said licencing is one reason, however another reason is that for many FAR is way to hardcore. The stock system is much "easier", more forgiving and "intuitive" (easier and intuitive are relative here) for the average player. I highly doubt we will ever see anything like FAR become stock because of this. While to us FAR is obviously better in every regard we are actually in the minority when it comes to the overall KSP player base, and not having FAR stock is perfectly fine and the right decision in my mind, it keeps KSP accessible for a wider audience. However it does have the drawback of no guarantee of being updated whenever KSP updates, and while the day that ferram4 stops developing for KSP will be a dark dark day for this community I have faith that the talented members of our community won't let FAR die so easily.

I can't agree with that. I don't see how stock aerodynamics are more intuitive than FAR. If anything, FAR aerodynamics are more intuitive, since they behave more like you would expect in reality. The only situation in which stock system would be more intuitive to you, is if you're already accustomed to it's idiosyncrasies.

1 hour ago, Inf7nite said:

from what I know it is because you spend most of your time in space, not in air, so they find its not worth the effort.

I believe I spend equal amounts of time at building in VAB/SPH, flying in the atmosphere and manoeuvring in space.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Sol Invictus

[kraden]

@Sol Invictus FAR aerodynamics being closer to reality is what makes it less intuitive. If real aerodynamics were intuitive, we would have invented flying machines a long time ago. You and I may understand the physics of flight second nature, making aircraft design in Stock feel unnatural. However, the average person may not understand how lift works or how the various control surfaces function. For example, I see people all the time saying, "check out my turboprop engine", when really all they've crated is a prop engine, they don't know the difference.  All they know is that planes have wings and engines and that makes them fly. There's nothing wrong with having the stock aerodynamics for the masses, I'm just grateful there is FAR for the rest of us.

Edited December 8, 2016 by kraden

[mikegarrison]

58 minutes ago, kraden said:

@Sol Invictus FAR aerodynamics being closer to reality is what makes it less intuitive. If real aerodynamics were intuitive, we would have invented flying machines a long time ago. You and I may understand the physics of flight second nature, making aircraft design in Stock feel unnatural. However, the average person may not understand how lift works or how the various control surfaces function. For example, I see people all the time saying, "check out my turboprop engine", when really all they've crated is a prop engine, they don't know the difference.  All they know is that planes have wings and engines and that makes them fly. There's nothing wrong with having the stock aerodynamics for the masses, I'm just grateful there is FAR for the rest of us.

The part that is more intuitive is that, in FAR, how a ship looks to us is also how it looks to the air. That's not true in the stock system (although it's a little more true than it was back when I started playing this game).

[MunGazer]

I think it'd be cool if Squad came to ferram4, and said hey man, we really like your work, and we want to collaborate with you.  Tell you what, we will actually make you a part of our team (if you'd like) and pay you a reasonable amount of money if you work with us to add your aerodynamics to our game, thereby increasing the replay value and opening it to a wider player audience, because we've seen how much people like your mod.  There will be no obligations to you, and if you should not be available for work on any given future update, we will simply upgrade the code for compatibility and nothing more.  We will ensure that the workload you deal with is minimized with each update in any way we can, whether it be by sharing special tools with you (while maintaining certain NDAs or whatever to protect intellectual property), or having our developers ensure in some way that your code will mesh well with the new code.

And then, if possible, have an option in the settings menu to switch back and forth between "stock" aero and "advanced" aero.  This should solve the aforementioned problems of it being too hard or non intuitive for some of the player base.

Such mod integration could perhaps help Squad ascend to the next level of success, popularity, and monetary income I'd think.  Yes, it is a space game, and you may easily spend more time in space, but I'd humbly suggest that it's sort of aerospace engineering oriented too, and several rocket design challenges significantly include aerodynamic science, crucial parts of it like ascent, reentry, atmospheres on other worlds, and so on, shuttles gliding back for a landing at KSC, which has a full fledge runway and space PLANE hangar by the way.  Such a set up could perhaps be a win-win-win for squad-players-modders.

Then again, if squad is raking in so much money from the game without such an addition and it's just a big cash cow, and such efforts they feel would be more than what they'd get from it monetarily, then oh well.  I can dream

Edited December 8, 2016 by MunGazer

[Motokid600]

1.2 added ALOT of options for the game. Why not one more? This way people can have the option of the souposphere or something that feels more like air.

Edit: Question now that i think about it. Been playing around in the 1.1.3 version and even some of the prior versions I noticed even FAR itself become more forgiving. I remember back i think before 1.0 where FAR would rip off pieces of your plane with even the slightest over stress. Is there a way I can return to that with some of the configurations?

Edited December 8, 2016 by Motokid600

[tetryds]

@Motokid600 it's not that FAR is more forgiving, it's that the default weight of wings is set much higher so that people don't keep ripping their airplanes apart due to poor design choices and overstress.

If you bring your wing strength back to ~0.4 it goes back to stock weight and if you design it badly you will rip yourself apart just as easily as it used to.

Also make sure that you use the most strict area rule settings, makes everything better.

Well, it actually became a bit more forgiving regarding to stall at a point, but not too much.

 

@MunGazer I'm afraid that is not how money works.