[0.90]NEAR: A Simpler Aerodynamics Model v1.3.1 12/16/14

[tetryds]

Can I just go from FAR to NEAR or will my active save misbehave?

Last time I checked they are interchangeable, just make sure you don't run the game with both installed at the same time.

[Alshain]

Last time I checked they are interchangeable, just make sure you don't run the game with both installed at the same time.

Not entirely interchangeable. The Wing Strength modifier does not exist in NEAR because it does not have aerodynamic disassembly. Since wing strength is directly tied to a modified Wing Mass in FAR, any winged vehicles will have a different mass (usually less if you used the defaults) in NEAR than FAR.

Any winged craft in flight should be grounded before switching. Any existing saved craft may need tweaking to before flight.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Alshain

[Mozziedoo]

I only just noticed.

Ferram Aerospace Research =

FAR.

Neophyte's Elementary Aerodynamics Replacement = NEAR.

Far and Near?

Igeddit.

[Ricardo79]

More drag overall would be bad, since that would make things more unstable as well; since a lot of rocket designs end up being "stable" only because thrust vectoring is sufficient to keep the rocket on course, those would suddenly become unstable. It would also make the atmospheric cutoff a lot more jarring as well. Finally, drag is just about right for reentering capsules with the current settings, and increasing drag too much would simply make returning to Kerbin damn boring. If you wanna find out, go into the NEAR directory in GameData, open up NEARAeroData.config, find the areaFactor value and set it to something above 1 and see what you think. Reentry becomes boring as hell (for which the only solution is to remove drag dependence on shape, and now we're back where we started) and rockets become less stable. Not fun at all.

I've always found the dV requirement argument to be lacking, especially in the face of the new stability requirements on rockets. That's always struck me as the argument of people who already build ideal aerodynamic vehicles who don't realize how difficult it can be for new players. It's funny, it's led to people arguing that FAR is both "cheaty" and "absurdly hard" at the same time, which leads me to the conclusion that FAR (and probably NEAR as well) are balanced, but different from the stock game. Then the judgments on difficulty make sense in the context of players with differing skills in one area or another.

The stock engines aren't really overpowered for a real atmosphere, they're about correct. The jet engines are broken though, but that's because they're really magical air-breathing rocket engines and changing those around too much really falls outside the scope of an aerodynamics mod.

Hi there.

I know it is a really old part of the tread. maybe You did managed to make a deal since. But I give it a try.

First thank you for doing such a good thing as a "realistic" aerodinamic mod. I really hate it No. Serriously I am just a bad pilot And don't want to plug in my joystick. So usualy entertaining my kids with explosions. It is fun.

But A thought: What if you make a "slider" or a input field with a that minimal UI.

0-1 or 0-100% if you wish. FOR A DAMPER o.O

Any time you NEAR a alteration or after your math do their magic and before you apply it to the game's right part. Just using the calculated value * user inputed 0-1 float.

I think Everybody should use it... The aerodinamic lovers set this to 1 they get the full effect. the funlovers set it to whatever else you let them. This is consistent I think as long as they set it to the same specific value, they get a constant difficulty.

Just a thought while I try to learn to fly with FAR or NEAR I still not decided it.

AS for engines I don't care I use all kind of them even created my OP Ions

And I think you absolutely right. not an aerodinamic mod's work to "balance" engines. I agree that fully.

Chears.

- - - Updated - - -

So my question is: is there anything I can do about this? I feel like I'm flying blind without atleast 2 mechjeb info windows up

I seen a mod called something like "mechjeb and engineer for all"

Just a little neat thing to add MJ to all your capsules, and drones.

As long as you don't lose all from your ship/rocket It gives you the infos and the autopilot if you wish.

[Ricardo79]

A very easy way to use SAS with FAR and NEAR is limit the control surfaces deflection.

That way the SAS will not overcorrect, at the expense of maneuverability.

No ....... I tried to figure out Why am I disintegrating/tear apart ships constantly with FAR.

As a bad habit I turn on SAS first. Sometimes faster than the launchpad or the runway finished initializing

I deffinitely give it a try to let it turned off. Thanks

[Ricardo79]

I just noticed a strange bug and I am sure it is related to NEAR (or incompatibilities with it)

Symptoms:

The right click menus of the parts in VAB and SPH just lost their interactivity.

For example antennas, ladders, lights, all did the following:

When you right click on it and change their state like extend there were an animation on the part, but the menu wasn't changed accordingly. So with an extended antenna I saw the menu still writing "extend antena". Click it won't do anything until right click on the specific part again that way the menu changed text.

(I didn't seemed how this can be related to NEAR, That's why this mod was the last one I deleted. After it my issue is gone)

I deleted (actually just moved it out) each and every mod then started the game checked for the error again if there was the error I installed the same mod checked the game and deleted another.

So please check this fine piece of mod for bugs about the ingame context menus.

(Although I still hate it :D Because I can't create enought drag (early carrier) to stop my first airplane thing or at least slow it down for landing. Just needed more practice )

Edited here:

I do install F.A.R. instead of this one. At the first glance that has no issues with the context menu of the parts so far. tested ladders and antennas, didn't tested lights on the gear bay yet. But I assume it will work just fine.

Hope this helps you.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Ricardo79

[Sentmassen]

I just transitioned from FAR to NEAR. Is there a reason that spoilers take forever to deploy or is that a bug? In FAR they come right up but in NEAR they take a day and a half.

[DYo12234]

This might be a stupid question but,

Does NEAR make the atmosphere less dense than stock, just like how FAR does?

[Crzyrndm]

Less draggy, yes. NEAR is just FAR without simulation of some of the more advanced (*cough* and useful *cough*) aerodynamic effects

[NathanKell]

Neither FAR nor NEAR make the atmosphere less dense. They do give parts sane Coefficients of Drag (stock's are too high by at least an order of magnitude, even aside from all that mass=drag stuff). Effectively that makes stock feel like soup and FAR/NEAR feel slippery, but it's not due to a density change.

[loenbiould]

So I installed this for the first time, and I have an 18 ton 3 part rocket that is simply the Command Pod Mk1, Mk16 Parachute, and RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster. My rocket was pointed straight up the whole time, max throttle, and ended up about 200,000 meters into space maxing at 2,000 m/s. Is that how it's supposed to be?

[tetryds]

So I installed this for the first time, and I have an 18 ton 3 part rocket that is simply the Command Pod Mk1, Mk16 Parachute, and RT-10 Solid Fuel Booster. My rocket was pointed straight up the whole time, max throttle, and ended up about 200,000 meters into space maxing at 2,000 m/s. Is that how it's supposed to be?

Yep, it is.

[The Space Man]

Does FAR also increase part connection strength of wings? After switching to NEAR, i'm noticing that the b9 pwings seem to flex and wobble more than they did with FAR

[NathanKell]

Presumably they do that because NEAR does not model mach effects, and thus your wings produce way more lift at speed. More force = more wobble.

[Supergamervictor]

Does NEAR have any incompatibilities with MM2.5.9? I've had a bug where my planes will glitch out with NEAR installed.Naturally I went to Support but have no replies.I will go through the bug,get the log,post pics and list my mods.

[Justin Kerbice]

@Ferram4:

regarding this in config:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[intakeAir]]]:BEFORE[NEAR]:NEEDS[!AJE]

{

@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]

{

@maxThrust *= 0.5

}

}

is there any, simple is possible, mean to prevent it to be applied to a given (set of) engine(s) (by part's name, manufacturer or part directory) ?

Thanks.

[Crzyrndm]

@PART[<partName>]:AFTER[NEAR]:NEEDS[!AJE]
{
    @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
    {
        @maxThrust *= 2
    }
}

@PART
[*]:HAS[#manufacturer[aManufacturer]]:AFTER[NEAR]:NEEDS[!AJE]
{
    @MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
    {
        @maxThrust *= 2
    }
}

Edited April 18, 2015 by Crzyrndm

[BoomShroom]

Would it be possible to get the control surface tweakables without the atmosphere modification for 1.0?

[PhamNuwen]

Would it be possible to get the control surface tweakables without the atmosphere modification for 1.0?

Yes please!

[gendalf]

is NEAR obsolete now with the 1.0?

[tetryds]

is NEAR obsolete now with the 1.0?

Yep, no more need for it.

[ITAsimo456]

Is there a NEAR "beta" like for FAR?

[Van Disaster]

Is there a NEAR "beta" like for FAR?

I would consider it dead at this point. It was an amusing joke but it's an old version of FAR at heart anyway, not even the 0.90 versions. FAR itself is obsolete, the new "FAR" is a different mod.

[mitko]

Maybe it would be helpful to release the FAR design tools, but calibrated for stock aerodynamics for those of us who would want to optimize their stock planes.

Edited May 4, 2015 by mitko

[StahnAileron]

Hey ferram! Dunno if you even touch this thread anymore, but I didn't want to clutter your FAR thread with a NEAR question. Here's hoping you still glance through this thread at least.

Any chance of NEAR getting updated to the same codebase as nuFAR? I know the new stock aero is closer to NEAR now, but something about it doesn't feel right compared to me playing v0.90 with NEAR.

I'd rather play with your work in the game as your modeling is a significant step above the (what feels like over-)simplified stock model. FAR itself feels a bit too hardcore for more (I spent WAY too much time designing than flying when I tried it), so NEAR is closer to my ideal for a game flight model. (I guess you can blame my years of playing Ace Combat on the PlayStation systems...)

If there's absolutely no plan to update NEAR now or in the future... Well, guess I need to learn FAR and aerodynamic flight engineering... (Stock just doesn't feel right somehow...)