FAR or NEAR, what do you use and why?

[NoMrBond]

wat.

RSS *requires* FAR.

Hahaha, RSS without FAR, the souposphere goes on foreverrrrrrrrrr

RSS; Ultimate Soup Edition

----

On topic though, I use FAR

Edited September 3, 2014 by NoMrBond

[flamango247]

I'm probably going to stick to FAR now that I know it's the most realistic. I can't seem to get that window on how the plane acts at different speeds when in the VAB/SPH I know this was a feature before but I'm not seeing it. Anyone mind helping me out?

[Frank_G]

The FAR GUI is indeed confusing to a certain degree. It makes construction less fun (in aspects of gaming) for me. However i like to fly effective and "realistic" gravity turns and make functional use of procedural fairings. Thats why i stick with NEAR.

[SkyHook]

I use FAR because aerodynamics is of crucial importance to me and I enjoy the challenge.

[rennsport27]

I'm not so into aircraft design that I want to worry about mach effects, and that sort of stuff while designing, but did want a more realistic aero model. I was on the fence, and was just about to give into FAR when NEAR was released. I've been using it ever since, and loving it.

[Wanderfound]

The FAR GUI is indeed confusing to a certain degree. It makes construction less fun (in aspects of gaming) for me.

Eh? You don't have to use all the detailed analytic stuff. My designs are done by eyeball and flight testing, and I don't have any problem producing high-performance things that easily go to space and beyond.

Whatever works for you be cool, though. KSP: Strength Through Diversity.

[TheGatesofLogic]

FAR. Although harder =/= better in all cases, consistency is quite important, and aerodynamics is a real life derivative which leads to certain expectations. When those expectations are not met to within some degree of leniency the process becomes non-intuitive. I choose FAR over NEAR because I tend to enjoy games that are challenging, and being able to plan out things is an important part of the challenge. I will occasionally play BTSM for this precise reason, however I am disappointed that FlowerChild is not in favor of balancing with respect to KIDS and FAR... NEAR also lacks the mach effects, which are beautiful

[Boomerang]

Neither. I've tried both at various points but they didn't do much for me. I'm well aware of the lack of realism with the stock aerodynamic model, but I"m used to it. From an aesthetic standpoint, I've got no use for needing to strut up my wings.

Through between the two of them, I'd go with FAR. Even if it requires learning a bit of aero-speak, the predictive modeling numbers mean you don't need to flight test every small modification you make to a design.

[General Rarity]

FAR, because I love to see aerodynamic forces ripping my rocket apart when I make my gravity turn too fast. As a bonus, I can see how fast my rocket goes in MPH! Not that's it's better, but because I was born and raised with it.

[flamango247]

I just multiply the mps by 2.2 in my head to give me an approximation. I know it's not how it's done exactly but it's a good ballpark multiplier.

[NWDogg]

Am I the only one who has more trouble with rockets and planes breaking apart in NEAR rather than FAR? Seriously, I built 2 rockets and 2 planes earlier today in my NEAR install, and they all disintegrated in atmosphere for one reason or another. I tried some slightly different designs on my FAR install (I have different mods altogether on this one) and had no problem getting to orbit in one piece. So I'm not sure why the aerodynamic failures don't apply to NEAR, because they do happen (maybe not as much as FAR perhaps?)

To answer the OP question, I use both interchangeably. Mainly because I'm at a 'Test ALL the mods!' stage or something...I have 5 different installs right now, 4 heavily modded, and I find pros and cons with both NEAR and FAR in each. I like the simplicity that NEAR provides, but it also hurts because I don't know what my ships are doing aerodynamically. FAR tells me all of that before I ever hit launch, but it's also quite confusing for someone who isn't versed in aerospace engineering. Ultimately, FAR is probably my first choice...the additional dynamics are more beneficial to proper rocket design than not; and a deluge of information is there if I want to see it, but isn't required. FAR could be much better by streamlining the information displays, I think, and that would make NEAR redundant.

[Cirocco]

Still use stock for the moment. Switched to FAR for a while and I was able to still put stuff up in space without much problems, but I still switched back to stock after a while because a) I like to do crazy airplane manouvres which would just about atomise my plane in FAR I like the added delta-V requirement to get into orbit and c) I want to conquer Eve's souposphere without FAR. I have the lander ready (had it ready since 0.23 but never used it...) but I've never run the actual mission.

Once I conquer the purple tartarus by doing a manned return mission, I might switch to FAR again.

[Alshain]

Am I the only one who has more trouble with rockets and planes breaking apart in NEAR rather than FAR? Seriously, I built 2 rockets and 2 planes earlier today in my NEAR install, and they all disintegrated in atmosphere for one reason or another. I tried some slightly different designs on my FAR install (I have different mods altogether on this one) and had no problem getting to orbit in one piece. So I'm not sure why the aerodynamic failures don't apply to NEAR, because they do happen (maybe not as much as FAR perhaps?)

The ship will break apart under too much stress, but that isn't NEAR, it's stock. If your joints can't handle the stress your putting on them it's going to break like always, the difference is in FAR aerodynamics add stress (pressure caused by fast moving air suddenly hitting a non-aerodynamic surface), in NEAR the aerodynamics do not add stress to the aircraft. However if your craft is poorly built, it can still fall apart from normal joints being insufficient for the craft.

[nli2work]

FAR... what do you mean "why"?

[Nori]

I started with NEAR, then said screw it and went to FAR for better mod support. But to make it more like NEAR I turn part failures off.

[NWDogg]

The ship will break apart under too much stress, but that isn't NEAR, it's stock. If your joints can't handle the stress your putting on them it's going to break like always, the difference is in FAR aerodynamics add stress (pressure caused by fast moving air suddenly hitting a non-aerodynamic surface), in NEAR the aerodynamics do not add stress to the aircraft. However if your craft is poorly built, it can still fall apart from normal joints being insufficient for the craft.

Yeah, you're right. I realized this last night while designing a NEAR SSTO, and I've been failing to properly add struts to prevent breakage. I suppose my confusion came from the fact that I have never bothered with planes in the stock aero, and never really experienced structural failure like that on rockets. It seems easier in NEAR than stock, even with rockets, to cause structural failures though...maybe I'm just imagining that because of the differences in ascent paths, or the way I pilot the ship.

[Hurry- Starfish!]

I'm not so into aircraft design that I want to worry about mach effects, and that sort of stuff while designing, but did want a more realistic aero model. I was on the fence, and was just about to give into FAR when NEAR was released. I've been using it ever since, and loving it.

The exact same goes for me.

[camlost]

May I say that many wing-ripping scenarios are due to the overpowered jet engines of KSP?

[Starwaster]

The ship will break apart under too much stress, but that isn't NEAR, it's stock.

I keep seeing this and it's just not true. It's a myth perpetuated by the FAR crowd. People have played without stock drag for so long that they've forgotten what it's really like, especially with the current version of KSP.

I once saw that in relation to the Aeris (stock plane design) and how it wasn't really NEAR that was demolishing it... that was just stock physics..... So I tried it myself in a stock environment without anything that would alter drag or joint strength. The Aeris withstood everything I threw at it.

[Wanderfound]

May I say that many wing-ripping scenarios are due to the overpowered jet engines of KSP?

True.

There are some benefits, though. If you don't have enough grunt to tear your wings off in level flight, then your aircraft is insufficiently Kerbal.

[ferram4]

@Starwaster: He means the stock "joints break under a certain amount of stress" not FAR's "Oh, you're hitting this amount of force? The part should be torn apart" feature. If stock drag applied drastically different accelerations to different parts, stock would have a damn easy time of tearing rockets / planes apart. And at that point, it's the stock joint physics that cause the failure.

[Superfluous J]

Yeah but that's a bit misleading. It'd be like if a mod made planets appear in front of your ships and someone said "My ships keep crashing into these planets," and someone said "This mod doesn't change how ships crash when they hit the ground." The fact is, ships that won't fall apart in stock will fall apart in NEAR. They still have the same tolerances but there are different forces being applied to them, which is a direct result of the mod.

Not that that's a bad thing. If you don't want aerodynamic forces to affect your ship you should steer* clear of mods that cause aerodynamic forces to affect your ship.

* But no more than 5-10 degrees!

[Starwaster]

Except, that's not how the argument actually goes. The argument is that 'that would happen under stock too' and it doesn't.

That the behavior under stock would be the same, and it isn't.

[ferram4]

I'm not actually seeing anyone saying that different aerodynamics should result in the same forces on the vehicle, and thus, identical behavior. I do see people saying that regardless of what aerodynamics you have, if you produce the same loads on vehicles, that they will behave the same way, without regard for where those forces come from. You can blame NEAR for the loading that caused the failure, but you can't blame it for changing the structural integrity of the vehicle, because it doesn't.

But you're right, stock aerodynamics do not allow for disintegration except at very, very high velocities and densities so that the effects of the lower drag for nose cones and the higher drag for parachutes can have a significant effect., overpowering the mass-based drag that makes sure that drag accelerations on (nearly) all parts are identical. Even the Stock Drag Fix will cause disintegrations like NEAR does.

[donuttakedonuts]

Call me a masochist, or maybe just a nerd, but I really like using the FAR analysis window, and I like the mach effects FAR introduces... I guess I like the fact that KSP makes me actually have to think and read.