FAR or NEAR, what do you use and why?

[flamango247]

I currently use FAR but I'm thinking of switching to NEAR because of the aerodynamic failures. So tell me what you use and why you prefer it over the other!

please move if not in the right category.

[captainb]

There's an option in the settings where you can tweek the aerodynamic force for failure to occur. You could just set it arbitrarily high if you want to "disable" them. I increased my values slightly, b/c it was bugging me that a 5 degree AOA was ripping wings off my spaceplanes. Now it works just fine.

[regex]

I use FAR with default settings because that's The Way It Should Be.

[Sky_walker]

Read some guides around the forums, ask if you have problems. Don't just give up like that

[Hodo]

I currently use FAR but I'm thinking of switching to NEAR because of the aerodynamic failures. So tell me what you use and why you prefer it over the other!

please move if not in the right category.

I prefer FAR, but I have only used FAR, never even bothered with the stock system. Honestly I rarely have aerodynamic failures, and if you are plagued by them then you are the fault not the plugin. Try designing more structurally sound craft, use struts in places they actually do something, if you are losing control surfaces you should look at the speeds you are going at which altitudes, and avoid going that fast and doing major control surface usage, or just hit the DSA button on the FAR tab. Honestly FAR is one of the simplest things to understand, far more than stock or even NEAR. It at least has some base in reality, which means if you are unsure about how something should fly, look it up or just make a paper airplane.

[Superfluous J]

I used NEAR for about a week and the total lack of any way to see in the VAB how your craft would (not) fly drove me to FAR. And I'm so glad it did.

I secretly believe NEAR is designed to be an entry point to FAR. It shows you how great real aerodynamics is in a seemingly safe place that lacks the tools you need to use it. So once you get that taste of awesome, you can't go back to the stock atmo but can't remain where you are. Welcome to the slippery slope.

[Red Iron Crown]

I secretly believe NEAR is designed to be an entry point to FAR. It shows you how great real aerodynamics is in a seemingly safe place that lacks the tools you need to use it. So once you get that taste of awesome, you can't go back to the stock atmo but can't remain where you are. Welcome to the slippery slope.

There are some IRC logs that suggest NEAR is meant to show how a partially correct aero implementation is worse than a full one, not sure how tongue-in-cheek ferram4 was being about it.

If you want better than stock aero, use FAR and turn off the aerodynamic failures if you like. You don't have to use all the readouts, but you're likely to want to soon enough.

[regex]

There are some IRC logs that suggest NEAR is meant to show how a partially correct aero implementation is worse than a full one, not sure how tongue-in-cheek ferram4 was being about it.

I know I and another person were joking with ferram4 about how NEAR is really just FAR sans GUI (because apparently that GUI is really confusing or something, even though I rarely use it), but there are some differences.

[Wjolcz]

I used to have FAR installed but today i switched to NEAR. And I'm pretty happy about it, tbh. I'm no fan of additional windows and diagrams in VAB as well as in flight. And I like to pay more attention to the design than aerodynamics. It feels more stock-ish that way. I don't need all those diagrams anyway. Never bothered to learn how to read them and my crafts flew pretty well even without checking them.

Also I have a rule to never use reaction wheels in the atmosphere.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Veeltch

[wasmic]

There are some IRC logs that suggest NEAR is meant to show how a partially correct aero implementation is worse than a full one, not sure how tongue-in-cheek ferram4 was being about it.

If you want better than stock aero, use FAR and turn off the aerodynamic failures if you like. You don't have to use all the readouts, but you're likely to want to soon enough.

I've never actually used the simulations GUI. I do it ye olde fashioneth wayeth and place the CoL behind the CoM. Never had a problem with planes (except for when I simply didn't use enough wings). I do, however, use the FAR window in-flight and sometimes the Flight Data window.

[Alshain]

I use NEAR because I want semi-realistic aerodynamics without forgetting the fact that this is a game. I switched from FAR to NEAR and so glad that I did. Significantly less headaches. I'll never go back to stock, but I'll never go back to FAR either.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Alshain

[montyben101]

I would love to use far but sadly the CSS shuttle dosent support it, same goes for RSS

[dryer_lint]

Neither. I like​ the stock aerodynamics.

[Wjolcz]

Neither. I like​ the stock aerodynamics.

Infidel!

Seriously tho, I built this with NEAR:

Don't think it would be possible with FAR (might be wrong though, pelase don't yell at me).

[montyben101]

neither. I like​ the stock aerodynamics.

BURN THE WITCH

caps

[Taki117]

I use FAR because I like ripping my wings off if I try to pull up under high dynamic pressure. I feel like if I do something wrong I should be punished for it.

[cantab]

Stock. And to be honest, knowing how dodgy it is put me off taking planes seriously. I've never made a useful powered aircraft in KSP. Meanwhile all my rockets were built with stock in mind, and I feared (whether rightly or wrongly) that installing FAR would make them not work.

But in future I intend to install FAR. Unless by the time I would the stock aero's been sorted anyway. After I've flown my current missions I'll be taking a break from KSP until I get my new PC, since I'm fed up of everything running at half speed.

[Alshain]

Stock. And to be honest, knowing how dodgy it is put me off taking planes seriously. I've never made a useful powered aircraft in KSP. Meanwhile all my rockets were built with stock in mind, and I feared (whether rightly or wrongly) that installing FAR would make them not work.

They would probably still work if you did nothing you just wouldn't get the efficiency if you made them more aerodynamic. In most cases you just need to put nose cones and enclose your payloads in fairings to fix it. If you do fix it you will find you need less fuel to get out of the atmosphere (the delta V for FAR/NEAR is around 3600 to LKO vs the stock 4500)

The real trouble is learning to pilot them correctly. Straight up to 10k and turn to 45 degrees will cause your ship to flip in NEAR and in FAR it will be destroyed.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Alshain

[Deadpangod3]

FAR.

*sits in corner rocking back and forth*

Every single plane.

It's a constant batte between me and FAR for the skies,

Many wings are lost to aerodynamic stress.

[Motokid600]

There's something great about seeing my rockets disintegrate like a real life incident. My only problem is mechjeb being way too overzealous.

[NathanKell]

I would love to use far but sadly the CSS shuttle dosent support it, same goes for RSS

wat.

RSS *requires* FAR.

[CrayzeeMonkey]

FAR, because i'm much more used to it, and the FAR Analytics are extremely useful once you understand the gibberish presented to you(I can understand some of it, if interested, go here, i recommend you read "Notes on Stability Derivatives", "Overview of Stability" and "Static Analysis with FAR".)

I'm thinking of switching to NEAR because of the aerodynamic failures.

I'm not trying to convince you to keep using FAR, i understand that every KSP player has thier own tastes and pace, but i would like to point out that you can disable aerodynamic failures. Just go into the Space Center screen(The one where you view the whole SC) and then open FAR from there, and then untick Aerodynamic Failures(This has probably been pointed out before but i'm too lazy to check).

I have Aerodynamic failures disabled myself, i just use FAR for the analytics and the more detailed simulation.

I've tried NEAR when it came out in .24 and got it because of the opportunity of installing it. It felt, empty, don't think i'll come back to NEAR for a good bit of time

Edited September 3, 2014 by CrayzeeMonkey

[Bilfr3d]

The Way It Should Be.

Is that a trademark regex? Hence why it is capitalised?

FAR is for REAL men. That's why I use it. XP I haven't actually used NEAR, but from what I gather, NEAR is a bit less feared in terms of wings and tanks ripping off of your ship.

[WafflesToo]

I currently use FAR but I'm thinking of switching to NEAR because of the aerodynamic failures. So tell me what you use and why you prefer it over the other!

please move if not in the right category.

I use FAR BECAUSE it allows aerodynamic failures.

The graphs and simulations that help predict how it will fly are a real bonus as well.

[regex]

Is that a trademark regex? Hence why it is capitalised?

Uh, sure!

FAR is for REAL men.

Maybe we could combine them: FAR is The Way REAL Men Play.