What aerodynamic model do you use?

[lukeoftheaura]

What aerodynamic model do you use?

I use NEAR most of the time, and use Squad's sloppydynamics sometimes.

[Guest]

FAR. NEAR is just like FAR, except with less features. Stock doesn't cut it for me, though if I'm launching rockets designed for it, I might use it.

[problemecium]

Psh, you don't USE the stock aerodynamics. They use YOU.

[moogoob]

Psh, you don't USE the stock aerodynamics. They use YOU.

Lol. I play stock, simply because they are balanced with the tiny size of the planet and my rocket launch delta-v values would all be borked if I changed it.

Also rather tellingly I rarely use planes.

[jaredkzr]

I use FAR. I enjoy the advantages it gives to sleek craft which I like building. Also, the surface control failures add an extra challenge to aircraft design which I appreciate.

[DivisionByZero]

I use FAR 100% of the time. I get a lot of satisfaction from a successful plane as it becomes fairly challenging.

[Superfluous J]

Stock mostly, though when launching rockets (Especially while climbing the career mode tree) I really do prefer FAR because it feels more like an accomplishment.

I play in Stock mostly due to my YouTube channel. I'm trying to appeal to the broadest audience so want to play in stock Aero at least most of the time.

[BrotatoSalad]

I just can't go back to the stock "aerodynamics" after trying the glory of FAR.

[steve_v]

FAR + KIDS. First mods installed

The stock aero is horrible.

[SkyRender]

I've been using FAR for ages. Once you get the hang of it, launches cost far less fuel to get into orbit than the stock aerodynamic model.

[astropapi1]

FAR for 6.4 Kerbin (since I only do rockets) and stock for nornal gameplay. I don't like stock aerodynamics, but for some reason all of my FAR designs end up flying like pigs.

[Red Iron Crown]

Giving a poll option a derogatory name skews the poll.

[User Unrelated]

I used to use FAR, but I got a bit frustrated when the structural failures were introduced... (I'm a pretty sloppy pilot, and not really THAT hardcore...)

But NEAR has been working great!

I finally made a spaceplane last night!

[Van Disaster]

FAR always. You can just turn the aero failures off... then you get NEAR + useful supersonic effects ( re-entry with subsonic drag, that sounds horrible ) + actual tools to help build craft with.

[HafCoJoe]

Sloppydynamics ^.^

[Pecan]

Other; the one in stock all the time. I do not recognise the term 'sloppydynamics', although the mindset behind it is obvious.

There are three reasons why I don't use FAR;

1) Memory issues prevent me using any but the most essential mods (to me) - I'm not in atmosphere enough to care much about it.

2) FAR isn't stock and whatever stock changes to is what I'll have to aim tutorials at - another aerodynamic model would just add confusion.

3) I only use the most essential mods because of issues with memory - Now I realise that technically speaking that's the same as '1' but I thought that it was such a big one that it was worth mentioning twice.*

[* and the first person to spot the reference is *psyper*]

Edited November 29, 2014 by Pecan

[Levelord]

I use the stock aerodynamics because I share my craft often and I assume most of the people who download them do not have modified games. I could have 2 copies of KSP with one running FAR and make a FAR version of my crafts, but that would take too much work, so my crafts remain using stock aerodynamics for simplicity.

Giving a poll option a derogatory name skews the poll.

This is correct, the OP needs to change the description. It's implying he's making a loaded question and pre-emptively making degrading remarks about people who do use stock. Elitism at its finest.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Levelord

[Rakaydos]

So far, about half the entrants have said they use FAR or NEAR. And a lot of the comments say "I use stock because I cant count on people using mods"

It sounds like there is an overwelmong demand for Stock FAR/NEAR

[cantab]

FAR now. But I have done most of my play in stock.

Also, no option for Stock Drag Fix?

[Van Disaster]

I'm amused given the mod denigration/hate around here that people are considering modders elitists

FAR's license is GPL, so I'm not sure that's compatible with building it into stock. Possibly a bit detailed for the overall aims of stock anyway.

[psyper]

Now I realise that technically speaking that's the same as '1' but I thought that it was such a big one that it was worth mentioning twice.

Cat: What, am I the only sane one here? Why don't we drop the defensive shields?

Kryten: A superlative suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws. One: we don't have any defensive shields. And two: we don't have any defensive shields. Now I realise that, technically speaking, that's only one flaw; but I thought it was such a big one, it was worth mentioning twice.

Knew what it was from but had to google the quote

[Pecan]

...Knew what it was from but had to google the quote

Well done that man!

I knew what I wanted to say but had to google it to make sure I got it right :-)

[UmbralRaptor]

Brickodynamics because I'm lazy about these things. Remind me to install FAR and pFairings when 0.90 comes out.

[Hodo]

FAR, been using FAR since day 1 of my KSP time, FAR+DRE. And your poll is a bit biased.

I love FAR only because I love planes more than rockets and it is easier for me to test out aircraft builds and get a more realistic result in FAR then I would out of stock.

[maltesh]

Stock. If Stock changes, then I'll change. I'd rather learn from Oldstock to Newstock than unlearn from FAR to Newstock.