"Far is hard"

[PDCWolf]

Ever since I tried FAR for the first time, those three words that almost make a rhyme have been bothering me: Every time someone mentions FAR (or even NEAR, which I'll talk about too) these words appear.

I don't really know what people find hard in FAR, so I'll address a multitude of points. Don't take this as "FAR is easy" either, this is obviously my view and opinion and I may perceive things as easy when other people find them hard so I'll just going to take the main arguments given for "FAR is hard" that I believe are unfounded or plain incorrect and debunk them.

•The aerodynamic windows confuse me

They are completely optional, you can totally do stuff without looking at them. That's actually something ferram wanted to demonstrate, along with other stuff, with NEAR and he created a nice placebo effect where players perceive NEAR as easier. Those windows are helpers and timesavers and as things like mechjeb and kerbal engineer, you don't NEED them. You can just resort to the trial and error play-style that stock has.

•Flying with FAR is hard

This one sounds subjective at first and, if it doesn't refer specifically to the aerodynamic failures the mod introduces, can be considered to be wrong too. Stock requires very specific parameters for planes to fly and so does FAR too BUT stock doesn't take things like wings into consideration so every time you fly, you are pretty much trying to push a cylinder against the air and get some lift out of it (protip: you won't unless you go really fast, even in real life). FAR on the other hand correctly computes wings and the lift they should provide. The easiest way to notice this is that in FAR you can actually fly forward without going up or down whilst pointing your plane at nearly 0º, this is impossible in stock, you need your nose to aim a bit up for it to work unless you give your wings some pretty obvious incidence.

Now, add the following factors against stock:

-If it doesn't have canards (or other dirty tricks like hiding control surfaces in the fuselage), you are in for eating up all the runway and a very difficult landing because you won't have enough pitch authority

-Infiniglide: Even if it has been somewhat reduced, it's still noticeable on slow flying craft and can definitely screw up an approach by giving you more speed and making you unable to land unless you wait it out without touching anything and watch the runway's end getting closer and closer in the meantime.

-No benefit from fairings, nosecones and cargo bays: Parts inside other parts still produce drag and can throw your craft off-balance or simply kill its efectiveness

-Unintuitiveness: This is pretty much the consequence of what I have mentioned until now. Stuff just doesn't behave as one would expect it to until you get used to the fact that stock doesn't actually reflect how things behave when flying. Most people see the SPH and try to create a simple plane and it -won't- work for a reason or another (messed up CoM, too little control, won't take off, etc) and it stays like that until they throw away all they know about how stuff flies and relearn it again. You know, most non-airplane-savvy people probably would try something they saw on the internet, a picture of a fighter or a small cessna or something like that, and those won't work.

a RATO "paperplane" flying with FAR

•Now I need to add winglets to my rockets

Not really. Otherwise rockets like falcon, zenith, atlas, delta, dnepr, and most of them to be honest wouldn't be able to fly, and we certainly know they can fly so there's got to be a way. For rockets, I believe this is the only difficulty FAR introduces: The need for a proper gravity turn. As long as your turn is inside the normal parameters, which means keeping your rocket pointing at the velocity vector, nothing bad will happen to it (you know, like flipping and snapping in half).

Just take a look at this Dnepr replica

•Rockets snap with the slightest bending

Well, no words needed for this one, just look at this watch your ears, this one is loud:

It gets some speed in a direction but keeps turning, once it's almost perpendicular to the direction of travel it snaps.

You can also experiment at home: Take a page from a periodic or pretty much any other paper, roll it, grab it by the base and use it as a bat, sooner or later it'll bend (it wont snap because it's paper but you get the point)

•The wings do the same thing

I'll show you something from a personal friend of mine, Dino Moline

Here's a bigger plane with bigger wings. This one is flying at normal parameters:

•The changes in physics with mach number make it hard

This is pretty much an inverse placebo. Most people have no idea how the shock cone forms and reacts after going from transonic to hypersonic so they don't actually know what's happening at those speeds (or what would FAR change). In fact, knowing so little, you pretty much won't notice anything strange. You will notice those changes however if you go down from FAR to NEAR and really really pay attention at moments like reentry or when flying SSTOs and going from high speed atmospheric flight to the hypersonic phase and then the final climb into space.

As a closer, have some more FAR awesomeness

A x-15 like experiment in stock aerodynamics: a counter for both weight and drag is needed on the opposite side of the plane.

The same thing using NEAR

I have to admit I really like wingflex, too bad it also means there's wobble in the game in places where it shouldn't exist.

An SSTO in tests coming in REALLY hot, saved by a lot of speed bleed-off techniques

DreamChaser like "thing" being drop-tested.

Since we are here, I also invite you to post some FAR awesomeness while we discuss the topic at hand.

[Superfluous J]

I've used FAR. Building planes was never fun, like it was in stock. Building rockets was more fun than stock. Both were harder than stock, but the rocket part was harder in a fun way while planes were harder in a work way.

The only reason I'm not using FAR now is because I knew Aero was being redesigned and I wanted to do one more "last hurrah" with the old aero before moving on. But if I *was* using FAR, I'd likely not bother with planes. Which is sad because you (obviously) spend a lot more time experiencing the actual aerodynamic system when flying planes.

[Nitrous Oxide]

The need for a proper gravity turn.

I mean, this is pretty much the most obvious thing in a game about rocket science and all... pitch 5~10 degrees low and let gravity actually turn your velocity vector... what is this pitching 45 degrees at 10km and who taught me that was a "gravity turn". Pretty sure that's just a "turn"...

[Camacha]

If you are at all familiar with any form of real life aerodynamics (be it sailing, flying or anything else), the stock ones are total nonsense, frustrating and therefore hard. Being able to use the intuition you developed in real life to solve problem is what makes FAR valuable, and the fact that you are in reverse learning something about real life.

[Wanderfound]

In fairness, FAR used to be fairly difficult, due to the combination of aero failures and ultralight eggshell wings. Low altitude manoeuvres were things to be approached very, very carefully.

Now, however, with tweakable wing mass, that issue is almost entirely gone. Unless you deliberately build an ultra-fragile ship, it requires actively suicidal piloting to snap a wing. Build something designed for high-G aerobatics and you're more likely to break the fuselage before the wings go:

And, again, it required actively suicidal piloting (low altitude supersonic >15G aerobatics) in order to make that happen.

[PDCWolf]

In fairness, FAR used to be fairly difficult, due to the combination of aero failures and ultralight eggshell wings. Low altitude manoeuvres were things to be approached very, very carefully.

Now, however, with tweakable wing mass, that issue is almost entirely gone. Unless you deliberately build an ultra-fragile ship, it requires actively suicidal piloting to snap a wing. Build something designed for high-G aerobatics and you're more likely to break the fuselage before the wings go:

http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/Kerbal/Challenges/Kerbodyne%20Aerobatics%20Championship/Dragonfly%20Aero%201/screenshot1122_zpsd062b9f6.jpg

And, again, it required actively suicidal piloting (low altitude supersonic >15G aerobatics) in order to make that happen.

I have a conflict with this, I don't know about spaceplanes because well, we have none, but I do know most aerobatic planes are made to withstand loads of about 7 to 9G and going above that means a wing snapping off or both "clapping" as we call it here, so I'm pretty much ok with the default max load. For example, in that picture you are pulling above 15 gs and making a very sharp change in course (look at how far you are from the prograde marker) while going at mach1+

[Nitrous Oxide]

If you are at all familiar with any form of real life aerodynamics (be it sailing, flying or anything else), the stock ones are total nonsense, frustrating and therefore hard. Being able to use the intuition you developed in real life to solve problem is what makes FAR valuable, and the fact that you are in reverse learning something about real life.

Heck, I wasn't even familiar with aerodynamics in any technical sense other than their design (cars, planes, rockets, etc.) and basic general concepts... it doesn't help in KSP... everything you know about the world out there doesn't apply to the soup you have to fly through in the game... I always found it weird that my planes had to fly with the nose pitched nearly 15 degrees upwards to fly level, at least now I understand why... there's some consolation knowing they weren't complete junk though...

Edited January 15, 2015 by Nitrous Oxide

[mythbusters844]

For me, while FAR is a bit harder than stock, it is also much much much much MUCH more fun. Things actually do what they're supposed to, you can make realistic rockets, you can do an actual gravity turn, you can make lifting bodies, you can make space shuttles with reasonable glideslopes, you can re-create all sorts of aircraft, and much more.

Just look at how fun it is:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Planes are still reasonably easy to build at low tech levels. This plane was able to fly to a survey point around 150km away and at an altitude of 16,000m:

Missiles also actually make sense:

Shuttles are really fun and look realistic:

Crazy stuff is still possible too:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

If I ever saw Ferram in real life, I would thank him a ton and buy him a cup of coffee.

The fancy little aerodynamic info graph things of science were also difficult to understand at first, but after finding out what all the lines meant it became a huge time saver in building planes. The in-flight gui also helps a lot with aircraft control and information.

Edited January 15, 2015 by mythbusters844

[regex]

FAR makes things easier for me because wings act like wings and thus planes fly like planes. If you build a plane that looks even remotely aerodynamic you can probably get it to fly in FAR. I've built spaceplanes for use in the stock solar system without touching the aerodynamic windows and they've performed quite adequately, and you can easily build light stunt jets without touching the info window as well.

I remember it being joked that NEAR was basically FAR without the info window (it's not entirely, but if you've used NEAR it's not a stretch to FAR).

Stock aero is literally idiotic in its function and nothing Squad can do will make it better. You cannot polish a turd; it should be completely ripped out and redone from scratch.

[Wanderfound]

I have a conflict with this, I don't know about spaceplanes because well, we have none, but I do know most aerobatic planes are made to withstand loads of about 7 to 9G and going above that means a wing snapping off or both "clapping" as we call it here, so I'm pretty much ok with the default max load. For example, in that picture you are pulling above 15 gs and making a very sharp change in course (look at how far you are from the prograde marker) while going at mach1+

Yup; that's my point.

It's quite easy to build a FAR plane that can do stunts that would turn a real-life fighter jet into a cloud of shrapnel, yet we still regularly get folks claiming that "FAR is too hard, your wings break off as soon as you touch the controls".

For example, from yesterday:

Most of this thread embodies why I don't like FAR. Yes, it does use real aerodynamics, but it doesn't feel balanced. The atmosphere doesn't feel soupy like it should. Tapping W during a high speed dive results in yard sale of all the parts that previously made up an aircraft. Plus, the last time I used FAR, there was still nothing for lateral-directional aero improvements. Don't get me wrong, KSP's stock aero is awful, but for all FAR's improvements it's just differently broken.

While that perspective might have been defensible back before the wing mass tweakable came in (still wrong, IMO, but not totally unreasonable), it very much isn't the case today.

- - - Updated - - -

You cannot polish a turd

Actually, you can:

But I'm in agreement with the general theme of what you posted, nevertheless.

[Camacha]

Saying that the atmosphere doesn't feel soupy like it should just means you really do not know how real life aerodynamics work. It is one of the key points why stock aerodynamics are broken.

[regex]

While that perspective might have been defensible back before the wing mass tweakable came in (still wrong, IMO, but not totally unreasonable), it very much isn't the case today.

I much prefered FAR before the wing mass tweak. Thanks for reminding me to ask ferram4 what the equivalent settings are. I'm generally using 0.5 but I think it might be a bit less...

[Wanderfound]

I much prefered FAR before the wing mass tweak. Thanks for reminding me to ask ferram4 what the equivalent settings are. I'm generally using 0.5 but I think it might be a bit less...

Around about 0.25, IIRC.

If it's not designed as an extreme aerobatics specialist (which get 1.0-1.25 depending on wing loading), I've been tending to use 0.4 for myself and 0.6 for stuff I release to the public.

[smjjames]

As far as the adding winglets to rockets, aren't you supposed to do that anyway? I mean, look at ANY real life rocket, it has winglets at or near the bottom. Even the massive Saturn V has winglets, tiny ones, yes, but they're there.

I haven't tried building any planes with FAR though.

Edited January 15, 2015 by smjjames

[Camacha]

As far as the adding winglets to rockets, aren't you supposed to do that anyway? I mean, look at ANY real life rocket, it has winglets at or near the bottom. Even the massive Saturn V has winglets, tiny ones, yes, but they're there.

Tiny, you say? Compared to the bulk, maybe, but not tiny at all. Yes, that is a man in the picture:

But not all have them:

Edited January 15, 2015 by Camacha

[smjjames]

I meant tiny compared to the whole rocket, yes.

[PDCWolf]

As far as the adding winglets to rockets, aren't you supposed to do that anyway? I mean, look at ANY real life rocket, it has winglets at or near the bottom. Even the massive Saturn V has winglets, tiny ones, yes, but they're there.

I haven't tried building any planes with FAR though.

I named a lot actually and I can name more:

Proton, Zenith, Ariane, Angara, Delta, Dnepr, Taurus, Athena, Antares, Atlas, Falcon, Minotaur, Ares, SLS, Peacekeeper, Minuteman, H2. None of them has winglets or fins at all. Falcon 9 has them for the flyback but they do not deploy during launch.

[smjjames]

I thought most did? Huh, the more you know. Or maybe I was mostly thinking of missiles, which generally do have fins, especially cruise missiles.

Anyways, what's the rule of thumb for where the center of lift should be on a rocket? I thought it was supposed to be under the CoM, or best at the CoM? Which is why I put winglets on all of my rockets.

[PDCWolf]

I thought most did? Huh, the more you know. Or maybe I was mostly thinking of missiles, which generally do have fins, especially cruise missiles.

Anyways, what's the rule of thumb for where the center of lift should be on a rocket? I thought it was supposed to be under the CoM, or best at the CoM? Which is why I put winglets on all of my rockets.

In rockets you want a low center of pressure (that's why fins, when they are used, go on the bottom) so that the airflow stabilizes the rocket (in FAR this also allows to move way out the velocity vector while maintaining control).

[smjjames]

I don't even know how to find the center of pressure, is that the same as center of lift (I'm thinking no though)?

[PDCWolf]

I don't even know how to find the center of pressure, is that the same as center of lift (I'm thinking no though)?

I think it's the same in the VAB

[smjjames]

My rockets usually end up with a high center of lift (above the CoM), especially when I have the SRBs on.

[Alshain]

I had the unique experience of attempting ferram's mods right as NEAR was about to be released. I switched from Stock to FAR and had tons of trouble with it for month getting nothing to fly. Then NEAR was released so I tried it. I was up and flying in short order. Saying NEAR is a placebo... well it might have been intended that way but it's not (maybe you just meant the lack of GUI, I'll go with that one).

The primary reason is NEAR is an easier transition from stock, If you go from FAR->NEAR after months or years with FAR your going to have a hard time (I've gone back to FAR and don't think I could use NEAR again now), but going STOCK->NEAR and eventually to FAR is much easier than STOCK-> FAR. When I did finally go back to FAR it was an increased challenge over NEAR, but one that I was seeking. I think the biggest reasons were mach effects, aero dis-assembly played a role too but you can turn that off in FAR. The problem with Stock -> FAR is simply over load of new challenges.

While FAR does make it more intuitive and in a sense easier, it's undeniable that it has a learning curve. When your trying to learn to build aircraft so that they even take off in the new system and your plane keeps falling apart at the same time it's like a double learning curve. Same for your plane's flight suddenly changing because you pass the sonic barrier. I agree FAR is superior, but using NEAR first was more like easing into it rather than jumping in head first.

I never really had a problem with the existence of the FAR GUI, just that much of what was there was poorly explained and any attempt at getting an explanation of all those numbers was like pulling teeth (and still is). I agree the lack of a GUI in NEAR could be considered a placebo, but only that aspect. I'd still like to know what all those variable mean. I don't need them I guess, but I would like to know. They turn red, they turn green, but green can be bad and red can be good....

Long story short the poll is incomplete. FAR is easy if you know how to use it, but the learning curve is hard challenging.

Edited January 15, 2015 by Alshain

[regex]

Long story short the poll is incomplete. FAR is easy if you know how to use it, but the learning curve is hard challenging.

That's like anything else in this game, it's easy once you know how to do it. The problem is that people start learning on the completely terrible and inadequate stock system, picking up all of the terrible habits it encourages, before moving on to NEAR/FAR (if so inclined to move on from terribleness). If FAR were the stock system no one would be complaining about it being hard because they would have learned the game using it.

[Alshain]

That's like anything else in this game, it's easy once you know how to do it. The problem is that people start learning on the completely terrible and inadequate stock system, picking up all of the terrible habits it encourages, before moving on to NEAR/FAR (if so inclined to move on from terribleness). If FAR were the stock system no one would be complaining about it being hard because they would have learned the game using it.

While I don't entirely disagree, go to 10km and turn 45 degrees is a pretty short learning curve compared to FAR. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here because I can see both sides objectively. FAR is my personal choice but I understand people who just want to slap stuff together and go too. Some people like designing craft to perfection and some people like exploring, it's all taste really.