"Far is hard"

[NBZ]

I'm running KSP 0.90 with FAR, Deadly Reentry, Real Chute, Procedural Fairings, Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, ScanSat, and many more mods on an AMD Athlon Dual Core 4850e 2.5GHz machine with 2GB of memory and Windows Vista Business 32 bit. It's a Dell Optiplex 740 to be specific. FAR has next to no effect on my install's framerate or other performance. The Trajectories mod however results in lots of 1-2 second freezes. Go figure.

Ferram isn't doing computational fluid dynamics in FAR. It's not exactly taxing.

So you have a supercomputer. Good for you.

Joke aside, I'm usually on a Dell Latitude E4310 (i5 520M 2.4GHz, 8GB RAM, Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit on SSD), so if FAR works for you, it should for me too.

Current mods are BahaSP, Chatterer, CIT, ColorCodedCans, CrowdSourcedScience-1.2.1, DeadlyReentry, Diazo, EditorExtensions, ForScience, img_viewer, InFlightWaypoints, KerbalIspDifficultyScaler, KerbalJointReinforcement, MechJeb2, ModuleManager, R&SCapsuledyne, SafeChute, SpaceY-Lifters, StageRecovery, StockBugFixModules, StockDragFix, TextureReplacer, ToadicusTools, and TweakableEverything, so nothing too heavy there either.

Maybe there was something else going on, but I was noticing significant frame rate drops in atmosphere when using FAR. Other than that, I liked it. Maybe KSP was just having a bout of hiccups. I'll try FAR again next time I start a career. Thank you.

[regex]

I've played around with NEAR, haven't looked at FAR yet, but does anyone have a simple explanation of how the in-flight tools work? I can't find any guides or documentation for it. I'm pretty sure I understand the tools in the SPH/VAB, I just find the in-flight window a little unintuitive.

https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Notes-on-stability-derivatives

The sidebar menu has more links.

[Alshain]

I've played around with NEAR, haven't looked at FAR yet, but does anyone have a simple explanation of how the in-flight tools work? I can't find any guides or documentation for it. I'm pretty sure I understand the tools in the SPH/VAB, I just find the in-flight window a little unintuitive.

The graphs are explained on the github, they are fairly easy to understand. The derivatives were always the confusing part to me but I just went and looked and the good news is the wiki has had an update since the last time I looked. I'll have to read through that some time.

https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Definition-of-Terms-and-Symbols

[lincourtl]

I'm usually on a Dell Latitude E4310 ... so if FAR works for you, it should for me too. ... Maybe there was something else going on, but I was noticing significant frame rate drops in atmosphere when using FAR. Other than that, I liked it. Maybe KSP was just having a bout of hiccups. I'll try FAR again next time I start a career. Thank you.

I honestly think a lot of the problems KSP has performance wise have to do with how poorly Mono/Unity handles memory allocation and garbage collection. For instance, one of the things I noticed was that running KSP with no command line switches, thus using DirectX 9, none of my GPU memory was being used. Once I figured out the right command line switches, I got KSP running using DirectX 11, and suddenly my GPU memory is being used correctly; KSP is no longer acting like I have onboard graphics utilizing shared system memory.

And then Windows itself sometimes gets in the way. Like I mentioned, I only have 2GB of system memory and even with ATM Aggressive I couldn't get KSP to run for more than an hour before crashing. After that it wouldn't run at all, crashing on load with a "too many heap sections" error. Eventually I discovered that Windows automatically takes half of allocatable memory for itself but this can be overridden. Once I did that I was able to get KSP 0.90 plus all those mostly non-parts mods I consider essential working with pretty good performance, although I still have to run at half-res.

[Guest]

Wings placement affect each other unlike stock ksp (understand that spamming 30 winglet in 1 spot, won't linearly improve lift, it will get less and less useful)

and yes, it is better for building aircraft simply because it is better for flying them with a pad / joystick, but some extremely cheaty stock planes are also fun to fly xD like my UMI

but you never never reach the complexity in behaviour and handling.

Because it's not all FAR does, FAR also simulate wind forces on parts that lift or drag > aeroviz ( that can break those if tolerance exceeded ) what it means really is that suspension on a plane now make sense, which is great for building and hard yes especially since you have to see how the mod works between the lines, all parts have a "front" and a "rear" with different lift / drag depending on how you place it..

Edited January 16, 2015 by RevanCorana

[notsorightstuph]

I used FAR for a while. Its not hard to understand really. You dont need to worry about all the graphs and windows. I use NEAR now but only because there is a compatibility issue with dang it. Its awesome when u tip your shuttle over a bit and then just sit back and watch it slowly tip as it rises doing a beautiful realistic gravity turn with almost no effert. I do have to play with the main engine throttle a bit but not wasd input at all. Then if you add deadly reentry to the mix you have a concoction for some really fun moments. I hope the aero update is NEAR. I think it should be stock and I bet a lot of people would love it if they just didn't know they were using it.

[KerBlam]

So, I've switched to FAR after reading this, and now I am suffering unplanned disassembly at every turn.... I've looked at the FAR wiki, and aside from a headache, I derived nothing useful from there as far as design elements and methods... I play this game to have fun, you know...

Watching my lifter that used to get whatever I wanted within reason off planet, flip over and explode at 6-10000m over and over, without any idea why or how to fix it, is sucking the fun out for me.

I even turned mechjeb ascent guidance on, I got the same result...

So is there some more information out there on how to make it work, or is this only really for ACTUAL rocket scientists?

Maybe I should go back to using the stock drag fix that was giving me satisfactory results, and stop caving to the communal pressure of 'you're not really flying unless it's FAR',

[regex]

Watching my lifter that used to get whatever I wanted within reason off planet, flip over and explode at 6-10000m over and over, without any idea why or how to fix it, is sucking the fun out for me.

I'm guessing you're using a traditional KSP launch trajectory (launch straight up, make a sandwich, at 8~10km turn 45deg)? This is why stock aero is so terrible, it taught you the wrong way to launch rockets. E: This is not criticism of you, it's criticism of the stock aero. Were you playing FAR from the beginning, you wouldn't be finding it hard because you wouldn't have been learning the wrong way to actually launch a rocket.

So is there some more information out there on how to make it work, or is this only really for ACTUAL rocket scientists?

For stock Kerbin, what works best for me (NOT an ACTUAL rocket scientist) is to launch straight up until you're going about 75m/s then tilt 5deg towards your turn vector (normally east). Then just follow the prograde marker until you're out of the second atmosphere band. One you're clear of the thick atmosphere, you have much more leeway in how you do things, so more major corrections are easier. Keep your launch vehicle's TWR around 1.2~1.4 on the pad and pack a good 3.5~4km/s of delta-V for orbital insertion (3.5km/s should do you, I think).

and stop caving to the communal pressure of 'you're not really flying unless it's FAR',

You're imagining things, no one cares how you play this game in your own home. Edited January 17, 2015 by regex

[KerBlam]

No, I paid attention... I start a 'gravity turn' at about 600m, by nudging it east, and everything appears to go well until about 6000m-10000m when it decides it wants to go home. Noses over and.. you know the rest.

Keep your launch vehicle's TWR around 1.2~1.4 on the pad and pack a good 3.5~4km/s of delta-V for orbital insertion (3.5km/s should do you, I think, but I don't play stock Kerbin with FAR).

That's good advice, I think my TWR is around 3 (2.75)...

I'll give it time.. I imagine that once I 'get it' I will be glad I stuck with it, so I will.

[RainDreamer]

No, I paid attention... I start a 'gravity turn' at about 600m, by nudging it east, and everything appears to go well until about 6000m-10000m when it decides it wants to go home. Noses over and.. you know the rest.

That's good advice, I think my TWR is around 3 (2.75)...

I'll give it time.. I imagine that once I 'get it' I will be glad I stuck with it, so I will.

The important thing you have to check is your speed. If it reach mach speed (about 340m/s) within deep atmosphere (>15km) it will be very difficult to do any maneuvers without either things tumble or simply break apart. If you reach close to that speed, stop trying to turn. Keep yourself going at whatever direction you have been pointing at until you go to like 20km.

Usually a launch stage TWR between 1.5-2.5 is easy enough to control. You can have higher TWR if you want, but you have to control your throttle carefully.

[lincourtl]

I even turned mechjeb ascent guidance on, I got the same result...

Just to add to what everybody else has said, remember to install the Optional Mechjeb Module for FAR.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60933-Optional-MechJeb-Modules

[smjjames]

@kerblam: If you're using MechJeb, use the limit angle of attack function and adjust the number to what works for you.

Also, I ran into a similar instability problem with a ship of mine (which even MJ couldn't stop) and kept trying different rocket configurations, then I decided that maybe the fairing was too small (it was a smallish bulb at the top) and made it bigger and bam, that pretty much solved it. Basic point is that maybe theres some aerodynamic instability going on.

[Sage]

No, I paid attention... I start a 'gravity turn' at about 600m, by nudging it east, and everything appears to go well until about 6000m-10000m when it decides it wants to go home. Noses over and.. you know the rest.

That's good advice, I think my TWR is around 3 (2.75)...

I'll give it time.. I imagine that once I 'get it' I will be glad I stuck with it, so I will.

Yeah, that TWR is exaggerated, but there is no need to redesign your rocket if iyt's liquid fueled, just throttle down. Also remember that if you aren't staging your TWR goes up as you burn fuel so remember to throttle down the more you go up. Your CoM might also be shifting backwards if your payload isn't heavy enough, so make sure that your CoL remains behind it. Usually having fins is enough. A good exercise is try to make a ballistic, sub-orbital, single stage missile with a probe and try to do a gravity turn without touching the WASD controls. just tip a bit at the beginning and manage the throttle so it keeps tipping at the right rate.

Also post your design if you want further help.

[steve_v]

FAR isn't hard, it's intuitive.

Stock aero is just confusing.

At first, I too made the noob mistake of designing rockets that actually look like rockets. I had to un-learn everything I thought I knew about aerodynamics, because stock areodynamics simply isn't.

There were 2 things that came very close to putting me off KSP for good, one was the "bends like a bananna" springy joint effect & the other was the "flat rockets with no nosecones are more efficient" mantra of stock aerodynamics.

Ferram has nicely solved both of these issues and I for one will be very disappointed if the upcoming aero overhaul doesn't take inspiration from his work.

Honestly, I think I would have given up on KSP as simply being too silly and counter-intuitive if it hadn't been for FAR. FAR is easy, because if it looks like it will fly it probably will.

Stock is ridiculous, because designs that certainly shouldn't fly do, and designs that make sense don't.

The only "hard" part of FAR is that you actually have to think about the aerodynamics of your designs at all, to me that's a good thing.

The very first response I got, the last time I introduced someone to KSP was: "I thought it was more realistic than this, what's up with aerodynamics?" - I rest my case.

Edited January 17, 2015 by steve_v

[Poodmund]

As someone who has studied limited aerodynamics and has played a fair bit of flying sims in the past, I have found FAR easier and less frustrating to play with as it just makes sense to me. I don't use the FAR build windows but the planes still act as though they look like they should when I fly them and with the stock aero this isn't the case.

Basically, FAR is easier because it makes sense/is intuitive.

[Wanderfound]

No, I paid attention... I start a 'gravity turn' at about 600m, by nudging it east, and everything appears to go well until about 6000m-10000m when it decides it wants to go home. Noses over and.. you know the rest.

That's good advice, I think my TWR is around 3 (2.75)...

I'll give it time.. I imagine that once I 'get it' I will be glad I stuck with it, so I will.

Check your CoM/CoL markers, especially after you empty the upper fuel tanks. You may be getting a weightshift reversal (i.e. CoL in front of CoM) on 'em as your fuel consumption moves CoM. Excessive TWR usually implies extra engine mass at the base of the ship, pulling the CoM towards increased instability.

Either pumping some fuel upwards/forwards during flight or sticking some more fins on the base would likely sort it.

[Poodmund]

Excessive TWR usually implies extra engine mass at the base of the ship, pulling the CoM towards increased instability.

CoM does not affect your TWR. It is true that your CoM is important when regarding the stability of the craft but to say your TWR value affects this is illogical. If you meant that a high TWR value probably means that you are using an overpowered, and therefore, heavy propulsion system as the base of your craft then I can see where you're coming from but this is then a case of saying that you are overpowering your craft at launch. A lift-off TWR of 3 is massively excessive, especially using FAR that requires an early turn to be efficient. If your rockets are proving to be unstable below 20km or so or are snapping in half, I would say even go as low as 1.4 for the early stages of launch and then adjust your throttle to match your terminal velocity upon ascent.

If you're using MechJeb, you could always just limit your maximum angle of attack to something <5 degrees until you're outside of the majority of the atmospheric drag... this applies even if you're not using MechJeb too.

[landeTLS]

Far does make some things harder (and more fun) if you are used to stock aero. But the fact that i can get into orbit with only 3200 -3300 dv vs 4350-4500 in stock aero just makes the game way too easy. There is KIDS but the way its solved isnt optimal(80/80 changes the vac balance too much while 40?/1 makes it too attractive to adopt wierd design strategies to increase efficiency). If far was balanced the same as stock aero but behaved as it does now that would be very nice. It is what im crossing my fingers for the 0.91 aero revamp to be.

In the mean time i tried a few experiments with some rss configs. I did create a config that kept the stock planet size and raised atmo height only a bit. It relied mostly on increasing atmo density. But the result was about 4500 dv to reach orbit. The problem was that the vessel became extremly hard to control at higher speeds through the atmosphere. Ill wait for the aero revamp i think

[TeeGee]

Why is everyone knocking FAR down? It is an optional mod created by ferram!

He has put a lot of time in to his work and it shows! I still don't even know why this thread even exists... stock aero WON'T BE FAR. Get over it.

I think the best reason as to why FAR shouldn't be made stock is to play RO. Once you start playing KSP with realistic, simulated aerodynamics; you have no excuse to NOT be playing KSP with RO. Anyone that plays KSP with FAR on stock planet is a huger cheater in my opinion.

If you want THAT much realism in your game, why aren't you playing with: real fuels, engine ignitor, DR, RSS, Dangit!, TAC, Remote Tech, soviet engines, KW rocketry, AJE etc. You can't just pick up FAR and play with stock ksp because it isn't balanced FOR stock KSP.

In real life, engines have HUGE gimbal ranges in comparison to their kerbal companions and therefore they are easier to control in real life in comparison to this stock game. That's why we don't need tail fins on our rockets! Try launching a single probe rocket with stock parts in FAR without tail fins... I triple dare you to. If you can make it passed the gravity turn, you deserve a gold star.

It's all about balance and FAR has NONE when it comes to the stock experience.

To everyone that plays this game with FAR on stock... stop antagonizing everyone, grow a pair, and play RO like the rest of us big boys and girls. THEN lets talk about FAR in the proper context.

Squad is going to do a stat revamp of all the rockets/engines after this aero update, I guarantee it. Why? because the game isn't BALANCED with proper aerodynamics in mind yet.

[regex]

That's another thing: it's not FAR making things easier in terms of delta-V, it's the ludicrous size and rotational speed of Kerbin that makes getting into orbit easier. That's why the stock drag/aero model is so dumb, they intentionally want it to be harder because the solar system is so messed up.

E: looks like I got long-post ninja'd.

[Ippo]

I think the best reason as to why FAR shouldn't be made stock is to play RO. Once you start playing KSP with realistic, simulated aerodynamics; you have no excuse to NOT be playing KSP with RO. Anyone that plays KSP with FAR on stock planet is a huger cheater in my opinion.

Nonsense.

If you want THAT much realism in your game, why aren't you playing with: real fuels, engine ignitor, DR, RSS, Dangit!, TAC, Remote Tech, soviet engines, KW rocketry, AJE etc. You can't just pick up FAR and play with stock ksp because it isn't balanced FOR stock KSP.

I strongly object the statement that Dang It! is a realism mod.

Try launching a single probe rocket with stock parts in FAR without tail fins... I triple dare you to. If you can make it passed the gravity turn, you deserve a gold star.

In the future, I suggest you try your own challenges before you triple dare people. 6 5 parts, 100% stock. Designed and built in ~30 seconds.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited January 17, 2015 by Ippo
Ippo cannot into count

[Wanderfound]

If you meant that a high TWR value probably means that you are using an overpowered, and therefore, heavy propulsion system as the base of your craft then I can see where you're coming from but this is then a case of saying that you are overpowering your craft at launch.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. The rocket in question apparently has a launch TWR of more than three; therefore, it very likely has much bigger engines than necessary. And rockets with a rearwards weight bias tend to be more unstable than those that don't, due to decreased CoM/CoL offset.

[TeeGee]

Nonsense.

I strongly object the statement that Dang It! is a realism mod.

In the future, I suggest you try your own challenges before you triple dare people. 6 5 parts, 100% stock. Designed and built in ~30 seconds.

http://imgur.com/a/Xwh1F

Where is your center of lift on that rocket? Show me.

EDIT: I meant build a rocket and launch a PROBE into orbit. Not launch a rocket with a probe core on it. My bad.

And with regards to Dangit... and I suppose having 100% reliable parts is super realistic?!

Edited January 17, 2015 by TeeGee

[Ippo]

Where is your center of lift on that rocket? Show me.

EDIT: I meant build a rocket and launch a PROBE into orbit. Not launch a rocket with a probe core on it. My bad.

With that question you are actually trying to prove that my rocket was stable. And yes, it was: the CoL is just a tiny bit behind the CoM. I could argue that I technically still won (you didn't say it needed to be unstable, just that it mustn't have any tail fins...), but here's a complete rebuttal just to be sure:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

(Before you ask: I also tried with 4 wings, but that's just too much. For my endurance, at least)

And with regards to Dangit... and I suppose having 100% reliable parts is super realistic?!

It's totally unrealistic: this doesn't make Dang It a realism mod. It's just not modeling the failures correctly: it might be fun gameplay for some, but it's definitely not realistic. Engines, in particular, are plain wrong: they should have a chance of exploding when you ignite them. I know a thing or two about this, since, you know, I made it.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Where is your center of lift on that rocket? Show me.

EDIT: I meant build a rocket and launch a PROBE into orbit. Not launch a rocket with a probe core on it. My bad.

I accept gold stars by email, cheque or Bitcoin, thank you.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

You miss stage separation because it was just pretty much more of the same - follow the prograde vector down until nearly horizontal, wait for AP to reach desired height, then decouple and wait for AP.

FAR is not hard. It's just different.

Edited January 17, 2015 by ObsessedWithKSP