Jump to content

"Far is hard"

PDCWolf

By PDCWolf
in KSP1 Mods Discussions

 Share

Do you think FAR is hard?  

267 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think FAR is hard?

    • FAR is hard, but I've never used it
      10
    • FAR is easy, but I've never used it
      7
    • FAR is hard, but I/I've use(d) it
      67
    • FAR is easy, I/I've use(d) it
      153
    • I dropped FAR because it was hard
      18
    • I'll probably give FAR a try now
      13

Recommended Posts

Sage

Sage

Posted
Posted
You are disqualified for using non-stock parts. Also, I need to know your mod setup, it looks awesome :P Is that Astronomer's?

I'm pretty sure that all parts he has used are stock-just with the redone models by Ven. Check the plugin development forums. Except if you're talkin about fasa clamps.

No idea about the cloud pack, but if I remember correctly the new Astronomer's pack has a very low cloud density, so I'm not sure that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BudgetHedgehog

BudgetHedgehog

Posted
Posted

OK, you got me - the launch clamp is FASA, but it's hardly used in flight.. :P Otherwise, completely stock parts, just using Vens Revamp (still the normal Oscar B tanks for the probe even). I can upload the craft file for anyone to verify. My mod setup is a mix of Raredens skybox, KSPRC Kerbin, Astronomer: Oblivion clouds and Interstellar solar flare, lightning and other gubbins. Waiting for KSPRC to update fully then I'm going for that completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TeeGee

TeeGee

Posted
Posted
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:

http://imgur.com/a/3vsXo

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

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.

It does make Dangit a MORE realistic mod than stock!

PS: Technically the point I was trying to make has been made with your attempt at building a finless rocket. I still don't see a finless stock rocket by you.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure that all parts he has used are stock-just with the redone models by Ven. Check the plugin development forums. Except if you're talkin about fasa clamps.

No idea about the cloud pack, but if I remember correctly the new Astronomer's pack has a very low cloud density, so I'm not sure that's it.

I'm pretty sure vamp added some different stats to some of his parts... like pretty DARN sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BudgetHedgehog

BudgetHedgehog

Posted
Posted
I'm pretty sure vamp added some different stats to some of his parts... like pretty DARN sure.

What kind of different stats? Thrust, Isp, mass, gimbal range etc haven't been changed. These are stock parts (aside from the launch clamp) - you can load it up into a stock game with no problems. Besides, your original argument was that real life rockets are easier to control thanks to higher gimbal range and that KSP rockets are hard to control. How much fuel I take, or how my efficient my engines are is besides the point - the only control I had was engine gimbal and what little torque the small reaction wheel has. And I got it into orbit fairly easily.

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.

I did what you challenged so, like I said, I accept gold stars via email, cheque and Bitcoin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PDCWolf

PDCWolf

Posted
  • Author
Posted
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?!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

What's the exchange rate for gold stars to Argentine pesos?

On a more on-topic note, I'm really happy with having both bac9 and ferram in the thread, and also for those guys that voted "I'll probably try FAR now"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tidus Klein

Tidus Klein

Posted
Posted (edited)
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.

Sorry to be a hater, but I don't play RO only because it is not balanced with the contracts system...if it was not for that...aww ya RO all the way but having contracts for 60,000funds when my rocket costs 100,000 or more just to get to orbit...we'll you see my problem.

I do also love AJE and I'm learning to like real fuels.

And remote tech...love it to, really every mod you stated I use saw for RO, Dang it, proc parts. And TAC no TAC do to lag.

Edited by Tidus Klein
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KerBlam

KerBlam

Posted
Posted

Update: So now I got it.

I had to basically start redesigning my rockets from the bottom up, and interestingly my first working model was an SSTO that launched a probe into LKO with no tail fins...

Keeping the TWR down was key. I was basically building OP rockets to combat stock drag, and with no penalties.

Mind you I was using the same lifters for getting whatever I needed wherever within Kerbins SOI.

Now with FAR I have to design stuff a bit more deliberately, so I installed Procedural Fairings and that also helps (My SCANsat probes were getting destroyed off the top of my launchers during liftoff.)

So yes, FAR is a win for me... even if it means I have to take things a bit more slowly during the initial design phase, and ditch all of my stock designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TeeGee

TeeGee

Posted
Posted
http://imgur.com/a/tW7Zw

What's the exchange rate for gold stars to Argentine pesos?

On a more on-topic note, I'm really happy with having both bac9 and ferram in the thread, and also for those guys that voted "I'll probably try FAR now"

Cheat.

You took up a heavy payload to keep the CoM above the CoL. Nice try though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SAI Peregrinus

SAI Peregrinus

Posted
Posted

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.

Cheat.

You took up a heavy payload to keep the CoM above the CoL. Nice try though.

And they're off! Ladies and gentlemen, have you ever seen goalpoasts move so fast? This is bound to be an exciting race!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RainDreamer

RainDreamer

Posted
Posted

Tail fins are probably only needed when you are hitting some ridiculous number of TWR.

Put a probe core on an SRB. With a nose cone if you like. Then launch it. The thing will tumble and destroy itself at the insane speed it hits very quickly. Tail fins will manage to keep it going straight even at 5.88 (the TWR I tested, could be even more) without tumbling, because it is aerodynamically stable. However, forget any kind of maneuvers. You will be going only in one direction only at that kind of TWR and that kind of speed. A slight change in airflow direction would decimate your rocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ippo

Ippo

Posted
Posted
Technically the point I was trying to make has been made with your attempt at building a finless rocket. I still don't see a finless stock rocket by you.

Can you please point to the fins in my original design? Top to bottom, it only has 5 parts:

  • RTG
  • probe core
  • fuel tank
  • another fuel tank
  • engine

So... where did I use fins? Also the second attempt did have fins... on the freaking NOSE. Take a look at the CoL in my second attempt and tell me I cheated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BudgetHedgehog

BudgetHedgehog

Posted
Posted

Ah, I've found out by personal experience that people don't like being told they're wrong, even when presented with evidence. The guy's been given 3 examples of stock FAR rockets (and one modded) with no fins on the tail (something he said was impossible) and he's still saying it can't be done. Best to just shake your head, get a drink and leave it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
Posted
Sorry to be a hater, but I don't play RO only because it is not balanced with the contracts system...if it was not for that...aww ya RO all the way but having contracts for 60,000funds when my rocket costs 100,000 or more just to get to orbit...we'll you see my problem.

Please see Realistic Progression Zero. It's a WIP, sure, but it's playable, and we can always use more testers (and contributors!). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...