"Far is hard"

[smjjames]

As far as using fins/wings/tails on the tail of the rocket, I'm trying to not to use them, however, I find that they help when I have instability problems that I can't otherwise seem to figure out, mainly a design issue thing.

[TeeGee]

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.

Are you serious?

Every rocket that has had what I have asked for exhibited a CoL ABOVE the CoM. That is a fundamentally unstable rocket. How am I wrong?

If you put a light weight payload on top of a small rocket in FAR it is going to want to FLIP. Do the same thing in stock KSP and it won't.

The one person that I've seen achieve orbit without tail fins to launch one payload used a heavy FUEL TANK; plopped it onto the top of the rocket above a decoupler and launched. How is this cheating? When the fuel drains from the rocket below the decoupler, the CoM will start moving UP towards the heavier part of the rocket making it MORE stable.

I asked for people to build a probe core payload launching rocket without tail fins using stock KSP and FAR. Only Ippo listened to me and understood.

Short rocket; light payload = flip. That was the point I was trying to make.

And Iddo, the tailfin on the nose does shift the CoL above the CoM BUT it does also make the rocket more stable flying through the atmosphere. I bet that when you reached the typical 100 m/s velocity for your turn, you started to very lightly tap the yaw button about 1 degree every few seconds until you reached 87ish degrees and stopped in order to keep the rocket in check. The fins on the nose kept the rocket from rolling and since they don't articulate, shouldn't have been a huge factor in flipping the rocket at higher altitudes.

Basically, launch: 100m/s tap yaw and hold pitch at 87 degrees until 30km+, THEN start turning for real when the air is thinner. Smart but inefficient.

Anyways I'm tired of talking about this stuff. FAR won't be stock because stock KSP isn't balance for it.

[Sage]

Are you serious?

If you put a light weight payload on top of a small rocket in FAR it is going to want to FLIP. Do the same thing in stock KSP and it won't.

Your original argument was about real life rocket don't have fins, but usually they have payloads that weight more than the bottom, so they don't flip. A rocket flipping with a high CoL is correct. I don't see why ksp isn't balanced for that, as you can build very small rockets anyway, and you can put fins on them. Stop moving your goalpost or state again clearly what's your matter with rocket flipping and using winglets.

[Jouni]

Aerodynamic stability is a nice party trick, but it's hardly necessary for rockets. Most engines have thrust vectoring, which allows them to guide unstable rockets easily to orbit, as long as you don't deviate too much from prograde.

[RainDreamer]

Oh so it wasn't about tail fins but about unstable rockets? With COL above COM? I was thinking we were going about something like fins must be required to fly rocket in FAR or something.

[Ippo]

I asked for people to build a probe core payload launching rocket without tail fins using stock KSP and FAR. Only Ippo listened to me and understood.

Short rocket; light payload = flip. That was the point I was trying to make.

It's more physics, than your point. From your post, we gathered that you thought it was impossible to launch a rocket using an unstable rocket - we just set out to contradict this statement.

And Ippo, the tailfin on the nose does shift the CoL above the CoM BUT it does also make the rocket more stable flying through the atmosphere. I bet that when you reached the typical 100 m/s velocity for your turn, you started to very lightly tap the yaw button about 1 degree every few seconds until you reached 87ish degrees and stopped in order to keep the rocket in check. The fins on the nose kept the rocket from rolling and since they don't articulate, shouldn't have been a huge factor in flipping the rocket at higher altitudes.

Basically, launch: 100m/s tap yaw and hold pitch at 87 degrees until 30km+, THEN start turning for real when the air is thinner. Smart but inefficient.

Actually no, they make the rocket horrifically unstable during ascent: so much, in fact, that I had to resort to using an horrifically inefficient ascent profile so that I'd get out of the atmosphere sooner. Once I reached 100 m/s it started feeling like a rodeo, I had to keep trying to correct the rocket (and, as I said, it took me some tries before I managed to make it to orbit). The fins on the nose keep the rocket from rolling but they also try to flip it on the pitch axis, and trust me, they are strong. Try it yourself, you'll see what I mean.

FAR won't be stock because stock KSP isn't balance for it.

Eh, FAR won't be stock because the guys at squad have proved multiple times they actively discourage realism in the game.

[KerBlam]

Is it possible to dredge this thread back from the deep left field? I started with stock, and since trying FAR it seems to be a) more difficult ( more natural.

TeeGee, I don't know what inside info you have on what 'stock' aero will become.

If I had to guess I'd say you're probably speculating, the same as everyone else.

If I had to take a second guess, I would say that it will be more like FAR than what the stock model is now, except with a couple more considerations thrown (i.e. thrust - atmospheric pressure balances) to make LKO a tiny bit more balanced. Anything out of atmo as far as I can tell is pretty bang on.

In any case, the new 'stock' is unavailable. All we can do is speculate on what it will or won't be, and make do with what we can get for now, and for now, I'm feeling more satisfied with FAR than stock.

I hope that makes sense.

[Hodo]

I find this funny. This whole thread. I have only read small parts and some of the posts I have read have been like "I quit using FAR because I don't like Realism" or "FAR makes things to easy because rockets fly better" or "FAR is hard because my airhogging design no longer works right".

In truth I have used FAR since day one for me in KSP some 2 years ago. I honestly couldnt stand KSP with the stock air physics, it made no sense to me having grew up around planes and fighters with the US Air Force. I studied how planes worked since I was 7 and have a pretty good grasp on what should fly and what shouldnt. I love FAR and all of the aircraft I can build in it. I actually enjoyed FAR more when I had the Realism Overhaul and it was real scale Earth. Granted it made my SSTO space planes impossibly hard for me but it was a fun challenge. And I have considered reinstalling RO and just going with Kerbin 6.4 so I can have Kerbin scale Earth.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Hodo

[smjjames]

If you put a light weight payload on top of a small rocket in FAR it is going to want to FLIP. Do the same thing in stock KSP and it won't.

The one person that I've seen achieve orbit without tail fins to launch one payload used a heavy FUEL TANK; plopped it onto the top of the rocket above a decoupler and launched. How is this cheating? When the fuel drains from the rocket below the decoupler, the CoM will start moving UP towards the heavier part of the rocket making it MORE stable.

I asked for people to build a probe core payload launching rocket without tail fins using stock KSP and FAR. Only Ippo listened to me and understood.

Short rocket; light payload = flip. That was the point I was trying to make.

And Iddo, the tailfin on the nose does shift the CoL above the CoM BUT it does also make the rocket more stable flying through the atmosphere. I bet that when you reached the typical 100 m/s velocity for your turn, you started to very lightly tap the yaw button about 1 degree every few seconds until you reached 87ish degrees and stopped in order to keep the rocket in check. The fins on the nose kept the rocket from rolling and since they don't articulate, shouldn't have been a huge factor in flipping the rocket at higher altitudes.

That makes sense, it'll still do that if you try to ram it through the atmosphere with a bunch of SRBs. Which would probably just make it worse anyway.

[PDCWolf]

Are you serious?

Every rocket that has had what I have asked for exhibited a CoL ABOVE the CoM. That is a fundamentally unstable rocket. How am I wrong?

If you put a light weight payload on top of a small rocket in FAR it is going to want to FLIP. Do the same thing in stock KSP and it won't.

The one person that I've seen achieve orbit without tail fins to launch one payload used a heavy FUEL TANK; plopped it onto the top of the rocket above a decoupler and launched. How is this cheating? When the fuel drains from the rocket below the decoupler, the CoM will start moving UP towards the heavier part of the rocket making it MORE stable.

I asked for people to build a probe core payload launching rocket without tail fins using stock KSP and FAR. Only Ippo listened to me and understood.

Short rocket; light payload = flip. That was the point I was trying to make.

And Iddo, the tailfin on the nose does shift the CoL above the CoM BUT it does also make the rocket more stable flying through the atmosphere. I bet that when you reached the typical 100 m/s velocity for your turn, you started to very lightly tap the yaw button about 1 degree every few seconds until you reached 87ish degrees and stopped in order to keep the rocket in check. The fins on the nose kept the rocket from rolling and since they don't articulate, shouldn't have been a huge factor in flipping the rocket at higher altitudes.

Basically, launch: 100m/s tap yaw and hold pitch at 87 degrees until 30km+, THEN start turning for real when the air is thinner. Smart but inefficient.

Anyways I'm tired of talking about this stuff. FAR won't be stock because stock KSP isn't balance for it.

Well, yeah, if you go against the laws of rocket design then you aren't going to get stuff working, at least not without difficulties, that's why rockets are top heavy and with the center of pressure as low as possible (seen on that mythbusters episode with the guy with 40 rockets in the back and a skateboard or something like that). To worsen your case you show your lack of knowledge on the matter: Putting tailfins on the top of the rocket is one of the worse things you can do and it won't help you with stability at all, as they will continuously push to put themselves as far behind as they can, which means flipping your rocket so that they end up in the back.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

But yea, here it is, Last 2 images are with full and then with empty tanks. It did get hairy but well inside my skills, normal gravity turn, normal ascent to orbit, normal circularization. Just don't send the stars via paypal because they don't like us Argies.

As far as using fins/wings/tails on the tail of the rocket, I'm trying to not to use them, however, I find that they help when I have instability problems that I can't otherwise seem to figure out, mainly a design issue thing.

"fins on the bottom" is the easiest way to make something stable. Look at things like darts and arrows for example, weight on the front, pressure on the back.

a) more difficult

What are you finding difficult?

[Doggydog]

Sense it got Missed

Teegee This is everything you asked for

So Here is a Fully Stock Aerodynamically Unstable probe launcher with no Fins going straight to orbit on 1st try. Its Not Imposible to do.

http://imgur.com/a/N3lwo

And Forgot to add Mass/Drag indicators

http://puu.sh/eG8yt/ee0ef84bea.jpg

Edited January 18, 2015 by Doggydog

[bdito]

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.

So I'm a cheater because I like to play the game the way I like to instead of how you like to? Uh, ok. It's a sandbox game, there's no such thing as cheating. Everyone is entitled to play however they see fit.

[GreeningGalaxy]

I find that FAR makes building good planes substantially more difficult. Sure, I can make just about anything fly with enough thrust (KSP Interstellar fusion thermoturbojets could fly a city bus or herd of goats into orbit, with enough struts), but the tricky part for me is making it fly well. I've wrestled spaceplanes into orbit in heated, seat-of-the-pants pilot-versus-aircraft fights, but only rarely can I build something that doesn't wobble horrendously.

Recently I spent a while figuring out how to make a very maneuverable fighter jet, and I did eventually succeed for the most part (analysis of the Firehound helped), but it was a challenge. I find that I really have to think on my feet when designing FAR aircraft, particularly super-/hypersonic ones or ones that are designed to maneuver especially well.

I have met an especially large number of people who claim that FAR makes things easier - sure, it's possible to fly much faster at low altitudes (and in general) with FAR, and you can apply more real-world design points to your planes, but in terms of just sticking some wings on a tube full of fuel and getting it to fly nicely, stock aero is substantially simpler. I still have yet to see any craft in FAR that can remotely compete with the most agile stock planes, for instance, and you'll never end up in a catastrophic stall in stock. Stock aero enables more planes to fly with fewer complications, so in stock, arbitrarily-designed craft are far more likely to fly satisfactorily. If they don't fly well, usually they just flip out and crash; there's not a lot of middle ground like there is in FAR.

So does it make the game harder? Yes, in the sense that it makes it more complicated. There's no real way around that; I don't think FAR will ever be easier than stock aero for someone who's used to the latter. Once you get used to airplane design in FAR, though, it's potentially possible to do a lot more with your aircraft than you can in stock.

[Ippo]

[...] and you'll never end up in a catastrophic stall in stock [...]

Well, duh, since stock aero doesn't model stalling...

[LethalDose]

FAR was one of the first mods I ever installed. Never looked back. Stock aero is dumb.

I guess it's hard, but it's hard in a way that makes sense, instead of easy in a way that doesn't (stock aero).

[Camacha]

I noticed I do not even consider FAR a mod. When asked what my favourite is, I quickly answered kOS. I think of FAR more as a fix or an update and an integral part of the game.

[KerBlam]

What are you finding difficult?

Nothing particularly, but it is more difficult than stock to get a functional design.

[PDCWolf]

I find that FAR makes building good planes substantially more difficult. Sure, I can make just about anything fly with enough thrust (KSP Interstellar fusion thermoturbojets could fly a city bus or herd of goats into orbit, with enough struts), but the tricky part for me is making it fly well. I've wrestled spaceplanes into orbit in heated, seat-of-the-pants pilot-versus-aircraft fights, but only rarely can I build something that doesn't wobble horrendously.

Mostly depends on your definition of "flying well". I'm one of those that believes exposure to stock aerodynamics creates false expectations of how stuff should behave or even how it should work at all. Dihedral, incidence and things like the relative position and angle of main wing vs tail stabilizers are all factors that make for more stable planes, incidentally stock ignores all of this (by ignoring wings except when the Z axis is not exactly vertical), which means at all times you are trying to make a cylinder fly horizontally, so when transitioning to FAR, one still expects wings to have almost no effect, even if not knowing it, it's like a cognitive continuity thing. In FAR, all those factors come into play and yeah, you can't just slap wings anywhere, and this is what most people -i believe- find difficult, but it doesn't come from FAR, it comes from stock aero being bad (or rather nonexistant).

Recently I spent a while figuring out how to make a very maneuverable fighter jet, and I did eventually succeed for the most part (analysis of the Firehound helped), but it was a challenge. I find that I really have to think on my feet when designing FAR aircraft, particularly super-/hypersonic ones or ones that are designed to maneuver especially well.

Well, take a look at those that have already invented the wheel. Maneuverable supersonic fighters have short, slender wings because at high speed you don't need that many wing surface area, big control surfaces relative to where they are placed, and arrow look-a-like designs (most of them are delta or a variation of delta). Again, you have to think now because you are no longer trying to fly a cylinder, you now have wings you can rely on.

I have met an especially large number of people who claim that FAR makes things easier - sure, it's possible to fly much faster at low altitudes (and in general) with FAR, and you can apply more real-world design points to your planes, but in terms of just sticking some wings on a tube full of fuel and getting it to fly nicely, stock aero is substantially simpler.

Because wings don't matter, you are trying to fly a rocket horizontally, as long as you keep it mostly symmetrical or withing reasonable asymmetry weight wise it will work.

I still have yet to see any craft in FAR that can remotely compete with the most agile stock planes, for instance, and you'll never end up in a catastrophic stall in stock. Stock aero enables more planes to fly with fewer complications, so in stock, arbitrarily-designed craft are far more likely to fly satisfactorily. If they don't fly well, usually they just flip out and crash; there's not a lot of middle ground like there is in FAR.

Stock doesn't simulate air or wings, so there are no stalls.

So does it make the game harder? Yes, in the sense that it makes it more complicated. There's no real way around that; I don't think FAR will ever be easier than stock aero for someone who's used to the latter. Once you get used to airplane design in FAR, though, it's potentially possible to do a lot more with your aircraft than you can in stock.

"Makes things actually matter" would be the correct wording.

Edited January 19, 2015 by PDCWolf

[TeeGee]

Well, yeah, if you go against the laws of rocket design then you aren't going to get stuff working, at least not without difficulties, that's why rockets are top heavy and with the center of pressure as low as possible (seen on that mythbusters episode with the guy with 40 rockets in the back and a skateboard or something like that). To worsen your case you show your lack of knowledge on the matter: Putting tailfins on the top of the rocket is one of the worse things you can do and it won't help you with stability at all, as they will continuously push to put themselves as far behind as they can, which means flipping your rocket so that they end up in the back.

http://imgur.com/a/9d62t

But yea, here it is, Last 2 images are with full and then with empty tanks. It did get hairy but well inside my skills, normal gravity turn, normal ascent to orbit, normal circularization. Just don't send the stars via paypal because they don't like us Argies.

"fins on the bottom" is the easiest way to make something stable. Look at things like darts and arrows for example, weight on the front, pressure on the back.

What are you finding difficult?

Gold star to you and Ippo! You guys/gals have proved your point, next time I shouldn't use absolutes like "impossible"... I was just trying to make a point.

- - - Updated - - -

So I'm a cheater because I like to play the game the way I like to instead of how you like to? Uh, ok. It's a sandbox game, there's no such thing as cheating. Everyone is entitled to play however they see fit.

The biggest obstacle of reaching orbit is delta V. Stock orbit requires 4600 m/s delta v. Stock KSP with FAR installed removes 1000 m/s from that requirement.

Second, reentry in stock KSP with DR and FAR is childs play; you don't even need a heat shield. The object barely reaches the max temp of the heat shield from orbital velocity. Try reentry in RO after expending 9500 m/s of delta V to reach orbit and losing all that velocity to drag... lets just say you'll need a heat shield.

I think it's cheating to play KSP with FAR in the stock solar system. Someone once said," Once you reach orbit, you're halfway to anywhere." Getting into orbit is the biggest hurdle of this game and if you chop that requirement down it makes the achievement easier.

IMHO everyone that uses FAR should automatically scale Kerbal up to either RSS or 6.4x, install real fuels, DR, remote tech, engine ignitor etc. to balance the game in accordance to the new game mechanics.

in reality, no planet the size of Kerbin can sustain an atmosphere at 1 atm pressure. No planet in reality can have 1 G gravity at that size either. Yes I know its a game but everyone who has been singing FARs praises has always claimed that realistic = better. Well if you like realism, play the game with proper proportions.

I do because I like to learn about how reality works.

Do I get frustrated? For sure but when things work out for me, I'm ecstatic. My first time reaching orbit in RO was my most proud moment in KSP so far; even more proud than my first Mun landing in stock KSP.

[KerBlam]

It all sounds very subjective to me. If someone else likes playing KSP a certain way, how does it affect you?

Considering it's a game without any kind of competitive aspects I really don't see how can anything be considered cheating. Especially in the game's current format where you have the ability to configure things to suit your needs. All in all it's about whatever makes the user happy isn't it? Some people use mechjeb for everything. Good on them, it's not how I play, but that's my choice.

Myself, I just really like building things in space, and I'm trying to do it quite methodically while timewarping as little as possible. The size of the solar system suits me fine, and the dynamic provided by FAR means I have to think more about design to get larger objects into space.

The 'balance' of the game is completely subjective, as I still create my own goals and I'm finding these to be challenging enough. I'm still a year away from my closest suitable transfer window between planets, but that's completely off-topic.

All in all, I disagree with your judgement of people who aren't doing it your way.. I don't necessarily think everybody wants complete realism, but they do want something other than stock. FAR has made getting a rocket into orbit 'feel' more natural, and the same for flying planes around Kerbin. I don't know what the deal with Stock wing dynamics was, but it was wierd, especially the infiniglide thing...Now they behave much more like actual planes, and stupid designs no longer work.

[Superfluous J]

IMHO everyone that uses FAR should automatically scale Kerbal up to either RSS or 6.4x, install real fuels, DR, remote tech, engine ignitor etc. to balance the game in accordance to the new game mechanics.

IMHO anybody who thinks other people SHOULD do things their way - regardless of what those other people want - needs to check their privilege.

[Ippo]

Careful 5thHorseman, when you reach"check your privilege" you are usually within 10 posts of Godwin 's law...

[KerBlam]

I mean, really, what are you the KSP Nahtzee?

(super relevant joke, tongue in cheek, no offense intended)

[Superfluous J]

(none taken but really this thread lost its way about 5 pages back anyway)

[Wanderfound]

Personally, I gave 6.4X/FAR a shot, but went back to stock scale FAR. Not because it was harder, but because it was slower; it takes forever to fly to orbit on realistic scales.

More ÃŽâ€V isn't difficult; just add more boosters. But longer time flying to orbit = less time to do more interesting stuff.