Preferred vehicle and aerodynamics

[Alshain]

With all the aero talk I'm interested in seeing the relationship (if any) between FAR users, Stock users, and their preferred vehicles. Let me begin by saying:

THIS IS NOT A PLACE TO DEBATE FAR VS STOCK. There are plenty of those threads. If you wish to contribute comments, of course it's a discussion forum but please avoid "this is better than that" type comments, opinion is what I want to know and everyone's is different.

Instructions:

1. Choose your preferred aero type.

2. Choose your preferred vehicle type.

3. Vote!

There are intentionally no "I like them all" options. You must choose your favorite. For example, I enjoy launching rockets, but I like planes a bit more.

Definition: In case you need it, a Spaceplane in this context is anything that uses wings as a source of lift (as opposed to just control like a rocket) including shuttles regardless of how they are launched.

[Tex]

I went with Stock Rockets. While I am becoming much more proficient at building planes, I haven't quite managed a spaceplane yet. It's pretty fun to fly jet aircraft around Kerbin and collect the data for Kerbin-based contracts, but I think that rockets are easier for me to understand and fly, as well as put to good use.

[Cirocco]

stock spaceplanes. Yes I know I'm weird.

[cicatrix]

FAR Rockets - the easiest pick. 3600 dV to orbit vs 4200 stock and no pains in constructing a spaceplane. Just add moar boosterz!

[NecroBones]

Yep, stock rockets for me. I spend so little time in the atmosphere, it's mostly there for parachutes.

[ArmchairGravy]

Stock and Rockets. I like payloads and don't like the slog to orbit that space planes have. When updates occur I don't have to wait for mods to update.

[Itsdavyjones]

Far spaceplanes... eventually. Currently doing far rockets until i get the hang of building space planes/unlock tech.

[rynak]

I cannot vote, because SDF with spaceplanes is not in the poll.

Tried FAR and NEAR, and didn't like the complexity, but also wasn't satisfied with stock. So, i settled for SDF + KIDS... it doesn't take everything into account that i would like accounted for, but the model i'd like currently doesn't exist.

I mostly design spaceplanes, but do occassionally also build rockets to lift heavy loads.

[JimmyAgent007]

Stock Rockets! Faster and I usually dont do a lot in atmo anyways. It's funny, I almost never use mods for alpha/beta games. Once they are finished though, I mod the crap out of them. Like Skyrim, Fallout, and such. Planes are looking a lot better though. I might play with them a whole lot more next update. Once the game is 1.0 if i feel the need to mod whatever the aero is then I will, plus whatever else I feel like modding.

[Dizzle]

NEAR rockets. I did finally make some reliable spaceplanes that saw some distinguished service, but ultimately they were too much hassle for too little benefit. I still have NEAR installed because I love the look of fairings, but I don't use spaceplanes at all anymore. I choose NEAR over FAR because I don't like the mach effects.

[Alshain]

I cannot vote, because SDF with spaceplanes is not in the poll.

Tried FAR and NEAR, and didn't like the complexity, but also wasn't satisfied with stock. So, i settled for SDF + KIDS... it doesn't take everything into account that i would like accounted for, but the model i'd like currently doesn't exist.

I mostly design spaceplanes, but do occassionally also build rockets to lift heavy loads.

Sorry to say I have no idea what SDF is.

[rynak]

Sorry to say I have no idea what SDF is.

"Stock Drag Fix". It mainly addresses what's wrong with how stock calculates drag from mass (i.e. different drag for empty and wet tanks). So, wingshape sadly isn't not taken into account.

[Starhawk]

Stock and spaceplanes. I'm very interested to see how the stock aero changes will change my design and flight path of spaceplanes.

[Levelord]

Shouldn't there be a separate option for FAR and another for NEAR users? Those two mods perform very differently from each other.

[Alshain]

Shouldn't there be a separate option for FAR and another for NEAR users? Those two mods perform very differently from each other.

They really don't perform that differently.

[Hannu]

I love rockets. Especially huge ones. They are technology of extremities. Extreme sound pressures, stagings, acceleration to 8 km/s in couple of minutes and gas turbines with the power of very large cargo ship to just rotate the fuel pump are impressive things. I love also astronomy, celestial mechanics and all space technology. So, KSP is very interesting game idea. Thanks for that. Stupid I whine more than thank.

I use also FAR. It was a little disappointment. I expected hard times with forced studying of supersonic aerodynamics and solving of Navier Stokes equations to get my rockets to orbit, but is seems to be much easier than stock and took the joy of staging. All goes well up if you put fins on tail of the rocket and avoid too high thrust. But it seems than my new Linux installation with Realism Overhaul mod fix that problem. 10 km/s to low orbit, which is 28 degrees inclined and hard to continue. That will be real fun to plan and execute missions.

[zarakon]

I voted stock and rockets.

While I very much enjoy flying planes, almost all of my actual work gets done with rockets.

I've used NEAR and FAR on occasion, but in general I stick with stock parts and stock physics. NEAR/FAR in particular make rocket launches too cheap on delta-V

[forenci]

I chose FAR rockets, but really I love shuttles. It's the best of both worlds! And thankfully with Stage Recovery they are very cheap.

[NWDogg]

I'm not big into spaceplanes, and I can't get a shuttle to fly to save my life, but I do love building rockets. I like flying them in FAR way more than stock, and when things get a bit too easy I just use KIDS to balance it out or make it even more extreme. I don't even go places very often, I usually just build new rockets and put them into orbit...that wouldn't be very fun at all in the stock system. Plus, Realism Overhaul is super challenging/fun, and it wouldn't work at all without FAR.

[Slam_Jones]

If I'm trying to do a serious mission, I'll go the rocket route. if I'm doing experimentals, I'll do the spaceplane route. My dream is still to one day make a spaceplane that can deliver Kolonization pods for orbital stations.

[Renegrade]

FAR + rockets is love, FAR + rockets is life!

Although I have to admit, I love sticking a huge number of wings to a plane in stock and having it float off the ground at 18m/sec. It's not serious gameplay, but it is quite gigglesome.

[Pecan]

At 93 voters I'm surprised how many more (space)plane fans are using stock aerodynamics. I do, with rockets, but I was under the impression almost all air-breathers replaced stock.

Looking forward to the replacement when it comes (dreading having to redesign all the vehicles in my tutorial yet again).

[Liowen]

Stock rockets for me, and even my small attempts at planes are done in stock as well.

[LongHairedHuman]

At 93 voters I'm surprised how many more (space)plane fans are using stock aerodynamics. I do, with rockets, but I was under the impression almost all air-breathers replaced stock.

Looking forward to the replacement when it comes (dreading having to redesign all the vehicles in my tutorial yet again).

Just be mindful of what kind of statistics you try to pull out of this, the poll simply states what is being used right now. Modded aerodynamics is not used by many simply because it is a mod, which is inherently less accessible and desirable than the stock aerodynamics. If you consider that, it is instead rather surprising that the majority votes for a combination that uses a mod.

[Alshain]

At 93 voters I'm surprised how many more (space)plane fans are using stock aerodynamics. I do, with rockets, but I was under the impression almost all air-breathers replaced stock.

Looking forward to the replacement when it comes (dreading having to redesign all the vehicles in my tutorial yet again).

Same here, I'm not seeing the results I expected. Quite interesting.

Just be mindful of what kind of statistics you try to pull out of this, the poll simply states what is being used right now. Modded aerodynamics is not used by many simply because it is a mod, which is inherently less accessible and desirable than the stock aerodynamics. If you consider that, it is instead rather surprising that the majority votes for a combination that uses a mod.

More of what I was looking for was if there was a disparity based on the vehicle preference (i.e. Rocket users prefer stock while plane users prefer FAR) which clearly isn't the case as the results seem fairly mixed. Not using simply because it is a mod is part of that, so it's what I was looking for. It's all just curiosity anyway, it really is meaningless.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Alshain