Scott Manley showcases everything I find wrong with FAR

[foxkill2342]

I know this video isn't a fair showcase of everything FAR does, but it shows one of the most experienced players struggling with the system. If Scott Manley is struggling, new players won't have a chance. I am hoping Squad sees this and considers this in their new Aerodynamics system.

If you actually sat through the whole video you probably saw the following things:

-Aircraft losing control after touchdown at high speeds.

-Aircraft taking a long time to slow down.

-Aircraft requiring high touchdown speeds.

-Aircraft easily losing directional control while turning.

-Aircraft required long distances to brake.

While these may be mathematically and technically realistic, they are not "game realistic."

I want Kerbal Space Program to be as much of a flight sim as it is a space sim. However when you add realistic aerodynamics without all of the engineering advantages a real aircraft have, you end up with aircraft that are not only difficult to fly, they become frustrating and unenjoyable to fly.

Here are some things that must be added in order to make this happen:

The FAR "Status box" is a bad representation of angle of attack. A

should be added to the nav ball. This would make stalling and losing control more user friendly. A similar indication should be made for excessive yaw action. Tell Players they are turning too tight or pitching too high BEFORE they lose control and tell them in a way that allows them to easily identify this limit.

A fly by wire system should be considered. It's too easy to break your plane at high speeds and with no force feedback from controls there is very little to prevent this from happening. Control forces should be automatically reduced at high speeds.

Drag devices (Flaps, Spoilers and Parachutes) are a must. The drag devices work fairly well in FAR (though the ideal location and degree of flap extension require too much experimentation) Parachutes work great currently, but high altitude deployment and having them disappear on touchdown for planes is a huge problem. I would love to be able to set deployment height at 5 ft. There may be some other balancing issues that should be considered with this.

TL;DR: Visual navball cues need to be added for stall, control forces need to automatically adjust with speed and drag devices need to be easier for KSP to have a user friendly aerodynamics system.

[Daze]

Actually flying with FAR it's more intuitive, try it!

Another point: in this video Scott Manley isn't flying with a "normal" plane but basically a booster with two little wings, it's pretty normal that is very easy to go into stall...

[7499275]

Yes FAR is one hell of a learning curve, one that I have not yet mastered. However it adds a lot to the game, my favorite part is deorbiting something and having realistic drag on it. Couple FAR with DR and its amazing, a nightmare for returning SSTO's and shuttles though!

With actual planes though, you gotta know what you're doing and really fine tune all the little aspects, such as control surfaces, wing area, shape of the craft etc.

[r_rolo1]

Yeah, Mr Manley in the beginning of the video is struggling to land a unpowered rocket booster with short delta wings with no drogues and improperly set air brakes that is coming from a suborbital trajectory. That would be a daunting task for a average pilot in RL, so FAR is not the one adding diff to it. In fact i think it would be harder in stock than in FAR, because you would lose so much speed in the lower atmo you would be most surely struggling to not stall near the surface ...

And in the end he runs out of runway, but that is just because the KSC runway is somewhat short. In fact it would not be of enough size to be considered for a shuttle landing in RL, much more of a spent 1st stage on wings

Edited February 14, 2015 by r_rolo1

[Vindaloo]

Look, honestly FAR really isn't that hard. I started playing KSP about 6 weeks ago and using FAR for about 5 of those 6 weeks. It is nowhere near as difficult or limiting as some would pretend.

[regex]

I misposted. This is a great OP full of good suggestions.

Edited February 14, 2015 by regex

[StrandedonEarth]

I experimented with FAR once, and haven't bothered with it since. Not that I didn't like it; I just haven't bothered. That said, one thing that would make landing easier with supersonic aircraft is if a modder came up with variable-sweep ("swing-wing") technology, like the F-14, F-111, and B1: straight-out for take-offs and landing, swept for high speed. For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-sweep_wing

[cantab]

Most of his difficulties are nothing to do with FAR. His problems were the stock game engine making ships fall apart when parts are clipping, the stock wheel brakes are too weak, the stock runway is too short, and that he's built something that lands at two hundred and eighty miles per hour.

The only time FAR got him was when he spun, and guess what? You can spin an aircraft in the current stock aerodynamics too!

[Motokid600]

I like the navball idea that is good. As for Scott having trouble in that video. He may be an experienced player, but those boosters are poorly designed which is why he had so much trouble. There too short and stubby.

[ColourOfFire]

FAR is absolutely not hard. I have no idea where the whole FAR is hard comes from. I thought it was absolute bliss when I installed it and stuff that made sense to me actually worked instead of having to noclip wings all over the place to get something to lift off. Yes, if you build some crazy contraption, smash it into the atmosphere from a 300km orbit and try to bank hard, it will definately lose parts. If you build a spaceplane that make just a bit of sense and go for a bit of a shallow approach it's not difficult. I agree with some of your suggestions, but still, FAR is not hard as is.

A video of some insane idea that doesn't work the first few tries isn't proof that the aerodynamics are wrong. Actually, most of the problems in this video have very little to do with FAR.

Edited February 14, 2015 by ColourOfFire

[luckyhendrix]

If you actually sat through the whole video you probably saw the following things:

-Aircraft losing control after touchdown at high speeds.

-Aircraft taking a long time to slow down.

-Aircraft requiring high touchdown speeds.

-Aircraft easily losing directional control while turning.

-Aircraft required long distances to brake.

Absolutely none of those things have to do with FAR or the aerodynamic model ...

-Aircraft losing control after touchdown at high speeds.

Well maybe it is not a good idea to drive at very high speeds on a tiny tricycle landing gear, and has nothing to do with aerodynamics

-Aircraft taking a long time to slow down.

Again nothing to do with aerodynamics, see wheel brakes

-Aircraft requiring high touchdown speeds.

Well that's what happens when you have an heavy aircraft with tiny wings, it would be even worse without far beacuse of lack of body lift.

-Aircraft easily losing directional control while turning.

It only happened once because scott manley clearly overturned and stalled the aircraft. It would be a lot easier to fly if he didn't use the SAS and turned FAR AOA limiter on and/or used a joystick for smoother control.

Also, same thing will happens to stock aircraft unless they have massively overpowered SAS

-Aircraft required long distances to brake.

Again nothing to do with FAR

Otherwise I really like your suggestions and think they should be added. But trying to make a huge booster fly with tiny wings is always going to be a challenge ...

Edited February 14, 2015 by luckyhendrix

[Dazpoet]

I'm not going to go into this discussion about FAR but I'm annoyed at the wording of the title. To me it read like Scott had acctually made a video about how FAR was bad, this does not appear to be the case.

[klgraham1013]

Everything has already been said. Few if any of your complaints have anything to do with FAR.

[Hodo]

I know this video isn't a fair showcase of everything FAR does, but it shows one of the most experienced players struggling with the system. If Scott Manley is struggling, new players won't have a chance. I am hoping Squad sees this and considers this in their new Aerodynamics system.

If you actually sat through the whole video you probably saw the following things:

-Aircraft losing control after touchdown at high speeds.

-Aircraft taking a long time to slow down.

-Aircraft requiring high touchdown speeds.

-Aircraft easily losing directional control while turning.

-Aircraft required long distances to brake.

While these may be mathematically and technically realistic, they are not "game realistic."

I want Kerbal Space Program to be as much of a flight sim as it is a space sim. However when you add realistic aerodynamics without all of the engineering advantages a real aircraft have, you end up with aircraft that are not only difficult to fly, they become frustrating and unenjoyable to fly.

Here are some things that must be added in order to make this happen:

The FAR "Status box" is a bad representation of angle of attack. A

should be added to the nav ball. This would make stalling and losing control more user friendly. A similar indication should be made for excessive yaw action. Tell Players they are turning too tight or pitching too high BEFORE they lose control and tell them in a way that allows them to easily identify this limit.

A fly by wire system should be considered. It's too easy to break your plane at high speeds and with no force feedback from controls there is very little to prevent this from happening. Control forces should be automatically reduced at high speeds.

Drag devices (Flaps, Spoilers and Parachutes) are a must. The drag devices work fairly well in FAR (though the ideal location and degree of flap extension require too much experimentation) Parachutes work great currently, but high altitude deployment and having them disappear on touchdown for planes is a huge problem. I would love to be able to set deployment height at 5 ft. There may be some other balancing issues that should be considered with this.

TL;DR: Visual navball cues need to be added for stall, control forces need to automatically adjust with speed and drag devices need to be easier for KSP to have a user friendly aerodynamics system.

Actually FAR isn't that bad, and landing speeds are not that fast if you design the aircraft properly.

I have built aircraft that land at 75 or less m/s which is less than 160knts.

This aircraft the F/A-106A Thundergod that I built late last year could and still can land at 74m/s or about 145knts. And that is one of my FASTEST landing aircraft.

This aircraft lands at 60m/s.

As does this.

If you design an aircraft with a high wingloading it will have the landing speed of a missile. But if it is designed with some idea of how a real aircraft is built or with a set design philosophy in mind you can actually avoid high landing speeds and long distance braking and actually everything on your list.

[foxkill2342]

I have tried both FAR and NEAR. I prefer NEAR, but I miss the Mach effects of FAR.

[IllicitMedic]

I don't see how FAR is difficult at all...it might help if everyone's man crush Scott actually built something air worthy in the first place?

[foxkill2342]

I'm not going to go into this discussion about FAR but I'm annoyed at the wording of the title. To me it read like Scott had acctually made a video about how FAR was bad, this does not appear to be the case.

The video is one of the few I have seen where he uses FAR for flying an aircraft. I have not seen anyone make a video that critically analyses FAR vs. Stock and I don't have the software to do it myself. I made this thread to open up the discussion about the new aero system and how it can be made better. This video showcases at specific points what I dislike about FAR. While Scott doesn't specifically mention his issues are due to using FAR, they are a result of the aerodynamics.

Those who say these issues are not issues with FAR, they are issues with the game are missing the point. These issues are not as pronounced with stock aero due to it's forgiving nature. Controlling speed becomes a much bigger problem in FAR. Having a very long final approach seemed to be the only real solution to landing the airplane for Scott. This is not the case for stock aero.

[DaMichel]

Scott did pretty well i think. I say it was FAR that enabled him to regain control and land. Not possible in stock! ;->

Btw. breakup due to aerodynamic forces can be disabled in FAR.

Regarding landing at high speeds, i learned a nice trick. Built your craft so that it sits on the runway with a slight pitch down attitude. This way, the wings act like a spoiler, pushing the craft unto the runway. At least this prevents bouncing, and if the physics engine is half decent it should also increase the braking force.

Edit: Sorry, i like the OP. Give the player help to deal with stuff instead of using unrealistic "physics" "because fun". Nice!

Edited February 14, 2015 by DaMichel

[Hodo]

The video is one of the few I have seen where he uses FAR for flying an aircraft. I have not seen anyone make a video that critically analyses FAR vs. Stock and I don't have the software to do it myself. I made this thread to open up the discussion about the new aero system and how it can be made better. This video showcases at specific points what I dislike about FAR. While Scott doesn't specifically mention his issues are due to using FAR, they are a result of the aerodynamics.

Those who say these issues are not issues with FAR, they are issues with the game are missing the point. These issues are not as pronounced with stock aero due to it's forgiving nature. Controlling speed becomes a much bigger problem in FAR. Having a very long final approach seemed to be the only real solution to landing the airplane for Scott. This is not the case for stock aero.

Real aircraft have long final approaches. It isn't like the bad video games where you turn and land within the span of 100ft. No a real aircraft lines up something like 15km out on approach and follows a very specific glide path till it lands.

My average approach distance is 20km on landing. I use MJ to give me an icon on my NAV ball for the line up and I follow that icon with my flight path indicator. I can come in at a steeper angle or at a shallower angle but it is dangerous.

Most of the problems that you mentioned are not problems at all if you know what you are doing when you design your craft.

If you have a 50 ton aircraft and you have 2 tiny wheels trying to stop it, that is like a 20lb toddler hanging off of the back of an NFL running back trying to get him to stop. It just isnt going to happen.

It comes down to basic design theory. If you have a poor design it is going to perform, poorly. If you have a good design, it will perform well. FAR just highlights many peoples bad designs and they can't handle it. It is not forgiving for "fail" designs, not in the slightest. If people cant get a grasp on that, then perhaps they shouldnt use FAR.

[DaMichel]

Most of the problems that you mentioned are not problems at all if you know what you are doing when you design your craft.

I think you are just proving his point that most people in fact don't know what they are doing and therefore are in need of assistance systems.

Longer runways have been suggested many times and i agree with that. Kerbal Konstructs with Kerbin Side give you a 5km long runway in the middle of the desert. Something like that would be really cool to have in stock. I used it many times when i wasn't sure that i could land at KSC.

[IllicitMedic]

Real aircraft have long final approaches. It isn't like the bad video games where you turn and land within the span of 100ft. No a real aircraft lines up something like 15km out on approach and follows a very specific glide path till it lands.

My average approach distance is 20km on landing. I use MJ to give me an icon on my NAV ball for the line up and I follow that icon with my flight path indicator. I can come in at a steeper angle or at a shallower angle but it is dangerous.

Most of the problems that you mentioned are not problems at all if you know what you are doing when you design your craft.

If you have a 50 ton aircraft and you have 2 tiny wheels trying to stop it, that is like a 20lb toddler hanging off of the back of an NFL running back trying to get him to stop. It just isnt going to happen.

It comes down to basic design theory. If you have a poor design it is going to perform, poorly. If you have a good design, it will perform well. FAR just highlights many peoples bad designs and they can't handle it. It is not forgiving for "fail" designs, not in the slightest. If people cant get a grasp on that, then perhaps they shouldnt use FAR.

If the great Scott Manley is having problems with a very poorly designed craft then it MUST be FAR, not him...it MUST be...

[Voculus]

This thread is in poor taste, and Ferram has worked countless hours to bring FAR to us, without asking a thing in return. If a dummy like me can build and fly planes in FAR, anyone can. I'd bet you're also mashing on a keyboard, wondering why planes don't fly right.

[klgraham1013]

The video is one of the few I have seen where he uses FAR for flying an aircraft.

I believe his Interstellar Quest series, which is about to hit 100 episodes I believe (?), uses FAR.

[lordlundar]

"high speeds" he says.

The touchdown speed was 123 m/s. That is over 275 miles/hour or 239 knots. By contrast the space shuttle lands at 213 miles/hour and THAT has the luxury of better air brakes AND a drag chute AND it still requires a skilled pilot and better controls than what Scott Manley had at the time.

The problems you listed were more a matter of Scott not having the skills or equipment on hand to do something that astronauts have trouble doing, not a problem of FAR.

[DaMichel]

If the great Scott Manley is having problems with a very poorly designed craft then it MUST be FAR, not him...it MUST be...

Nah it wasn't poorly designed. It was awesome. It was just designed for a longer runway.