Scott Manley showcases everything I find wrong with FAR

[Hodo]

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.

FAR provides, MORE than enough information and aides to a player to build and operate an aircraft given the control system.

You want a challenge try taking a F-16C Falcon in Falcon BMS and ramp start its engine follow the towers guidance for take off and then fly a 2 hour sortie then return to a tanker refuel in pattern order head to landing and follow instructions of the tower for landing then taxi to your parking grid and perform a proper shutdown procedure for the aircraft.

[sedativechunk]

I never even tried FAR once, don't really care for it TBH. I can see this mod being done away with when SQUAD changes the atmospheric effects in KSP in 1.0.

[EdFred]

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.

It's actually about 1/2 that if coming in from the "wrong" direction if we are talking airliners. And <1km if talking piston aircraft.

[Motokid600]

I never even tried FAR once, don't really care for it TBH. I can see this mod being done away with when SQUAD changes the atmospheric effects in KSP in 1.0.

The new aerodynamics will not be as good as FAR I guarantee it. As long as the new system is pluggable ( I'm sure it will be ) then FAR will remain. ( As it should, but that's up to Ferram )

[regex]

I never even tried FAR once, don't really care for it TBH. I can see this mod being done away with when SQUAD changes the atmospheric effects in KSP in 1.0.

I doubt that'll happen. FAR is written by an actual aerodynamicist so it will always be better for realism. That being said, I see good things ahead for stock and this overhaul is very much welcome.

[Gerandar]

FAR is kind of meh altho I think anyone going for any kind of realism in this game is wasting there time, little green men launching rockets to space is not suppose to be a simulation(and even with FAR the aerodynamics are a joke)

[Motokid600]

FAR is kind of meh altho I think anyone going for any kind of realism in this game is wasting there time, little green men launching rockets to space is not suppose to be a simulation(and even with FAR the aerodynamics are a joke)

Have you tried RSS/RO? It's spectacular and is far from a "waste of time."

[klgraham1013]

I never even tried FAR once, don't really care for it TBH. I can see this mod being done away with when SQUAD changes the atmospheric effects in KSP in 1.0.

You're making a judgement on something you've never tried nor care to try, and are predetermining it's irrelevance after an update we have only been told about thus far?

[Hodo]

It's actually about 1/2 that if coming in from the "wrong" direction if we are talking airliners. And <1km if talking piston aircraft.

Typical approach for a F-15E Strike Eagle is about 10-15km, or 7-10 miles. And you have a typical 1 to 3km spacing between aircraft on landing. Granted this will very depending on airfield and air space above landing area.

The point is most people get so used to the souposphere in stock that they come in from 1km out and swoop down from 8km and land on the runway. But in real life if you were to drop from 24kft AGL and try and land a low drag airframe like a F-16C Falcon on runway in less than a km, you will end up a fireball somewhere on the ground near the runway.

- - - Updated - - -

Have you tried RSS/RO? It's spectacular and is far from a "waste of time."

+1 this.

[klgraham1013]

FAR is kind of meh altho I think anyone going for any kind of realism in this game is wasting there time, little green men launching rockets to space is not suppose to be a simulation(and even with FAR the aerodynamics are a joke)

There's that little green men excuse again. Someone give me a nickel!

edit: I should explain. I feel the Kerbal design is a way to alleviate the horror of massive death due to ones own failure as an engineer; to add a lightheartedness to what could be a very serious affair. If they were an example of an intended simplicity, I feel the game would have been very different from the start.

Edited February 15, 2015 by klgraham1013
spelling

[Motokid600]

Yea, you can't have real humans in this game and kill them like we do Kerbals. Sets the wrong image.

[klgraham1013]

Yea, you can't have real humans in this game and kill them like we do Kerbals. Sets the wrong image.

It's an odd thing. Despite the prevalence of military shooters, games like Burn Out: Paradise refrained from having a person in the drivers seat. I think Squad is taking the same stance.

[basic.syntax]

They are cute, stuffed plush toy characters, kids identify with them: great marketing.

Mascot characters. SomeONE to rescue, when a ship is lost in space, in what could otherwise be a dry spaceflight sim.

[TeddyDD]

FAR might be hard for players... that haven't ever seen any real aircraft At the moment it's way easier than stock aerodynamics.

Personally I'm going to use FAR as long as it will be available for us thanks to ferram4's kindness and hard work.

[WhiteKnuckle]

The only way I'll ever give up FAR is if they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

OP, I'm sorry you feel that semi-realistic aerodynamics are too difficult for you and the future hypothetical players you claim to speak for. Is there anything else we can dumb down for you? Maybe get rid of fuel so no one gets stuck in orbit? Maybe make all the planets out of rubber so if you crash land you just bounce off?

Nah, I didn't think so.

KSP is hard. KSP is good because it is hard. The stock aerodynamics fail to meet the bar set by all the other aspects of the game. Keep raising the bar Squad, never dumb it down.

[cantab]

Shedding speed in FAR is a nuisance, but that's why you set up spoilers, use mod airbrakes, or if you want to be really fancy learn to forward slip. Or just do it the kerbal way with retro thrust

As for the contention that we shouldn't expect realism from a game with little green men, well http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArtStyleDissonance. KSP is already seriously realistic as games go.

[Gerandar]

Have you tried RSS/RO? It's spectacular and is far from a "waste of time."

I have tried with both of them and FAR makes the game way to easy RSS/RO never really added anything I would deem "fun" or "worth wasting my time on" the game doesn't lend it self to simulation well at all in my opinion and should be played as a game rather then a sim.

[Nathair]

I have tried with both of them and FAR makes the game way to easy

Just add KIDS (and another "o".)

[ColourOfFire]

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.

So basically your point is FAR is not good because you can't divebomb yourself at the runway at a ridiculous speed and be okay? I sincerely do not understand your perceived problem with FAR. Have you actually played with FAR for more than half an hour?

It makes the interaction between the airstream and your vehicle function at least a bit like it should. Not more, not less. If you don't like it much, don't use it. But don't go saying "it's sooooo hard" just because you can't do things that are ridiculous to begin with.

And the entire Interstellar Quest uses FAR and I think most of his other non-tutorial videos do.

Edited February 14, 2015 by ColourOfFire

[Superfluous J]

I've built planes for stock and I've built planes for FAR. I can honestly say that while I trust all the people who say FAR is easier actually believe that it's true, that's more to do with that I can't seem to find a reason all these people would be lying than any actual proof.

It took me a few (Maybe 3-5) tries to make a plane that lifted off in stock, and most of those were due to wheelbarrowing on the runway. In FAR, I've made dozens of planes and followed the popular guides to the letter and STILL can't fly more than 100 meters before my plane spirals or simply nosedives into the ground.

FAR is harder, when it comes to planes. It may not be for some of you, but it IS for the rest of us. Just try trusting us like I'm trusting you. We're not lying.

[EdFred]

Typical approach for a F-15E Strike Eagle is about 10-15km, or 7-10 miles. And you have a typical 1 to 3km spacing between aircraft on landing. Granted this will very depending on airfield and air space above landing area.

The point is most people get so used to the souposphere in stock that they come in from 1km out and swoop down from 8km and land on the runway. But in real life if you were to drop from 24kft AGL and try and land a low drag airframe like a F-16C Falcon on runway in less than a km, you will end up a fireball somewhere on the ground near the runway.

- - - Updated - - -

+1 this.

I *am* a flight instructor, I do sort of know what I'm talking about. FAF is generally five miles on approach. For instrument approaches, they have to be vectored onto the FAC prior to there. Of course, it's also a 3 degree glide slope, so all you have to do is bleed speed at that point, and an F-anything on approach is easy enough to slow down from five miles out. Of course there's always the overhead break...

[panzer1b]

Never was a fan of FAR in general. Realistic yes, with a few minor bugs ofc like any mod, but it does not make the game any more enjoyable in my opinion at least. Enjoyability is again, a matter of opinion, but many things like clipped wings functioning, jets being a little OP, ect, make me able to make many sci-fi ships fly, and personally i find it alot more fun to make odd looking, badass sci-fi craft instead of sticking to making F22 clones or the so called "classical fighter jet" style designs that while realistic, functional, and plausible, arent really my style.

Im hoping the new aerodynamics are both more plausible and realistic, but not ruining or forcing specific design constraints on what i can build, like what FAR/NEAR does. Realism is perfectly fine, but the issue i have with 100% realism, is that it adds extra limits upon players, im so hoping that at least many of my ships dont get broken with the new system.

[Yemo]

Well,

I posted in the FAR is hard thead a while ago.

There are many issues that make FAR hard, but most of them are based on compatibility issues (eg fairing bases upside down or something like that) and stock problems.

Considering FAR (and NEAR) is the only aerodynamics model for KSP (imho, stock cant be really considered an aerodynamics model), which is added on top of an existing game, it does a great job.

Aside from the general plane building (CoL behind CoM) and the stuff explained here by keptin, http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52080

oversteering and lack of airbrakes are the 2 greatest issues for FAR usage.

Oversteering due to the OP reaction wheels and due to untweaked (use Tweakable Everything) control surfaces accounts for most of the problems (read: loss of control) in flight.

For landing, the inability to bleed off speed when you want it, is the major issue. Usage of airbrakes is recommended.

If you do not want to install them, use sets of rearward pointed sepratrons to shorten the distance you need to come to a stop. If you place/angle them right, they make for great landing helps, you can even use multiple stages of them.

Or use drogue chutes from RealChutes!

Identify an issue and then find ways to overcome it!

It took me a while, but it is like swimming or driving, once you can do it, you wonder how you were ever unable to do it.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Yemo

[basic.syntax]

Setting aside any pro/con discussion about FAR, I think the OP has some good suggestions that would help everyone, improving the navigation UI.

[DaMichel]

FAR provides, MORE than enough information and aides to a player to build and operate an aircraft given the control system.

Well, all what you wrote make it looks as if it was terribly hard to build a plane for FAR and land it again. But it absolutely possible to guesstimate your way back to landing with a design that is more "challenging" to fly. Like Scott just did. In his Interstellar Quest series he doesn't even bother to set control surfaces properly and still manages to land again ... well most of the time

You want a challenge try taking a F-16C Falcon in Falcon BMS and ramp start its engine follow the towers guidance for take off and then fly a 2 hour sortie then return to a tanker refuel in pattern order head to landing and follow instructions of the tower for landing then taxi to your parking grid and perform a proper shutdown procedure for the aircraft.

Hm .. probably going to try it some day. All the system management stuff has been detering me from doing so.