Scott Manley showcases everything I find wrong with FAR

[PB666]

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?

O M G , my heart is like so broken..... 'man crush'...everyone....really?

Now I have to watch the video, I like to see other people crash, or should that be crush, . . . . . . whatever.

[PB666]

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.

IN RL thrust diverters are not _required_ to stop most aircraft on normal landings, they do reduce wear and tear on the gear, and allow softer landings. Pilots are trained to land AC with two engine failures and speed control is a problem since one will typically want more speed than less over the apron. X68, btw is 3 miles long, so thrust diverters definitely not required there. I once over filled (replaced passenger weight and cargo, added fuel to the landing stress limit) on a Douglas DC6B (4-engine piston) on MSFS and few it to Bombay India Non-stop from X68. Anyone who knows the flight model knows the standard load is hard to get off the ground even on a 1.5 nm runway.

Think that I clipped a few trees on take off. ........definitely don't need diverters on a shuttle capable runway.

There is one commercial aircraft that would have benefited from Parachutes for landing (don't tell the British or French), but its no longer being flow.

[Motokid600]

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.

... But it CAN be played as a simulator. And it works really well. Just because the Kerbals are Kerbals and not humans it can't be considered as such? Orbiter doesn't have ANY interactive pilot/characters so is Orbiter not a SIM as well?

And are you SURE you tried RSS/RO? ( If i read that right. You said you did try RSS? ) And gave it just as much time to learn as you did when first picked up ksp? Just curious... Because I find it hard to believe someone would take the time to configure an RSS/RO install if they weren't interested in its aspects to begin with.

Axial tilt and n-body physics are the only thing ksp lacks. The former of which is faked in RSS and the latter is actually being worked on. But imo those things are not detrimental enough to write off ksp as a significant SIM. I say significant because no, ksp with said mods is not 100% modeled to real life. But then again neither is any video game including Orbiter.

Hell I got half a mind to say KSP with ALL realism mods is a better SIM then Orbiter. You get a much better representation of space travel. Simply because what KSP does at its base is what Orbiter cannot do. But thats a discussion for another topic. KSP can be played as a simulator.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Motokid600

[Yemo]

IN RL thrust diverters are not _required_ to stop most aircraft on normal landings, they do reduce wear and tear on the gear, and allow softer landings. Pilots are trained to land AC with two engine failures and speed control is a problem since one will typically want more speed than less over the apron. X68, btw is 3 miles long, so thrust diverters definitely not required there. I once over filled (replaced passenger weight and cargo, added fuel to the landing stress limit) on a Douglas DC6B (4-engine piston) on MSFS and few it to Bombay India Non-stop from X68. Anyone who knows the flight model knows the standard load is hard to get off the ground even on a 1.5 nm runway.

Think that I clipped a few trees on take off. ........definitely don't need diverters on a shuttle capable runway.

There is one commercial aircraft that would have benefited from Parachutes for landing (don't tell the British or French), but its no longer being flow.

Sure, but nearly every jet has air brakes or lift spoilers that can act as air brakes (prop planes can use the increase in drag from slowing done the props.)

And there are many other ways complimenting those basic ways to increase drag when desired.

The problem is, KSP is lacking those very basic drag increasing methods...

And there are none of the supplemental ways available in stock, counter thrust is the only workaround without installing mods.

No airbrakes, no lift spoilers used as air brakes, no reverse thrust, no drogue chutes, no decelerons, nothing...

And the landing gear brakes are balanced for the soup stock atmosphere.

[BudgetHedgehog]

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...

You're forgetting, I think, the average approach speed for those aircraft. You say a piston engine light aircraft starts approach 1km out? I can believe that, I've flown a Grob Tutor before. I also remember never going above about 120 knots, except in a steep dive or coming out of a stall turn. That's 61m/s in a dive. Scott's landing at twice that speed.

More aimed at OP: He also hasn't shown properly configured airbrakes or spoilers and has far too little wing area to have a low stall speed. The vessel by design has to fly fast or it'll fall out the sky. No wonder speed is an issue, the guy's trying to land a missile. Also, as mentioned, most of the problems have nothing to do with FAR - the majority or separation problems are due to the radial decoupler bug, for example.

[PB666]

... But it CAN be played as a simulator. And it works really well. Just because the Kerbals are Kerbals and not humans it can't be considered as such? Orbiter doesn't have ANY interactive pilot/characters so is Orbiter not a SIM as well?

And are you SURE you tried RSS/RO? ( If i read that right. You said you did try RSS? ) And gave it just as much time to learn as you did when first picked up ksp? Just curious... Because I find it hard to believe someone would take the time to configure an RSS/RO install if they weren't interested in its aspects to begin with.

Axial tilt and n-body physics are the only thing ksp lacks. The former of which is faked in RSS and the latter is actually being worked on. But imo those things are not detrimental enough to write off ksp as a significant SIM. I say significant because no, ksp with said mods is not 100% modeled to real life. But then again neither is any video game including Orbiter.

Hell I got half a mind to say KSP with ALL realism mods is a better SIM then Orbiter. You get a much better representation of space travel. Simply because what KSP does at its base is what Orbiter cannot do.

Have you actually used a flight simulator? I could take a heavy, near empty fuel, about 30' up off runway apron at FL400 and semistall the craft to about 2 mile short of the runway to land without using serpentines or holds to loose speed. You have to have decent control surface and a good IAS indicator otherwise those control surfaces are useless.

Two critiques of Manleys apron manuevers.

1. Excessive flare results in unexpected ground effect at speeds well above VL (obviously thats not in the flight model) but that is a typical noob error land, its often difficult to stop a craft after those. The alternative without a flare at that speed is a collapsed forward gear.

2. Ideally on flare the engines are near idle, the craft is loosing energy and the flare decreases rate of descent and gets the wheels to hit the ground at the same time, but decreased velocity is decreasing lift meaning no positive rate of climb. In this case the engines are off, but there is two much velocity the aircraft climbs breifly but delayed breaking.

Judging by his descent rate and velocity, the problem appears that the craft had no flaps, it does not need spoilers so much as lift surfaces with a higher drag to lift ratio. Again those are useless in a reentry vehicle unless you know the IAS. Deploy flaps without controlling descent and leave your flaps in the ocean along with part of the wing.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

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.

Maybe you should have reported those bugs to ferram4 instead of whining about them in a forum thread. It would make it more pleasent for you, and everyone else. As for jet engines being OP, use AJE and KIDS.

Edited February 15, 2015 by RobotsAndSpaceships

[Roflcopterkklol]

I honestly have no problems with the stock aero, you just have to clip more parts to make a plane fly right is all.

here are some of my planes in the stock souposphere

[Motokid600]

Have you actually used a flight simulator? I could take a heavy, near empty fuel, about 30' up off runway apron at FL400 and semistall the craft to about 2 mile short of the runway to land without using serpentines or holds to loose speed. You have to have decent control surface and a good IAS indicator otherwise those control surfaces are useless.

Two critiques of Manleys apron manuevers.

1. Excessive flare results in unexpected ground effect at speeds well above VL (obviously thats not in the flight model) but that is a typical noob error land, its often difficult to stop a craft after those. The alternative without a flare at that speed is a collapsed forward gear.

2. Ideally on flare the engines are near idle, the craft is loosing energy and the flare decreases rate of descent and gets the wheels to hit the ground at the same time, but decreased velocity is decreasing lift meaning no positive rate of climb. In this case the engines are off, but there is two much velocity the aircraft climbs breifly but delayed breaking.

Judging by his descent rate and velocity, the problem appears that the craft had no flaps, it does not need spoilers so much as lift surfaces with a higher drag to lift ratio. Again those are useless in a reentry vehicle unless you know the IAS. Deploy flaps without controlling descent and leave your flaps in the ocean along with part of the wing.

I can't even remember the last time I played FSX, lol. So yes I have. My comment was covering everything not just atmospheric flight. FAR isn't as good as FSX. And like I said KSP isn't 100% a SIM. But then again neither is FSX or Orbiter. ( *insert straw man argument* ) All I'm trying to get at is saying KSP cannot be played and enjoyed as a simulator is foolish.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Motokid600

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

I honestly have no problems with the stock aero, you just have to clip more parts to make a plane fly right is all.

here are some of my planes in the stock souposphere

Just because you can make realistic planes in stock areo doesn't meant it isn't crap. Look at these: (shamefully stolen from Regex)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited February 15, 2015 by RobotsAndSpaceships

[Roflcopterkklol]

Just because you can make realistic planes in stock areo doesn't meant it isn't crap. Look at these:

http://imgur.com/a/iK9Q1

Ehh, thats awesome in my opinion.

Plus there is the added downside of FAR ripping craft like this one to pieces no matter how much space tape you use.

[Motokid600]

Ehh, thats awesome in my opinion.

Plus there is the added downside of FAR ripping craft like this one to pieces no matter how much space tape you use.

http://i.imgur.com/bGuLJdA.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/njGQeOq.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Yz4jQv3.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ZIpJ27H.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/qPJezyX.jpg

Wow. Good god man.

"FAR ripping craft like this one to pieces no matter how much space tape you use."

That has to be spectacular.

[Wanderfound]

A lot of the FAR-aversion relates to previous versions. Aero failures are massively less threatening since the introduction of tweakable wing mass, and slowing down is much faster with the new skin drag. If your taste of FAR was a few versions back, it may be worth having another look.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Duh, that wouldn't fly in real life either.

[PB666]

I can't even remember the last time I played FSX, lol. So yes I have. My comment was covering everything not just atmospheric flight. FAR isn't as good as FSX. And like I said KSP isn't 100% a SIM. But then again neither is FSX or Orbiter. ( *insert straw man argument* ) All I'm trying to get at is saying KSP cannot be played and enjoyed as a simulator is foolish.

Its not a FS, its a game. I sort of close my eyes to my vessels during launch, because my point many threads ago is that the weaknesses, bugs, whatever eventually affect we play the game. Its the reason when my craft start bending over like fishing poles during launch that I replace the lower stages with short fat tanks that have unrealistically low drag for their size.

Of the 16 bodies in the kerbin system only only 6 have atmospheres, of those 2 are not land-able, and the third, realistically is a one way trip. This leaves 3, the atmosphere of Duna requires a lander and or needs mega-chutes or reverse thrusters (prolly not enough lift to land anyway and who is going to land a flight vehicle on an unmanned desert). The Joolian moon has atmosphere but again who is going to land on a unmanned body. If one was to land it would be less risky on a body of water in a floatplane styled craft (and what are the launch dynamics of that in RL).

Thus we realisitically only have one satellite where the flight dynamics have meaning.

Consider the following the land-where-you-want C130 hercules is a turbo-prop typically is restricted to the flattest deserts, saltflats or dirt roads. Compare its designs to KSP single stage to land and back to space designs.

[Frafor]

First, I went TL;DR in most of the posts here, sorry, but I want say what I think.

I don't like FAR mostly because I don't find it realistic at all, mostly in the way Squad defined realism in their lasts blogs: "If it looks like it should flight, it should fly". After trying a lot with FAR I think that the drag system is just wrong, it seems like it doesn't exist, planes are unstopable. Almost any real life airplane loses speed if you cut thrust and don't point the nose some degrees down. With FAR planes accelerate with pitch angles of less than 2º down, even with flaps and speed brakes. If I build a monster and I run out of runway its ok, but when you replicate a Piper Cub, cut thrust 15 km out at 2 km altitude and you run out of runway things start to look wrong.

[IllicitMedic]

FAR is unrealistic? That just made my night lol...

[Motokid600]

@PB666 - Uhm.. I'm sorry, but I don't understand how what your saying is relevant to what I'm saying. I started this particular conversation with someone else so I don't know if something got lost in translation perhaps.

I'm talking about KSP with RSS/RO and the works. Which absolutely can be played and considered as a space flight simulator.

[EdFred]

You're forgetting, I think, the average approach speed for those aircraft. You say a piston engine light aircraft starts approach 1km out? I can believe that, I've flown a Grob Tutor before. I also remember never going above about 120 knots, except in a steep dive or coming out of a stall turn. That's 61m/s in a dive. Scott's landing at twice that speed.

When I fly a pattern in my plane, I am never more than 1km from the runway, and I have flown an approach at 150kts to 1/2 mile (.8km) and still hit the aiming point markers - you just have to know how to dirty up the plane real fast. The F16 has a landing speed in that range depending on weight. As far as the touchdown speed in the game goes, ever seen when the guys from Top Gear drive the Reliant Robin? Of course there's going to be issues with a poorly designed aircraft. Even the space shuttle touches down at under 100m/s.

[Frafor]

FAR is unrealistic? That just made my night lol...

Unrealistic in the way that I can't land any plane because drag is so low that every approach is done at insane speeds.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

I don't like FAR mostly because I don't find it realistic at all, mostly in the way Squad defined realism in their lasts blogs: "If it looks like it should flight, it should fly". After trying a lot with FAR I think that the drag system is just wrong,

Wow, this is the funniest things I've heard all day. It amazes me how little people know sometimes.

Unrealistic in the way that I can't land any plane because drag is so low that every approach is done at insane speeds.

It sound like you really just need to git gud. We have s-turns for a reason.

Edited February 15, 2015 by RobotsAndSpaceships

[Motokid600]

Unrealistic in the way that I can't land any plane because drag is so low that every approach is done at insane speeds.

Eh... Then you may want to rethink your approach. You gotta start it WAY back. I'll kill the throttle several km from the runway. Keeping the prograde marker in the blue at that point will kill your speed enough to make it work. No airbrakes, spoilers, nothing.

Wow, this is the funniest things I've heard all day. It amazes me how little people know sometimes.

Simmer down. Let's try not to get the mods in here.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Motokid600

[White Owl]

Didn't read the entire thread, didn't look at the video.

If you want your KSP airplane to perform somewhat similarly to a real-life airplane, design it so it looks somewhat like a real-life airplane. If you want your KSP airplane to perform poorly and/or unpredictably, design it so it doesn't look like a real-life airplane. It's an extremely simple guideline.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Didn't read the entire thread, didn't look at the video.

If you want your KSP airplane to perform poorly and/or unpredictably, design it so it doesn't look like a real-life airplane. It's an extremely simple guideline.

I don't know about that.

[White Owl]

Couldn't be much simpler. But maybe "extremely simple" is overstating things; that may be a good point.