Scott Manley showcases everything I find wrong with FAR

[Frafor]

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.

That's exactly what i'm talking about. I tried to build several real planes and with the stock model they worked more similar to the real than when using FAR.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

That's exactly what i'm talking about. I tried to build several real planes and with the stock model they worked more similar to the real than when using FAR.

Then you didn't build them close enough to their real world counterparts.

[theend3r]

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.

When using mods it's better to use them thoroughly. B9 has air brakes that can be used to slow efficiently. I extend them a little while before touchdown and all my touchdowns are very neat and easy.

I probably couldn't fly without them. This solves all the problems except "Aircraft easily losing directional control while turning." which isn't true anyway.

[Motokid600]

Question. Is it just me... Or does landing at the KSC coming from the west seem significantly easier then from the east over the ocean? Something about that rising slope from the beach and the uniform ocean makes approaches from the east alot harder. It takes me alot of tries to stick a landing. But coming from the west over the mountains? Nail it every time. So hey if by chance your having trouble landing.. at all. Stock or FAR. Give that a go.

I don't know, maybe Kerbins rotation plays into that? Coming from the east your going against the rotation so the KSC is going to come up alot faster. Which could contribute to why some people are having trouble stopping.

Oh, and more wheels ladies and gentlemen. The more rear wheels you have the greater your stopping power. ... Can someone actually confirm that? Lmao because honestly that last part was an assumption. I just never had problems stopping with FAR so I can't imagine why others do.

Edited February 15, 2015 by Motokid600

[cpast]

AFAIK (and I may be wrong about this), the main way almost all aircraft in real life are slowed down *is* wheel brakes. At least for airliners, you aren't even allowed to include reverse thrust in your calculations for dry runway landing distance (you can do it for wet runways in some places and under some conditions, but reverse-thrust credit is an exception and not the rule); while spoilers exist, I remember reading somewhere that the main role of a spoiler is to reduce lift, not to slow the plane directly (they can slow you in flight by increasing AoA and so increasing drag, but it's more common to use them to descend without gaining speed; on touchdown, they increase drag a bit, but by far the more important role is killing any remaining lift and putting the full weight of the plane on the wheels, which makes the brakes more effective). So KSP does have the main thing used to slow down most aircraft, and an issue with stopping distance is best addressed by adding heavier landing gear with beefed-up brakes.

(note: not a pilot nor an aerodynamicist nor an aerospace engineer, take with a grain of salt)

[IllicitMedic]

AFAIK (and I may be wrong about this), the main way almost all aircraft in real life are slowed down *is* wheel brakes. At least for airliners, you aren't even allowed to include reverse thrust in your calculations for dry runway landing distance (you can do it for wet runways in some places and under some conditions, but reverse-thrust credit is an exception and not the rule); while spoilers exist, I remember reading somewhere that the main role of a spoiler is to reduce lift, not to slow the plane directly (they can slow you in flight by increasing AoA and so increasing drag, but it's more common to use them to descend without gaining speed; on touchdown, they increase drag a bit, but by far the more important role is killing any remaining lift and putting the full weight of the plane on the wheels, which makes the brakes more effective). So KSP does have the main thing used to slow down most aircraft, and an issue with stopping distance is best addressed by adding heavier landing gear with beefed-up brakes.

(note: not a pilot nor an aerodynamicist nor an aerospace engineer, take with a grain of salt)

I am a pilot (private) and you are correct, spoilers are deployed when you hit the runway along with your brakes. The only thing you use in flight are the flaps and reduce thrust/rpm/pitch.

Also keep in mind I'm talking about single engine props but it applies to jet aircraft as well.

[Frafor]

Then you didn't build them close enough to their real world counterparts.

I have tried a lot and the way every airplane performs with FAR just seems unnatural because of the same things the OP mentioned, but it doesn't even seem technically realistic to me. I find illogical that a 2 tonnes plane with 40 meters wings stalls at 150 knots, that a plane can glide low the whole runway and just lose 10 knots, that you need rockets to slow an ultralight. In theory it might be more realistic, but planes with FAR doesn't feel right.

[kujuman]

Meh, everytime I see "Scott Manley says this thing in KSP, so it must be true" and "FAR is but one step removed from wind tunnel testing, so if your plane flies badly it's your fault" I cringe. Suffice it to say, this thread is actually pretty fun because of those factors being at odds.

FAR is great, but it has to make certain compromises, the one which has affected me the most is the "drag from exposed attach nodes". The way I build shuttles there are 10-20 exposed nodes at the back, and as far as I know, these seem to contribute to drag even though they're in the shadow of the craft fuselage. This is not helpful.

Scott is great, but he's more confident of certain things (e.g., piloting in the real world) than he really should be. A good thing for a video maker, but it ain't gospel.

As to the issues of slowing down when landing, I've always thought the stock brakes were too powerful. It shifts so much downforce on the nose gear that steering errors are magnified resulting in lots of spinning. I feel like I'm doing a RTO most of the times I brake if I don't pump them.

[Sidereus]

Meh, everytime I see "Scott Manley says this thing in KSP, so it must be true" and "FAR is but one step removed from wind tunnel testing, so if your plane flies badly it's your fault" I cringe. Suffice it to say, this thread is actually pretty fun because of those factors being at odds.

FAR is great, but it has to make certain compromises, the one which has affected me the most is the "drag from exposed attach nodes". The way I build shuttles there are 10-20 exposed nodes at the back, and as far as I know, these seem to contribute to drag even though they're in the shadow of the craft fuselage. This is not helpful.

Scott is great, but he's more confident of certain things (e.g., piloting in the real world) than he really should be. A good thing for a video maker, but it ain't gospel.

As to the issues of slowing down when landing, I've always thought the stock brakes were too powerful. It shifts so much downforce on the nose gear that steering errors are magnified resulting in lots of spinning. I feel like I'm doing a RTO most of the times I brake if I don't pump them.

Scott didn't make any comments regarding FAR in that video. Those were all inferences made by the OP. The only thing Scott said about FAR was mentioning off hand that he was using it.

[kujuman]

Scott didn't make any comments regarding FAR in that video. Those were all inferences made by the OP. The only thing Scott said about FAR was mentioning off hand that he was using it.

Kujuman didn't make any comments regarding Scott references regarding FAR in that post. That was an inference made by the post. The only thing Kujuman said about Scott and FAR was mentioning that some treat one as the ultimate in accuracy, and others the other, and in this thread the camps came in conflict.

[cpast]

As to the issues of slowing down when landing, I've always thought the stock brakes were too powerful. It shifts so much downforce on the nose gear that steering errors are magnified resulting in lots of spinning. I feel like I'm doing a RTO most of the times I brake if I don't pump them.

How fast are you going, and how much are you steering? I'd expect steering to be something you have to do very, very lightly at high speed. I'm also not sure what the actual difference is with real aircraft that causes it in KSP (again, non-pilot); maybe you let up on the brake on a real plane when steering, and have a much more stable wheelbase on anything going at high speed on the ground?

EDIT: Actually, how's U-2 steering on the ground work? That plane actually tips over when it stops because it only has two wheels, both on the centerline; however, it's basically a powered glider, so its handling characteristics might be quite different.

Edited February 15, 2015 by cpast

[kujuman]

How fast are you going, and how much are you steering? I'd expect steering to be something you have to do very, very lightly at high speed. I'm also not sure what the actual difference is with real aircraft that causes it in KSP (again, non-pilot); maybe you let up on the brake on a real plane when steering, and have a much more stable wheelbase on anything going at high speed on the ground?

EDIT: Actually, how's U-2 steering on the ground work? That plane actually tips over when it stops because it only has two wheels, both on the centerline; however, it's basically a powered glider, so its handling characteristics might be quite different.

It's not that I can never land in KSP, just that it's harder than it would be if we could vary the power of our brakes and such.

Almost all planes I can think of have variable power brakes: the harder you push the pedals, the more the brakes come on, just like in a car. I've read that in the 737 full braking requires 40+ pounds of pressure on the brake pedals (although I may be confusing that with pulling back on the stick when at full AoA).

In small prop planes, steering is pretty much always linked (but not rigidly so there is still some play) to the rudder pedals (so similar to KSP), but those land at maybe 40-90 knots, so over-steer isn't too bad. In the typical modern jets, the nosewheel steering is linked to the rudder at lower speeds for a small amount (maybe a few degrees turning). In some jets I've read that you can disconnect the nose wheel steering from the rudder pedals completely. In either case, for the first part of the landing the speed is high enough that the rudder itself can provide quite a bit of steering power.

In KSP, all brake applications are FULL brake applications. When brakes are applied, they create a force below the CoM towards the rear, which makes the plane want to rotate nose down. The nose gear, if you need to steer it, is also full application (if using the keyboard in non-fine control). This is why some wheel mods have speed compensated steering. I think the stock rover wheels have steer limiting, but I'm not sure if the landing gear do.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I'd assume for the U2 it was met on the runway by a tug that took over steering and moving it. They might install small wheels on the wings or just put the wingtips in dollies.

Edit: Here's a video of the U2 landing. Apparently pilots drive the chase car and talk to the pilots landing to help them keep from hitting the wingtips on the runway until they turn off.

Edited February 15, 2015 by kujuman

[White Owl]

Almost all airplanes have differential wheelbrakes. Each rudder pedal can also control the brakes just on that side, so increase left brake pressure to turn left, right brake pressure to turn right, pressure on both sides to slow down without turning. This arrangement works well enough that some airplanes don't even have steerable nosewheels. (Or tailwheels.)

Edited February 15, 2015 by White Owl
Forgot a word.

[Renegrade]

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.

Y'know, Scott's not some KSP god. He's no ScrubLord, but he's just another KSP player who happens to be an aerospace engineer. Who has a nice voice.

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.

The one is stock is technically called a "jellodynamics model".

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.

Problem A: Renegrade's Horrible Nerf (or simply turn those bloody things off - you aren't really flying if you're using RWs)

Problem B: FAR has SUPERB tweakables in current versions. I cannot speak highly enough of them. You can control overall surface movement AND all three axis responses separately, and even have negative directions.

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.

We choose to go to the Mun in this decade and do the FAR thing, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the FAR thing, too.

Almost all planes I can think of have variable power brakes: the harder you push the pedals, the more the brakes come on, just like in a car. I've read that in the 737 full braking requires 40+ pounds of pressure on the brake pedals (although I may be confusing that with pulling back on the stick when at full AoA).

That's.. not that much, probably half of what my Chrysler needs~

Stock landing gear does indeed have steer limiting. My usual landing approach involves locking the brakes just before touching down in FAR; I make sure my planes can handle stood-on brakes during landing (reversing the front wheel helps a lot with that). Of course I try to land below 90m/s, it's a little silly landing above 1/4 mach or 324km/h.

Flying in FAR is fun!

[kujuman]

That's a really cool plane. But it looks like there's no ladder. Have fun Bill!

I also find it humorous your profile pic is a magic turbine

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Y'know, Scott's not some KSP god. He's no ScrubLord, but he's just another KSP player who happens to be an aerospace engineer. Who has a nice voice.

I believe he's a programmer/astronomer.

[White Owl]

That's a cool plane!

[Renegrade]

That's a really cool plane. But it looks like there's no ladder. Have fun Bill!

Thanks! It flies in FAR, and with some tweaks, in stock too (not well of course, but it can take off, maneuver, and land. It's an airplane only, I only used the rapiers for looks).

I was inspired by a picture of a Blohm & Voss BV 141 and started making asymmetrical designs.

And yeah.. Bill's kinda stuck up there until the ground crew can bring a ladder to him - I like his expression in the shot, sort of suitable

I also find it humorous your profile pic is a magic turbine

A magical parachute, actually

There's been several versions of it, but it's capable of landing in stock air at <6m/s in all versions, using nothing but the infiniglide action of the tailfins hehe. No reaction wheels either - it's from early versions of BTSM.

I'm actually going to miss some of the stock air silliness after 1.0. Oh well, KSP is DRM-free and uses relative paths, so I can just boot up my old 0.90 saves if I want to make more silly bits

I believe he's a programmer/astronomer.

Oh okay. Coulda swore someone said an aerospace engineer, but I haven't seen more than a handful of videos and don't have a first-hand source at all, so could very well be an astronomer.

That's a cool plane!

Thanks I sent it to Tanuki for her fan submission episode (after re-rigging for stock air, didn't take much) - didn't end well, unfortunately, as it's a little twitchy to fly hehe.

[cantab]

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

Not really a problem I've had. Yes if I come in too steep I'll run too long, but that's what a go-around is for. All these land fine if I fly them right, though I'll grant none are very like a real airliner or a real combat aircraft.

[PB666]

Meh, everytime I see "Scott Manley says this thing in KSP, so it must be true" and "FAR is but one step removed from wind tunnel testing, so if your plane flies badly it's your fault" I cringe. Suffice it to say, this thread is actually pretty fun because of those factors being at odds.

FAR is great, but it has to make certain compromises

As I said, the weaknesses and 'unrealistics' in the game change the way we play, its inevitable. After a time we tend to think of these things as being realistic, they are not.

The KSP Aero game and the various deviations thereof still have a long way to go.

I don't believe the space shuttle has flaps, the fact that it flies like a brick means it has alot of drag, which explains why it has a high drop rate and high landing speed. Alot of the lift on the ground probably comes from deflection and ground effect. IOW if you want the craft to slow down, then as one flares to land the drag needs to increase rapidly and give some lift in response.

Alternatively, make the runway longer.

[PB666]

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.

VL speeds for most piston props in the 50 to 100 kt range (25 to 50 m/s)

VL speeds for turbo props tend to be a intermediate.

VL speeds for jets 120 to 170 kt range. (60 to 85 m/s)

(don't quote me on these because there are exceptions and 170 kt land is typically not allowed).

If there is an emergency for a 747 or concorde in which it has to return to land, it has a level-flight stall speed that is too high to land, and thus they have to dump fuel to lower that level-flight stall speed otherwise they will run off the end of the runway and/or collapse their gear and/or tailstrike on the 747. This is prolly a circumstance where the last flap will be deployed after wheels down, spolier up and and the thrust-diverters are set to max. The landing speed of most AC is just a few kts higher than level-flight stall speed, on final descent its not a problem as it flares to land there in better be close to the ground or something flat. This is intentional because after the aircraft flares it begins to experience ground effect lift and at this point standard lift should be below 1g x mass.

I used to fly MSFS in real weather, our group used to fly weather events such as hurricanes, etc. I have had a few gear collapses.

[lincourtl]

I don't believe the space shuttle has flaps...

The space shuttle had a single body flap, which also helped shield the engines during reentry.

[SkyRex94]

I think (trigger word for a personal opinion coming up) :

Most of the problems come from the existence of stock aero model in the first place. Everybody using FAR likes it. And even those new people who know how real planes look and how you have to fly them have no problem playing with FAR.

Most people saying FAR is bad are probably people who 1. have never flown a simulated plane before and are new to all the controls and behaviours that are involved AND 2. Probably started with stock Aero and got used to it, by now they know how stock behaves, what is possible and what not and how planes have to be flown in stock.

A lot here comes from the fear of having to go through the learning curve again, they have mastered one curve already (for stock) and don't want to lose all their Atmo capabilities and have to relearn all the things they want to do. Which is understandable, nobody wants to do work just to be able to do the same things they were already capable of before. Thus, would've squad made this change earlier less people would've been affected and a proper aero model would've been there earlier.

The people saying crazy constructions aren't possible in FAR are just wrong as we all know. You can build crazy things that fly, they are just different. There is even a challenge where someone takes your beloved stock plane and makes it FAR-flyable for free as a challenge. I can link it if I'll find it again.

A lot of this fear comes from steering and not constructing I think. Which isn't that hard once you've understood it. It says already a lot that I can fly and land all my FAR planes just with the Keyboard. Try that with FSX or Xplane. For those who really want to understand how to fly, try the ones I just mentioned. Or IL-2 Sturmovik, or Birds of Prey, or even the flight model of the ARMA series. Once you can fly a plane there, flying with FAR is as easy as it could be.

And construction really is basically the same in FAR as in stock for the basic flight rules (without part clipping and hided wings) just look into the 101 Airplane guide here on the Forums somewhere.

[Xavven]

A lot of this fear comes from steering and not constructing I think. Which isn't that hard once you've understood it. It says already a lot that I can fly and land all my FAR planes just with the Keyboard. Try that with FSX or Xplane. For those who really want to understand how to fly, try the ones I just mentioned. Or IL-2 Sturmovik, or Birds of Prey, or even the flight model of the ARMA series. Once you can fly a plane there, flying with FAR is as easy as it could be.

I can't vouch for the flight models on those games since I haven't played them, but I will echo the general idea that arcade combat flight games (I'm looking at you, Ace Combat) don't teach you how to land like the more hardcore simulators do.

Someone on this thread earlier mentioned Falcon BMS, and personally I play DCS A-10C and the SU-25T in DCS World. It took me tens of attempts before I could land semi-decently DCS. You don't have the same game aids and simplified aerodynamics and end up having to pay attention to a LOT more things. And then there's the counter-intuitive concept of using your throttle to control sink rate and pitch to control speed.

Landing in KSP stock aero is a complete joke after playing these flight sims. By the way, DCS World is free and comes with the SU-25T. If you're struggling in KSP + FAR, I recommend installing DCS World and building your skillset there.

I'm sure flying IRL is another huge step up from flight sims, but civilian flight school is costly. Haven't gotten around to it yet, but it's on my bucket list!

[PB666]

I think (trigger word for a personal opinion coming up) :

Most of the problems come from the existence of stock aero model in the first place.

If they can get the verticle flight dynamics fixed that's enough for me.