Stock fairings: Procedural or not?

[FishInferno]

So, stock fairings have been recently confirmed, and I heard that they were most likely going to be procedural. However, I personally would not like to have procedural fairings versus fairings that are made of parts a la KW fairings. Most rockets irl have the same fairings for each mission. It is a nice challenge to get something to it in a fairing. However, I can see why most people would prefer procedural fairings.

What do you think?

[Starwhip]

I like procedural fairings, as long as they are easy to manipulate. With the Procedural Fairings mod, if you have a fairing adapter on the top and bottom of a "payload" it forms an interstage ring.

Otherwise, a much larger variety of parts is needed.

[Kelderek]

Most rockets irl have the same fairings for each mission.

I'm not sure that statement is true. I'm pretty sure they use whatever size is the most efficient, even if that means making new custom ones. I would imagine that of all the parts that go into making a real rocket, designing custom fairings would probably not be very expensive or difficult. I could be wrong though.

Procedural makes the most sense to me as payloads will have a huge amount of variance in size and shape from one player to another and I can understand the desire to not add too much bloat to the list of stock parts by having a set of one-size-fits-all fairings. Presumably they would need ones for each stack diameter size as well as different lengths and maybe even different "bulgy" ones that are wider than the point where they are coupled to the stack.

[Wabbit]

Not. Part of the fun of KSP is the challenge of doing a lot with as little as you can. I think limited-sized fairings encourage creative building and size constraints as a part of gameplay, particularly early in the tech tree where you can only get 1.5 meter fairings. Not procedural FTW!

[Kerbart]

Don't exclude the option of "hybrid" procedural fairings; cylindrical fairings of a set diameter (in the usual sizes) that can have variable length. And maybe an oversized 4.0m set of fairings that can fit on top of a 3.75m fuselage.

[klgraham1013]

I use and enjoy KW fairings, but I won't bring out the pitch fork if they go procedural.

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I really hope they are not procedural. The whole packing challenge is great. Constraints! The KW setup is great and they should do something similar.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

(Note - Procedural is confirmed for farings)

Personally, I want them procedural with limits.

[Bioman222]

I think what they should do is add both, however the standard fairings would be cheaper than the procedural by a good margin. It doubles as a compromise strategy.

[Nemrav]

I'm with procedural...

Its really just being convenient, when I play modded, I don't make wide things, but I simply prefer pfairings for the 2 part buisness, also unlike the rest of the parts, there no point splitting them. Think also that if we take one of those 10m part mods, it would be better if they could just add the modules to their piece and be done with it, rather than have every part pack that doesn't use stock sizes have their own set of fairing parts.. (don't scream memory savings on that anyone)

Also, isn't the "trying to fit within constraints" a matter of most commercial rockets being closer to the mass production, thus not complying with custom ?

[sal_vager]

I'd prefer distinct parts as well, rather than stretchyfairings as they could be used in novel ways to build new and exciting craft, rather than just used to shroud satellites.

[tater]

Procedural are fine. Making stuff fit seems like a pointless constraint as the rest of the rocket exists to put the payload where you want it. The claim there are standard sizes doesn't fly, as I doubt NASA sizes are identical to ESA, CNSA, ISRO, JAXA, ROSCOSMOS, etc.

Edited January 26, 2015 by tater

[Jouni]

Maybe the fairings could be procedural, but if you have part unlocking costs enabled, you would have to pay them every time you use a new kind of fairings.

[Robotengineer]

I'd prefer distinct parts as well, rather than stretchyfairings as they could be used in novel ways to build new and exciting craft, rather than just used to shroud satellites.

You can mold P-Fairings to a shape, and then use them for different purposes. Procedural's just make sense. If you want to limit the size of the fairing, make a sub-assembly for your lifter, then lock the size.

[Capt Snuggler]

I was hoping fixed size only, but I'm still happy to get procedural its better than what I was expecting, which was no fairings at all.

if they copy the PF mod the only thing id really like want changed is to have a better texture for the inside of the fairing.

the KW fairings look much cooler.

maybe if hot re-entry is ever added the fairings could have a heat tile option? would make re-entry vehicles easier.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[Pthigrivi]

Yeah I hope the width is fixed at least. Give us fairing bases in increments and they just expand vertically.

[SaturnV]

Procedural with limit+1

A rocket with a cake head is silly.

Maybe there will have MK1/2/3 fairings, their cross section size were limited, but not the length

[Bill Phil]

As long as they're not your "Get out of jail free card" for the new aero. Perhaps size limitations and a cost based on size would be helpful to that end.

[FishInferno]

As long as they're not your "Get out of jail free card" for the new aero. Perhaps size limitations and a cost based on size would be helpful to that end.

A cost based on size would have to be implemented. Maybe different sized fairing bases could only support a max size?

Although personally I think that we should have non-procedural fairings, I can see how it satisfies the majority.

[r4pt0r]

As long as its big enough to fit reasonably sized rovers. If we are not getting foldable wheels or hinges/servos, then I have to send them up in their rather large form.

[NWM]

The fairings the only area where I prefer the procedural parts.

So +1 for the procedurals...

[Louella]

a lander for a Mun mission I did, had landing legs that stuck out from the main body, on the ends of XL girder segments.

If payload fairings are going to be required, then we need to be able to fold the payload into a smaller package.

[r4pt0r]

a lander for a Mun mission I did, had landing legs that stuck out from the main body, on the ends of XL girder segments.

If payload fairings are going to be required, then we need to be able to fold the payload into a smaller package.

Preach it!

[robopilot99]

Are you kidding? Do you have any ideas how many different parts they'd have to make if the fairings were non-procedual. Just having one or two fairing bases would make life so much easier for everyone.

[Alshain]

a lander for a Mun mission I did, had landing legs that stuck out from the main body, on the ends of XL girder segments.

If payload fairings are going to be required, then we need to be able to fold the payload into a smaller package.

If they use Procedural Fairing as a guideline, that won't be an issue. ProcFairings already allows that level of manipulation.