Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'fairing'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 20 results

  1. Simple Adjustable Fairings Features Single part fairings with a simple length adjustment Fairings are transparent in the editor so that you can build your payload easily (they can also be opened) Clean, clamshell deployment every time. No confetti, no fiddling with the deployment force. Automatic deployment at altitude. The altitude is adjustable and this can be disabled. Compatible with both FAR and stock aero Requirements Please use the version of KSP specified in the download. Other versions will probably not work. You do not need KW Rocketry installed. All the required assets are included. Downloads Downloads are on Github (for now the KW Rocketry fairing pack is the only one available) The plugin and fairings are in the same download, but you must install both folders to GameData You can also download just the plugin here Also available on CKAN. If you install via CKAN, select the KW Rocketry Pack (which will also install the plugin) Changelog Plugin KW Rocketry Fairing Pack What this mod aims to do Provide an easy to use, good looking fairings that can be used with most payloads. What this mod does not aim to do Replace the stock procedural fairings completely. They are still useful for interstages, aeroshells, and weirdly shaped payloads. Known Issues I've tested this mod for bugs, but I can't catch everything. If you see issues in the following areas definitely let me know Whether the back of the fairing renders when it is transparent seems to be inconsistent Not Tweakscale compatible Code Plugin code available on Github License The plugin is distributed under the GNU Lesser General Public License The KW Rocketry Fairings are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (consistent with their original license) Credits Plugin by @blowfish KW Fairings by @Kickasskyle and @Winston KW Rocketry is now maintained by @linuxgurugamer Original (old) KW Rocketry thread KW Rocketry Redux thread
  2. I've occasionally used fairings when the stuff I was putting on the top half of the rocket got too blatantly unaerodynamic (or had gained a forest of doohickeys), but I've never really been confident of when the "best" time to get rid of it is. I mean, I guess I'm working on the underlying assumption that fairings are not always counterproductive. But if that's true, then presumably at some point the equation changes to where future delta-v savings of being aerodynamic are outweighed by the future delta-v losses of the mass of the fairing. Obviously this happens before you get to space, but is there a rule of thumb to follow here? 40km, lower, higher? How much do variations in speed matter compared to altitude thresholds if you are more or less following the usual type of ascent path for a large rocket? P.S. Do fairings help at all in reducing bending? I've always sort of imagined that they do, but without concrete reason or evidence.
  3. Jollyranger

    5m fairing stretch bug

    So I loaded up my Saturn V to try it out, and I find out the fairing between the S-II and S-IVB is bugging out, and it appears to be too large and the pieces are spaced strangely. I tried restarting to no avail, as well as replacing the fairing and placing it on another rocket. I do have KER, Trajectories, and KIS installed, but I doubt those have anything to do with it, because I had them and Making History before the bug. Does anyone know what's up, or have a solution? Try to make it simple, because I know almost nothing about computers or code.
  4. Only the 5m one is doing this and I cannot figure out why. No mods, tried even re-installing and starting a new sandbox game.
  5. SlimeOfSteel

    [1.4.1] Fairing Radius Override

    My first mod, this very small mod allows a faring to extend far beyond its normal amount. Download here: https://spacedock.info/mod/1695/Faring Radius Override License: MIT
  6. I'm not famous for my skills in the VAB/SPH... But possibly the answer to the question I now pose is: "not possible". My major stages are: lifter airplane (Wheelsey jet engine) truck (AGU Klaw) I thought I would try to use interstage fairings to hide all the draggy bits for once. The problem is how to decouple cleanly. A couple of photos show the problem: I've tried the fairings at either ends and I've also tried combinations with the coupler directions. In general, I want to connect AaBbC where a and b need fairings but are the tails of A and B respectively and need to be completely exposed after separation from the previous stage. Suggestions?
  7. Recently found a post about the replica on the Soviet rocket Energia-Uragan. It was reliable enough and I decided to recreate it myself. The main problem for me is reusable fairing. After I asked the author he said this is part of one mod. As he said the mod is Bluedog Design Bureau. I installed it, but have not found this detail. Maybe someone knows the name should mod includes this detail? That mod is Near Future Launch Vehicle - link Thanks to @Dr.Wolfram Energia-Uragan replica (vk.com) original post
  8. Can someone tell me definitively how struts and fairings in the stock game are supposed to interact? I recently found myself fighting against KSP 1.3.1 to keep my struts where I want them. The game seems to treat these interactions inconsistently depending on the order you place/edit parts, whether you use Undo, etc. Some scenarios I've observed on a recent craft I was constructing: Connecting struts before fairings built Works fine Connecting struts through fairings after they are built Works in the editor most of the time, except: Occasional inconsistency within symmetry groups e.g. Sometimes when connecting the end of a strut to a surface inside a fairing, even though the "seed" strut I'm placing goes right through the fairing, I notice the mirrored strut terminates prematurely when it hits the fairing surface. The ship in question is symmetric across the relevant planes so there's no good reason I can see for the behavior to be inconsistent. Manually placing the struts individually at the same locations, without using symmetry, works fine. Trying to strut from a part inside one fairing, to a part inside a different fairing, usually doesn't work. Varying behavior, either: The game simply "deletes" the strut when you try and place it Or the editor "picks up" the part you are trying to pin the end of the strut to, detaching that part (and its children) from your craft (very annoying). Or it works in one direction but not the other (e.g. see above spoiler). Not sure if this is intentional. If so, it's a pretty naive attempt to prevent prevent the player from doing this as there are many ways around it. I've noticed cases where if you've already set up a situation like this (e.g. by running the strut before the fairing was built) then it totally screws up your ability to place struts anywhere on your craft afterward. All new placements start exhibiting one of the two aberrant behaviors above (strut is immediately deleted, or picks up target part instead of pinning strut). When I started seeing this, it seemed consistently reproducible. Reloading the game / craft didn't help. You need to delete the offending strut(s) to make new struts work properly again. Disconnecting and reconnecting a fairing base without deleting / rebuilding the fairing Doesn't seem to affect struts that pass through it Undo / Redo DISASTROUS results - seems to trigger "regeneration" of all struts in a manner that makes them consistently end at the first fairing surface they hit. Launching from VAB/SPH Maintains strut connections / orientations from VAB? (I know older versions sometimes reoriented your struts sending them flying out at weird angles but I think they fixed this one). Loading craft in Editor Maintains the saved strut connections (no "regeneration" trigger). Loading / Quickloading craft in flight Maintains the strut connections the way they were on your craft when you saved (I think). Much of the red behavior feels buggy and ill defined. If it's the intent that struts aren't allowed to pass through fairings, then all of the above user actions (except loading a craft in flight) should act the way the Undo button does - i.e. trigger strut "regeneration" and check for collisions, truncating them at the first surface they hit. Otherwise, the Undo thing really needs to be fixed, as well as the edge cases above. I'd be OK with defining different behavior for struts placed before / after fairings are built (this would seem to offer the player the most flexibility as to whether they want to strut through a fairing, or to the surface of one) but then the game shouldn't go mucking around with previously placed struts which I connected before I built my fairings. If it does want to re-evaluate my preexisting struts for new collisions (e.g. when placing a new part that may intersect the strut), then maybe it ought to keep track of which collisions existed before the operation began so those can continue to be ignored when the operation completes (particularly when less straightforward actions re-trigger said analysis). I think that would result in a more consistent and predicable player experience, where KSP wouldn't shoot you in the foot later by "helpfully" deciding on a whim to rejig your struts. I don't know if this behavior is new to 1.3.1. IIRC from the changelogs it looked like Squad was doing some work with struts in 1.3.0 and 1.3.1. I generally avoided stock fairings and tended to use Procedural Fairings instead (which seemed to behave in a more deterministic manner). But when the new release dropped, I decided to try playing without mods for a while (for unrelated reasons: to see if mods or the stock game was responsible for some performance issues I start to see after doing lots of launch / reverts in a row). The only mod I had loaded when I investigated all this was Kerbal Engineer Redux (KER) and I'm pretty convinced it's not causing the problems. I am not submitting a formal bug report, I just want to know how things are supposed to work and whether others are seeing similar behavior. (If so, I'd love it if a QA person from Squad could pick this up and run with it from here. Feel free to move this topic to another forum if appropriate).
  9. The AE-FF2 airstream pro and likely other fairings are causing CTD on launch when there is any clipping at all and can corrupt a save as well, 0ing out funds in career and if the save manages to revert and saves to the persistent back up deleting the craft from the pad in the tracking center will result in a high pitch audible scream til the game ctds again. Rigorously tested while live streaming on twitch. The episde link is provided below and provides about 2 hours of test data showing different configs it was tested in. Oddly, the configuration worked once, normally in a engineering sandbox mode, and then crashed again when almost the same exact vehicle was reloaded and the same modifications were made in career mode. All parts were rigorously tested to confirm it was not a part issue of any sort whether stock or mod as they would all load to the pad independently just fine it was just when they were brought together in a fairing in a particular combination that this very serious crash style occurred. I suspect it has something to with fairing / engine interactions with colliders but even inverted the error still occurred. Submitting error reports generated by the game as well as a twitch tv link to the video where I attempted to diagnose the cause myself. I also suspect it may have something to do with the game thinking the craft is somewhere else for some bizarre reason other than the launch pad because it always switches scenes to space wtih 0 coms though still showing the stages on the left as if it never left the pad. The interaction is with KSP Intersetellar Extended Candle engines, but could conceivably happen with others though I ran out of time to test that theory. Here is the logs, the save files associated with the repeated testing CTDs: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qebzscrjgn1bvmn/05092017errorlogs.zip?dl=0 Here is the video on Twitch TV that contains the troubleshooting effort. It starts around 2:15 to 2:30 and runs until the end about 4:30, a full 2 hours of rigorously attempting to identify and troubleshoot the problem. Inverting the payload in the fairing hangar also did not solve the problem. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/141246182 Craft file causing the CTD: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7ywx2gx5uub7bgd/Micro Probe 2.craft?dl=0 update: An even more bizarre complication has arisen, this craft can be launched in sandbox, it only crashes in career. Repeatedly tested in career, with and without the decoupler, with and without the fairing, with and without it being at the bottom of the inter-staging rack. Unbelievably odd. It has to do something with the name and perhaps the initial game crash? Going to destroy the craft in this particular save, rebuild it from scratch, rename it and see what happens. Rebuilt it exact to spec under a new name, still crashes in career only, new name Mun Micro Probe 2. The original craft that it was based on is also crashing. We're making progress in narrowing down cause. Updating title. Suspect previous deletion of a probe in space did not complete properly in the tracking center corrupting the save and possibly making it so that all probe cores of the same type launched now register at a random point in space rather than at launchpad. Left the name unchanged, stripped down to probe core, launched. Stable with just Hecs core, went back reloaded primary craft file so that once again all parts were present, launched, ctd. Something is broken on the payload, still working out what. This craft launched before with no problem, something has changed. Removed all parts from corrupted craft that were mod-based and only utilized its stock part elements, the craft deployed without crash. Adding back the navigatin light and launching, then adding back the candle engines and launching, will update again momentarily. Navlights confirmed good. No crash. Re-add candle engines.. no crash? Craft is mysteriously stable again as a whole after re-add of parts. Possible issue with saved crafts from between KSP IE updates. Removed and re-added candle engines to the full payload/delivery booster assembly and still crashing, so re-adding the engines does not always fix whatever is underlying this. Debugger menu will not open when the view is changed to space prior to ctd and funds are wiped. The crash dumps are indicating some form of bizarre memory access error. Putting ksp into admin mode. But why only affecting this particular craft file and why only career? Craft loaded without crash after 3 way coupler removed, landing gear, candle engines, and the nav lights were removed. Adding back only sm-3 mount and putting on the fairing rack and reloading. Still stable. Adding landing LT-1 gear back to the sm-3 mount, retracted as before. Normal launch. Adding back candle engines. Normal Launch? Adding back nav light. Normal launch! ...... Conclusion: KSP not running in admin mode was causing a random failure to access some part of the craft file for reasons that are unexplained as all the parts in this build have been utilized before. This began after the recent ksp ie mod update, so uncertain if interaction has been caused by updates. Solution: Run KSP in admin mode, this was not a part or apparent staging/physics error. Why it has chosen to randomly manifest a memory access error now remains undetermined, but launch is able to progress without error.
  10. Hello all, Whenever I try to separate the CSM from the 3rd stage, the four fairing pieces that come with the rocket do not detach. I know that I have my staging correct. Does anyone have any helpful tips? Any help is appreciated. mustangpilot51
  11. Hi, I'm having a strange problem with the Payload aerodynamic cowling *Fairing) separation on my "Rover Payloader". Basically I'm trying to place a Science Gathering Rover at a location on opposite side of KSP spaceport, and using a rocket launcher to place a cargo pod into sub-orbital trajctory, so it re=enters, and through staging eventually lands my rover on parachutes. The problem is when I STAGE the Fairing, the shell itself detaches but not the support structure holding the rover, nor the base - so I am left with the base and this structure attached to my rover which is now quite overloaded both for the parachutes!, When it lands (hard) there is a small explosion which usually cripples the Rover. The few tmes when I got lucky I managed to get the lander down in one piece, but still with the payload flange and support structure attached, and the Rover was basically struck (payload fairing far to heavy!). What am I doing wrong? Do I need to use a stage separate inside the cargo bay (between the back of rover and the base) to force a clean separation? I tried using one of those small blue separators but this didn't get rid of the base plate or supports! Also, if it matters I'm running V1.2 in Career mode. Thanks in advance for any advice, Jonathan Stevenson
  12. I discovered this when trying to build rotor bearing and the rotor just fell on the ground. Basicaly the fairings dont colide with ground, buildings or other spacecraft until the fairings themselfs are decoupled (staged), olny then they start to colide. Separated fairing segments also seem to ignore gravity as (when staged on the ground) they endlessly spin and float up after bouncing of the ground.
  13. Hi all, Early on in my career game Lageranda Kerman managed to get herself stranded in low Kerbol orbit. It took several failed rescue attempts to teach me just how far down the gravity well that is. In fairness, there was no way the Terrier's and FLT-800's I had access to at the time were going to cut it. I've come a long way since them, and am determined to bring that kerbal home no matter what the cost! (And for my own gameplay reasons, preferably without resorting to Xenon tech). I'm completing work on a huge, single-launch behemoth that will establish a research and mining base on Moho, then use it as a refueling depot for my low-Kerbol rendezvous. This is roughly what it looks like so far: Initially I attached my boosters like so, and am able to get this into orbit fairly reliably: But for realism (and aesthetics) I'd like to wrap that equipment at the top up in a more aerodynamic fairing. Unfortunately I kind of backed myself into a corner by not having everything coalesce down to a single convenient attachment from which to build the fairing. I could stick it between the mining rig and tanker, but the tanker's un-aerodynamic reaction wheels would still be exposed. Note the reaction wheels are welded into a single part with most of the tanks below, and I don't want to break them up. Also don't want to stick anything between the rig's thrusters and the damage-protecting "thrust plates" below them (which eject after use). I wish I could start my fairing from the top and close it to the surface of my tanker, but that doesn't seem to work. So I figured, let's just throw more funds at the problem and encapsulate the whole shebang in Kerbin's biggest egg - with some assistance from Procedural Fairings (which lets you attach boosters directly to the fairings, helping me avoid a rocket too tall to fit in the VAB): Launch could have gone better... Liftoff was actually fine until separation of the first pair of boosters. What's weird is the F3 Flight Results didn't report anything wrong until later in the RUD than I would have expected. Slowing this down and going frame-by-frame, I discovered that as soon as I detached two of the boosters, all the struts holding the other ones broke as well! And that happened before anything at all (other than "Separation of Stage 21 confirmed") was reported in Flight Results. 1 frame before separation: 1 frame after separation: I played around with different AutoStruts settings on the boosters, fairings and fairing base, with varying results from a craft that wouldn't stand up on the launchpad to boosters that all fell off the egg before launch. I suspect the problem is my boosters need moar struts to something on the inside of the fairing - but it's kind of hard to attach them with the fairing in the way. Any suggestions? Any radically different ideas on making this beast aerodynamic? p.s. Note those boosters each consist of only 3 parts: - Tanks, Separatrons and decoupler (1 weldment) - Mammoth engine (stock) - Parachute (Mk2-R scaled up 4x) I can share my craft files and parts if anyone wants to play with this. I don't want to split it up into separate launches so please don't suggest that :-). Edit: Simply right-clicking one of the boosters while on the launchpad and decoupling it also causes my ship to fall apart. Edit: The problem isn't specific to that pair of boosters. If I remove them from my craft, it launches just the same and the struts all disappear when I stage next pair (which are now first to stage).
  14. Is there no mod around yet to let you change the textures of the stock fairings? Seems a real shame when there are so many good textures around for procedural parts and fairings! The search function seems a bit buggy, but I did some googling and couldn't find anything. Have I missed something?
  15. In the release notes of V1.1.1 there was mentioned, that wheels now have "auto struts [...], similar to fairing struts". Are those fairing struts noticable somehow? Because I'm unsure if I now still have to stut up my payloads in fairings, or if they get added "magically" when loading the craft onto the launch pad. How are those things working in V1.1.2?
  16. A few questions, i have today. I'm trying to setup fairings for the FFR rocket mesh i'm doing. I have parts named correctly in Unity and the name matches in the cfg file. Enabling and disabling them makes them show up and disappear within KSP but if i try to separate them they just sit there. they have ejection force but no colliders as stock game ones didn't appear to use them either. Searches haven't been terribly helpful. Any ideas? Second question I'm pretty sure i know the answer to already. Is there any way without setting it up as a ton of smaller colliders to do a hollow centrifuge you can walk (or drive) in. I've been working on a large scale one but colliders quickly start doing strange things.Like ejecting Kerbals at escape velocity. Thanks.
  17. I feel really dumb for asking this, but i've never figured out how to use them. Maybe because i'm not really a rockets person. Or are they simply not designed for what i want to do ? I have the max size mark 3 cargo bay. I'm looking for something low drag to use as a nose and tail for this fuselage. I can use the Mk3 to 2.5m adapter then a 2.5m rocket nose cone, but both have very high drag, and the fuel capacity of the adapter is useless to me (the engines will be on pods and fuel stored in there and the wings, because the mark 3 engine mounting plate has twenty times the drag of an FT800 tank + nose cone combo). So, can i use a fairing to make a nose cone for the cargo bay? The only controls appear to be left and right click, right click cancels the fairing generation and left click doesn't do anything. I can drag it to a longer or narrower cone but nothing comes of it. I take it they have to attach to another part then?
  18. When I make a fairing and I put parts inside of it. When ever I put my mouse over a part it disappears or it gets cut off by the fairing. I saw this issue in the bug tracker but that was for 1.1 and it hasn't been fixed. KSP log https://www.dropbox.com/s/csfi8ribgx4ba0i/KSP.log?dl=0 Pictures
  19. N.A.N.A. Fairwell Warning this is a WIP Not sure this is the best timing to be releasing something new, considering what day it is... That aside: Fairwell automatically deploys your (stock)fairing when reaching a specific altitude. Just right-click any fairing(base), adjust altitude and toggle. Now you can sit back and wave fairwell as your rocket undergoes metamorphosis in fully automated glory. Fairly easy eh?... get it? fair... ha - ha - ha... never-mind then! If you're anything like me, who plays games half-AFK, or has a chronic urge to switch on Mechjeb and go make tea as soon as the simulation time indicator stops showing green, then this could come in handy! Requires: ModuleManager (not included) Download Spacedock Licence: Reserved Source
  20. Hey guys, I've been playing a while with Proceedural Fairings, but I've honestly only just started to try to use interstage fairings. With proceedural parts, it is often more efficient to have a rockeet with a diameter that isn't 1.25 or 2.5, and with the 'Thrust Plate', I've been using a lot of engine clusters too. But I can't exactly figure out the interstage fairing. I've gotten it to the point where I can make it look good, but it still claims it's shielding 0 parts. Also, I don't understand what the decoupling stage is for, since it doesn't seem to be a regular stack decoupler. I'm trying to make more realistic looking rockets that still perform well. Interstage rings/fairings are a very common part of real rockets, but KSP (even with mods) seems to not consider them very important.