Devnote Tuesday: Fairing well

[SaturnV]

There's only one part, which is the fairing as a whole. Fairing panels aren't independent parts, they're sub-objects of the fairing until you deploy them. A fairing that is 10 sections high and divided into 4 sides would have 40 panels, yes. How many objects this will produce on deployment depends on how they group together (that's next up on my to-do list actually).

As for how the broken-off bits behave after deployment, they are handled as solar panel pieces or engine fairings. They aren't fully persistent (which is good if you like your framerates to be a two-digit number). That doesn't mean they aren't solid objects, however. Point away from face.

Cheers

Works like debris of solar panels? Glad to hear that since my framerates is already a two-digit number and I will feel sorry to see a one-digit one.

[NathanKell]

Very enthused about the fairings, and I want to echo the importance of interstages. It will prove much easier and more intuitive, I think, to just place a 2.5 interstage on a 1.25m engine if you want to go to 2.5m, rather than having to use an adapter part. It also allows the very important "use an LV-909 on a Mk1-2 pod" gameplay choice, or using the 48-7S on a 1.25m stack, without things looking odd.

Also really happy to see you all taking part in the conversation!

(Ted, Mike, hope you feel better soon!)

[Corw]

Works like debris of solar panels? Glad to hear that since my framerates is already a two-digit number and I will feel sorry to see a one-digit one.

99 frames would also be a two digit number /pedantic

[ShadowZone]

Interstage fairings are something we've discussed here to quite an extent. The current system doesn't support them completely at the moment, but it doesn't preclude them either. They're just not accounted for yet, and we're probably going to have to do some playtesting to figure out how (and if) the fairings would work in between two chunks of spacecraft. We might be able to adapt the current module to do both, or we might require a separate module to handle those cases. The short answer is, we're not quite there yet.

If I may add something: Interstage Fairings or parts of them would finally enable me to build some kind of cargo bay for parts/cargo bigger than 2.5m ... currently I have to make do with building the entire bay out of wings and then jettison parts to open it up.

Edit:

As for how the broken-off bits behave after deployment, they are handled as solar panel pieces or engine fairings. They aren't fully persistent (which is good if you like your framerates to be a two-digit number). That doesn't mean they aren't solid objects, however. Point away from face.

Since you mentioned framerate... what are you planning to do to improve it over all? Because at the moment the more awesome the creation is in KSP the more painful it is to actually play with it. That's why I spend more time in the VAB/SPH instead of in space, because at the moment the fun part of using my creations is severely limited due to the game's performance issues.

Edited February 25, 2015 by ShadowZone

[NoMrBond]

As for how the broken-off bits behave after deployment, they are handled as solar panel pieces or engine fairings. They aren't fully persistent (which is good if you like your framerates to be a two-digit number). That doesn't mean they aren't solid objects, however. Point away from face.

Could we please have a panel type which is persistent (i.e. fuselage/structural) as a selectable (non-default) choice?

[theend3r]

Regarding the interstage fairings, Procedural Fairings does that pretty well already.

[Frank_G]

I cant really wait to see all that new features and parts. You guys know how to impress

[Gkirmathal]

A bit dissapointed....

Still nada nothing technical from the devs about: what bugs are being fixed, performance enhancements, how they want to address current memory management issues etcetc.

Dev team. Could you make, besides the new features devnotes, a pure technical devnote?

Where you inform us interested player, what is being done to fix current issues in KSP, Unity development, bug fixes etc etc.

Personaly I would really like to read such notes. As these issues affect A LOT of players, if not all of us.

Edited February 25, 2015 by Gkirmathal

[ShadowZone]

A bit dissapointed....

Still nada nothing technical from the devs about: what bugs are being fixed, performance enhancements, how they want to address current memory management issues etcetc.

Dev team. Could you make, besides the new features devnotes, a pure technical devnote?

Where you inform us interested player, what is being done to fix current issues in KSP, Unity development, bug fixes etc etc.

Personaly I would really like to read such notes. As these issues affect A LOT of players, if not all of us.

This.

[Technical Ben]

Naturally, you presumably drive in from the Netherlands, though.

Actually, how *does* Squad coordinate with so many remote workers? Do you guys have, like, daily meetings at such-and-such a time, or is it basically "work on your stuff and chat with other staff as you feel like you need to"?

Sub orbital rocket launches... of cause!

[A-Stax32]

(at least covering 1.25m through 3.5m profiles)

Is this a typo or is what I've been calling 3.75 actually 3.5?

[TheMoonRover]

Is this a typo or is what I've been calling 3.75 actually 3.5?

I suspect it's a typo. 3.75m is the correct size for the largest rockets.

EDIT: He may also have meant 2.5m

[FleetAdmiralJ]

development has stalled a little this week as I have been as sick as a dog.

Testing on it is going well despite me managing to catch the flu over the weekend.

STAHP! Stahp getting sick!

But otherwise sounds cool. I'm not sure I can easily picture what exactly you have in mind for the fairings. I have a picture but I have no idea if it's right. Can't wait to see them. And look at new IVAs on Friday? woohoo!

Also congrats to Newbius and 1stGhostLive on joining KSPTV!

- - - Updated - - -

Is the prompt really necessary anymore with the engineer report thingy? Just a thought.

While I obviously don't know myself, my guess is that you click launch and it's like "Warning: So and so is not on the ship!" with something like an "Oops!" and "Launch Anyway" button. We don't really know how the engineer's report will look, but I suspect it is that it'll be a button at the bottom like the Mass/Part Count button that one would need to click to view, so a final check when launching would be a good way to catch those who either don't know about it or who forgot to check, much like how the game complains at you if you are overweight or over part count (except with the engineers report it would give you an option to proceed anyway)

Edited February 25, 2015 by FleetAdmiralJ
typos!

[GusTurbo]

So will a single fairing that's 10 "pieces" tall and 4 "pieces" around count as 40 parts, 4 parts, or 1 part?

Personally I hope it's 40 parts. That way we're not cheating.

How is allowing a lower part count (and thus, better performance) cheating? Personally, I would be really happy if I could knock off 40 parts from a complex design, because that means I can have more fun actually using it. It doesn't become more or less functional based on arbitrary part counts.

[NecroBones]

In SpaceY, what I did for interstage fairings, is to make a variety of thrust-plates that use the ModuleJettison module (same thing as the engine fairings) to add large fairings, but they don't decouple or anything like that. When a decoupler is used below, the fairing sticks to the decoupler, just like engine shrouds. These thrust plates come in several adapter-sizes and also have some multi-way adapters built in, allowing you to make custom engine clusters from smaller diameter engines.

The system works well, but with a couple of caveats:

1. The fairings aren't ejected separately, after staging, so we miss that level of "realism". With the fair/shroud sticking to the ejected stage, it's the same expected behavior we get with engine shrouds, so I think this is acceptable.

2. The menu-list of parts can get relatively long, since these thrust plate / adapter parts need to be made in each size that people might want to use. SpaceY currently offers 8 of them, and I could easily have come up with more configurations.

[Majorjim!]

How is allowing a lower part count (and thus, better performance) cheating? Personally, I would be really happy if I could knock off 40 parts from a complex design, because that means I can have more fun actually using it. It doesn't become more or less functional based on arbitrary part counts.

This!

I have had a lot of fun making farings from random parts but it I always knew it was unsustainable.

I am very excited about realistic looking rockets with lower part counts.

I just hope Squad do a good job. Releasing something official from a team of developers that is inferior to a mod made by some bloke sitting at home in his pants is not acceptable.

[cantab]

Well, superior and inferior in games is largely a matter of personal opinion. A great many people like Procedural Fairings but I don't, I find them too automagical and prefer a system that demands I think a little.

[Majorjim!]

Well, superior and inferior in games is largely a matter of personal opinion. A great many people like Procedural Fairings but I don't, I find them too automagical and prefer a system that demands I think a little.

You still have a choice man. If you want to continue using other parts to make fairings then do so.

There will still be a market for them. My mini Apollo craft fairing would be impossible with any procedural fairings.

[Motokid600]

What about parachutes? We need a new parachute system before 1.0. RealChutes be nice...

[Starwaster]

It's cheaty in the context of KSP.

And that fairing obviously didn't work out well...

Not to mention that they had to do a lot of engineering. They didn't slap a part on it and have a fairing. In that way custom fairings are VERY different from procedural fairings.

When you put a procedural fairing on a rocket, you're not just slapping a part on there either. It's being built by the Kerbals for that rocket. You just don't see that happening behind the scenes. But that is what is represented by procedural part.

[klgraham1013]

What about parachutes? We need a new parachute system before 1.0. RealChutes be nice...

It doesn't even need to be as complex (awesome) as Real Chutes. Just something that won't rip apart craft or kill Kerbals through G-force.

...and drag chutes please. (but, we're not getting flaps. So, I'm not counting on it)

[basic.syntax]

You may find this lacking in details, but, its something to hang a hope on -

Edited February 25, 2015 by basic.syntax

[regex]

How is allowing a lower part count (and thus, better performance) cheating? Personally, I would be really happy if I could knock off 40 parts from a complex design, because that means I can have more fun actually using it. It doesn't become more or less functional based on arbitrary part counts.

If I know 5thHorseman, he was being sarcastic here. Reducing parts count is laudable, especially considering the performance issues we have right now. Hopefully Unity 5, when it comes out, will not only help but give the devs a good reason to refactor some stuff.

[GusTurbo]

You may find this lacking in details, but, its something to hang a hope on -

[monstah]

If I know 5thHorseman, he was being sarcastic here. Reducing parts count is laudable, especially considering the performance issues we have right now. Hopefully Unity 5, when it comes out, will not only help but give the devs a good reason to refactor some stuff.

I didn't read the sarcasm at first, but now I get it.

I was just about to go posting "AUGH AGAIN WITH THE CHEATING" but yea... it was kinda funny.

It's cheaty in the context of KSP.

And that fairing obviously didn't work out well...

Not to mention that they had to do a lot of engineering. They didn't slap a part on it and have a fairing. In that way custom fairings are VERY different from procedural fairings.

But then there is this, and it baffles me.

What exacly in the context of KSP makes it cheaty? What fairing didn't obviously go well? And what isn't "a lot of engineering" when it comes to building rockets?