The only thing wrong with 1.0...

[Alshain]

is the useless excuse for fairings. Squad, they suck. They aren't even suitable for recreating the most iconic space mission ever. If they can't do that, what good are they?

No I did not tell it to decouple, the piece of poorly made crap did that all on it's own and ruined the mission because I ran out of monoprop before I could dock. The fairings are simply a failure. Might as well rip them out and try again, and this time stop trying to be fancy. We need the Proc Fairings mod.. in stock.

[RocketBlam]

The problem I have with the fairings is that they seem to create a lot of drag, and since they're usually on top of the rocket, it makes them harder to launch because it exacerbates the flipping problem.

I had one design with a big fairing on it, and I had to remove it because it made the rocket uncontrollable at high speeds.

[Alshain]

I haven't had any issues with drag, but unless it is unmanned, I ALWAYS use an inter-stage so the command module is on top. Except you can't do that with the stock crap. I'm probably going to go back to Proc Fairings, I just wish I didn't have to resort to mod parts to even play the game since the new aero means you must have working fairings and Squad didn't add them.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Alshain

[regex]

:ugh:, not to mention the grenade effect, so bad... #WELIKETHEMBECAUSETHEYREKERBAL #LOLSOKERBAL

[NWDogg]

I'm glad you brought this up. I find the new stock fairings to be absolutely atrocious to build. I swear, I've fiddled around with trying to build simple fairings more than I've actually flown since 1.0.

Does anyone else get the problem where the fairings won't recognize a left-click, and so won't place the next section? I am getting that constantly. Maybe 1 time out of 50 it will actually work, and when it does it's while the current piece I'm moving is bulged out 30 feet. And if I do get lucky and manage to build the fairing to the top, it won't register the final click to set the tip piece...until 50 clicks later when it decides to register twice and then deletes the whole thing.

Thank god procedural fairings is updated, because these stock fairings make me want to throw my pc into a wall. You're absolutely right, these are definitely the worst thing about post-1.0 KSP (way worse than the iffy aero model.)

[Mastikator]

The problem I have with the fairings is that they seem to create a lot of drag, and since they're usually on top of the rocket, it makes them harder to launch because it exacerbates the flipping problem.

I had one design with a big fairing on it, and I had to remove it because it made the rocket uncontrollable at high speeds.

Yeah I've had this problem too, you'd think they'd reduce drag since they're more aerodynamic than survey scanners and what not.

[Reddeyfish]

I'm glad you brought this up. I find the new stock fairings to be absolutely atrocious to build. I swear, I've fiddled around with trying to build simple fairings more than I've actually flown since 1.0.

Does anyone else get the problem where the fairings won't recognize a left-click, and so won't place the next section? I am getting that constantly. Maybe 1 time out of 50 it will actually work, and when it does it's while the current piece I'm moving is bulged out 30 feet. And if I do get lucky and manage to build the fairing to the top, it won't register the final click to set the tip piece...until 50 clicks later when it decides to register twice and then deletes the whole thing.

Thank god procedural fairings is updated, because these stock fairings make me want to throw my pc into a wall. You're absolutely right, these are definitely the worst thing about post-1.0 KSP (way worse than the iffy aero model.)

the 'place fairing' text will change to green if you can place a fairing there, and blue if you can close the fairing there. It's still hard to find where it will work, but looking at the color will at least save you the clicking. It seems to be doing this because it doesn't want to clip into other parts, so moving parts around does help a bit for me.

[Dodgey]

I don't really mind the way that they separate, I've had issues with clam shell fairings not separating enough in the past but no issues with the stock ones in that regard, though an option would be nice.

[Alshain]

I don't want them to separate at all. I want the structural fairings that proc fairings has (as opposed to the aerodynamic fairings). I was trying to just dump the separation into the highest stage that would disappear once the command module separated but the picture above is what I got. You simply have to stage them away or they break apart and cause havoc. Which is stupid, because I guess Squad didn't think people would try to recreate Apollo.

[Rhomphaia]

Apollo staged away the SLA anyway (after Apollo 7 anyway)

[Dodgey]

Oh sorry, I can't see spoilers I my iPad for what ever reason so I didn't realize that was what you were talking about.

[hawk_za]

I have no problem with the new fairings and have no encountered this problem in my play trough's

[falconek]

I want the structural fairings that proc fairings.

I want a pony, alas...

BTW during my almost 4 years with KSP, I never thought about recreating Apollo. I used similar CM + lander architecture though, because it is effective for certain missions.

[Temeter]

I like the stock fairing, never had issues. It's just a nice touch to create them manually instead of getting everything automatically.

You basically want structural fairings, tho, that's less of an issue with the current ones.

[ManuxKerb]

Yeah i also had problems with the stock farings:

Someitimes the payload would bend out of it in 45 to 90 degree anges and wobble around.....

[SelectHalfling0]

The fairings have worked very well for me (I would still like clam-shell separation). Of course, I haven't tried inter stage fairings yet.

[Screeno]

I like the so called "potato chip" fairings, there satisfying when they all shatter about and your payload is revealed

[Superfluous J]

KSP is not a designed to simulate every last detail of historic Human spaceflight.

And using hashtags and LOLSOKERBAL to make fun of things people enjoy is unbecoming.

[magnemoe]

The problem I have with the fairings is that they seem to create a lot of drag, and since they're usually on top of the rocket, it makes them harder to launch because it exacerbates the flipping problem.

I had one design with a big fairing on it, and I had to remove it because it made the rocket uncontrollable at high speeds.

Yes, Has launched an series of medium rovers, diameter=distance from front left to back right wheel is around 5 meter while the core is an 1.25 meter tank.

The fairing generates far more drag than the naked rover who is an X with wheels at edges.

[Rokmonkey]

Yeah, fairings don't help much at all. I use them because it feels wrong not too have them. I abhor the grenade effect, the finicky placement of the edges, and the MASSIVE amounts of drag it creates. Also, WHY can't it interpolate? Spline curves man.

[MacroNova]

So the point of the OP is that the game forces you to deploy your fairings? I don't really have a problem with this, personally. I also find them pretty easy to work with once I got the hang of it.

My issues with fairings

1. I don't really understand how to create interstage fairings. I've been putting all the non-aerodynamic stuff on top to minimize the size of the fairing I need to make. Sometimes I'd like to hide stuff in the middle, in which case I use the service bay, but it would be nice to use fairings.

2. Is all the mass still contained in the base? Fairings get pretty heavy and if ejecting them doesn't shed the mass then that's a real problem (bug?).

[Caelib]

I think saying they "suck" is a bit unfair. I agree that the separation being confetti is not ideal, but the system as a whole is very well-implemented. I would imagine that this is something that will be improved in a future update.

[katateochi]

Interstage fairings are awkward to create sometimes, other times they just work and the limitation that OP is pointing at is very annoying.

There is a bug thread discussing this and the way you can't start an engine which is stowed - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/117109-Engine-cannot-activate-while-stowed

The thing that really bugs me is that you can't control which segments of a fairing separate or how many segments it should have like you can with all the other fairing mods. It's not a common use case but I it's something that I used to do a lot; on a horizontal lander coming into an atmo planet, I'd have it encased in a 3 segment fairing and just jettison the upper segments so that the underside of the lander was still shielded, but chutes could be deployed out of the top (constellation mission style, here's what I mean - https://youtu.be/Tp6yj2k0Fpc?t=5m22s)

It's also a pity that interstage fairings can only be created against something that is round ie a tank. If you have a shape made of multiple parts, like this for example;

then you can't build an interstage fairing to it.

What I'd like to see is a kind of "shrink wrap" ability where the fairing molds itself to whatever shape you have. I'd also like to have choices to the number of degrees of symmetry that it follows, ie so you could have a fairing that is not the same radius all the way round but rather have two degrees of symmetry so you could encase something with small wings.

And then there is the cluster bomb effect, which is just nasty. Having fairings separate as whole panels that come away with the same force, resulting in a nice geometric pattern was so pleasing. The current way is just a mess!

Not 100% sure about them not being persistent debris either. Making sure you remembered to stage your fairings so they de-orbited seemed like a nice feature of maintaining a clean space (or not, if you wanted to create a debris field). But with the cluster bomb effect I can see why they went with not making them persistent. (persistent fairings should be an option)

[regex]

KSP is not a designed to simulate every last detail of historic Human spaceflight.

That second picture should be enough to make anyone mad. That should be a cohesive, single-piece structural insterstage. Let's face it, the fairings are terrible, literally the crumblies at the bottom of a bag of chips, and they act like it too. I mean, I'll suffer through grenade fairings when I stage them but they should act like a solid part if I don't.

[viktor19]

the grenade effect

Those smallest pieces are like a shrapnel...