Recommended Posts

currently small satellite launchers are hampered by the lack of farings, please fix this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never needed 0.625 meter fairings, but ui have always wanted a heat shield in that size. All of my small atmospheric drop probes are forced to have a giant heat shield and fairing, adding unneeded mass and volume. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that be cute! I think it would also be pretty useful for really tiny probes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing in the game that would fit inside it.  Your fairing is supposed to be one size larger than the parts you are using for the payload.  For 0.625m probes, you use a 1.25m fairing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alshain said:

There is nothing in the game that would fit inside it.  Your fairing is supposed to be one size larger than the parts you are using for the payload.  For 0.625m probes, you use a 1.25m fairing.

I disagree. You could possibly cram a rectangular probe core and an RTG inside one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Optimist said:

I disagree. You could possibly cram a rectangular probe core and an RTG inside one

So they would add an entire fairing for one probe core which can't even have fuel or propulsion, or batteries?  Sorry, but that would be a wasted effort and a waste of RAM space.

Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Alshain said:

So they would add an entire fairing for one probe core which can't even have fuel or propulsion, or batteries?  Sorry, but that would be a wasted effort and a waste of RAM space.

you can clip batteries into the probe core, and maybe a radial monoprop tank and a few rcs thrusters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Optimist said:

you can clip batteries into the probe core, and maybe a radial monoprop tank and a few rcs thrusters

That would be way too big for a 0.625m fairing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alshain said:

That would be way too big for a 0.625m fairing.

You do realize you can stretch the fairing out, right? It doesn't have to be only 0.625 meters wide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Optimist said:

You do realize you can stretch the fairing out, right? It doesn't have to be only 0.625 meters wide.

But why?  The 1.25m fairing works just fine for 0.625m probes and it's not like you are going to put that probe on a 0.625m launcher.  Again, there is no need for this, and it would be very limited and serve almost no use at all.  We have enough useless parts already in the game, we don't need more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose for 'completeness' it makes sense to have them (and heatshield), but it's not a biggy either way.  As @Alshain rightly said they could be of relatively limited use, but still of 'some' use (for some players at least) and it is only 1 or 2 extra parts which add to the size ranges of already existing sets of parts, so yes, why not?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be nice to have a probe sized fairing. I used to have a 0.625m launch vehicle for cubesats which I stopped using due to the new aero and it not having a fairing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think more appropriate for 0.625m would be a jettisonable "shroud" akin to a nosecone with extended sides and a decoupler, like the SLS-style command pod shrouds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, great for engineering bearings and engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8.7.2016 at 3:40 AM, Alshain said:

So they would add an entire fairing for one probe core which can't even have fuel or propulsion, or batteries?  Sorry, but that would be a wasted effort and a waste of RAM space.

Fairing tend to be up to two times the diameter of the base, base is the size of upper or core stage. an 0.65 meter fairing base could hold payloads a bit wider than an meter.
However it would require an 0.625 meter core stage to make sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see some good use for spark/twitch propelled 0.625m launch vehicles. Often I find myself launching multiple tiny probes at once on occasions when I do require probes, because even the smallest of my standard launch vehicles has a far greater payload capacity than most probes require. An 0.625m fairing would be a nice addition to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said it had to always be used in just satellites?

I'd personally like one for other aesthetic purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Columbia said:

Who said it had to always be used in just satellites?

I'd personally like one for other aesthetic purposes.

Some people can't or won't look beyond the original scope of the game. To each his/her own. I know for a fact some people at Squad are interested in engineering and love what people do beyond the whole space thing. While the game and space is great ... after 3 years I got really bored and started to do something different: engineering. I don't have to explain myself further :-)

Anyway ... IMO the key is to keep the bored gamers in after they've lost interest in the space game while keeping the active ones satisfied. And yeah ... that's increasingly complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of purpose would that serve? Fairings are not required to reenter an atmosphere (unles you simply want them to look cool in their aeroshell), and launching a 0.625m launcher to launch a 0.625m payload that can do almost nothing seems like a fruitless endeavor to me except for maybe bragging rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a single part is being argued against on the grounds of too many parts and not enough RAM then it seems time for the game to have a way of excluding parts from being loaded at startup to make streamlined installs for the people who play KSP on a potato so everyone else can have all the sizes of fairing base.

Or we make the fairing base procedural and have all the sizes for less RAM and less parts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a number of parts missing from the 0.625m list.  It would be great to have them all and I'm sure I'd find a use for them.  

I'd be nice to start the game off with 0.625m sounding-style rockets. Mini cargo bay for the tiny experiments, etc.

1 hour ago, John FX said:

If a single part is being argued against on the grounds of too many parts and not enough RAM then it seems time for the game to have a way of excluding parts from being loaded at startup to make streamlined installs for the people who play KSP on a potato so everyone else can have all the sizes of fairing base.

 

Forget about potato pc's and them lagging behind.  KSP now needs to take into account the limited fixed RAM of the consoles as well. Perhaps not loading everything should be considered since Squad is continuing to add parts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, klesh said:

There is a number of parts missing from the 0.625m list.  It would be great to have them all and I'm sure I'd find a use for them.  

I'd be nice to start the game off with 0.625m sounding-style rockets. Mini cargo bay for the tiny experiments, etc.

 

Forget about potato pc's and them lagging behind.  KSP now needs to take into account the limited fixed RAM of the consoles as well. Perhaps not loading everything should be considered since Squad is continuing to add parts.

My preferred option would be to go the low RAM and low part count method of procedural parts, then ALL the fairing bases would take the RAM of one, also only one part would need to be displayed. If you would like a mini cargo bay then you could have it and the RAM footprint would be lower than now.

My suggestion to not load everything was not a serious one, dynamic part loading would be much better, procedural parts better still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think procedural style parts would work for some parts (fuel tanks, fairings, cargo bays, beams etc.),  but for others (engines and cockpits etc ) I don't think it would be appropriate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.