Jump to content

[1.4.x - 1.7.x] Procedural Fairings v1.6.1 [02-05-2019]


Recommended Posts

What are the benefits of the extended base over the standard base, and what is the actual standard base called? 

The only one I can ever get to work is the extended one, and it seems wasteful if it's not necessary. Maybe I'm not using the correct "standard" one. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2019 at 12:11 PM, Kchinger said:

What are the benefits of the extended base over the standard base, and what is the actual standard base called? 

The only one I can ever get to work is the extended one, and it seems wasteful if it's not necessary. Maybe I'm not using the correct "standard" one. 

So apparently the standard base unlocks after the extended one for some reason. Or maybe my tech tree was just messed up because I installed part way through a career, but anyway, it was in the next aerodynamics node. 

Still not sure what the benefits of the extended are, but I'll try the normal and maybe it will become apparent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kchinger said:

So apparently the standard base unlocks after the extended one for some reason. Or maybe my tech tree was just messed up because I installed part way through a career, but anyway, it was in the next aerodynamics node. 

Still not sure what the benefits of the extended are, but I'll try the normal and maybe it will become apparent. 

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to by standard vs extended.  There's the regular round base, a low profile base and the cone shaped payload adapter bases.  Functionally there's no difference and it largely depends what you're putting on top of the fairing base and how much clearance you have around the payload for fitting the fairing sides.  The low profile one gives you the least clearance so the sides can sometimes bulge out from the fairing base, which looks ugly but on the other hand it works well when used as an interstage adapter, engine fairing or other interstage fuselage.  The payload adapter variants take up more room in the stack but are good for mounting smaller diameter payloads inside the fairing, especially if parts of the payload need to hand down below the payload's lowest connecting part (such as the ends of antennae or solar panels).  The regular one is the original generic fairing base.  It's good for most use cases but a little bulky for my tastes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Friznit said:

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to by standard vs extended.  There's the regular round base, a low profile base and the cone shaped payload adapter bases.  Functionally there's no difference and it largely depends what you're putting on top of the fairing base and how much clearance you have around the payload for fitting the fairing sides.  The low profile one gives you the least clearance so the sides can sometimes bulge out from the fairing base, which looks ugly but on the other hand it works well when used as an interstage adapter, engine fairing or other interstage fuselage.  The payload adapter variants take up more room in the stack but are good for mounting smaller diameter payloads inside the fairing, especially if parts of the payload need to hand down below the payload's lowest connecting part (such as the ends of antennae or solar panels).  The regular one is the original generic fairing base.  It's good for most use cases but a little bulky for my tastes.

Thanks. 

They use the terms extended and standard on the screenshot on the first post of this thread. 

Standard on far left and standard extended on far right, those are the two I've unlocked so far I think. The others must come later (like hollow, etc). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

So im trying to take the procedural fairing module and apply it to another part. Everything works fine, except I cannot find a way to change where the fairing attach node points are, and they are being placed inside the part.

I presumed that editing the node_stack_connect values would do it, but im having no luck.

Any help much appreciated.

Q

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Sooooo.... Just wondering if *anyone* is working on a 1.8.1 update for *any* of the bazzillion Procedural Fairings forks out there...
Kinda surprised theres been no talk of 1.8.1 compatability on *any* of the PF threads... vOv

Yes, I've tried @Kerbas_ad_astra's fork, based on v1.6.2 of this thread (there were notes of 1.8 on the repo, tho it looks like nothing moar than .version and README changes? vOv), as well as v1.6.2 from the KSP-RO repo linked in the OP...
Doesnt seem to be any recent (since 1.8.1) activity on *any* of the forks I checked (except Kerbas')... vOv
Granted, I've been trying fairings from an old mod, that uses PF as a dependency, so I'm not sure if its an issue with PF in 1.8.1, or outdated cfg keys in said mod, yet....

Just wondering if anyone has (any) version of PF working in 1.8.1... vOv

Edited by Stone Blue
Link to post
Share on other sites

Пока не обновляется, найдена замена

Совсем неплохо

Quote

 

Until updated, replacement found 

 

Not bad at all

 

 

Edited by Vanamonde
Please post in English outside of the international subforums.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, @Fan777 ... Actually, I ended up installing that, just to get a semi-usable fairing. However, I really need an updated PF .dll, for use with fairings already setup to use it. I dont need new or different fairings, I have one I would like to get working again with PF. ;) Procedural-type fairings involve voodoo I'm not even faintly familiar with, so i was really hoping to avoid having learn how to rewrite the cfg, and possibly even having to modify the model, to work with a different plugin. vOv

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Friznit said:

Last I checked the fairings were technically working OK...

Thanx... After I posted, I tried PF and the mod I'm trying to get working, in a 1.7.3 install, but my install ended up getting corrupted :face_palm: ... I'll poke around my issue some moar... Moar than likely, its outdated .cfgs :( ... Just wanted some confirmation whether PF was working for others or not in 1.8.1 vOv

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone point me towards their favorite Procedural Fairing texture add-ons?  Also, I've been away for a while and was wondering if any new textures have appeared.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Probus said:

Can anyone point me towards their favorite Procedural Fairing texture add-ons?  Also, I've been away for a while and was wondering if any new textures have appeared.

Heres what I have... googling the titles should get you the threads/links
OfeZOfz.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2020 at 11:59 AM, Stone Blue said:

Aahhh... Thanx... I musta missed the 1.8 branch when i peeked at that master branch... :face_palm:
I'll give it a try, and hopefully post back with initial results...

Did it work for you? How long until you think it could be the actual release? Or, if it works, can you point me towards instructions for using it? PF is the only thing holding me at 1.7, and I'm about to make my first trip to something beyond Kerbin sphere (Duna I think) and it's silly but I really want your first time I see another planet to be with the new textures, so I haven't played in months. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kchinger said:

Did it work for you? How long until you think it could be the actual release? Or, if it works, can you point me towards instructions for using it?

Unfortunately, I havent fully tried it yet. I only need it, as a mod I am tweaking has its own PF part which isnt working (issues with the part, it seems, not necessarily PF).
No idea on actual release... Its not my mod :P
Instructions *should* be somewhere in the OP ... vOv I havent used the base PF mod in forever myself... so I am still in the process of re-familiarizing myself with it. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Craze said:

Very convenient to use fairings, but from something often fall off from the box at the start or in flight. And more. I thought they were made of uranium, so heavy.

I think I’ve seen the same thing.  I’ve had one of four panels fall off before.  For instance if you add a 4 panel interstage fairing, it will show as 3 + 1 parts in the VAB staging area. If you pull it off and put it right back, it fixes that and doesn’t  fall off.  Seems like it’s some sort of minor bug.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joker58th said:

I think I’ve seen the same thing.  I’ve had one of four panels fall off before.  For instance if you add a 4 panel interstage fairing, it will show as 3 + 1 parts in the VAB staging area. If you pull it off and put it right back, it fixes that and doesn’t  fall off.  Seems like it’s some sort of minor bug.  

I had three out of four dropped at once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

×
×
  • Create New...