[1.2] Procedural Fairings 3.20 (November 8)

[fatcargo]

I hope this mod can actually be incorporated as additional functionality for the new stock system. because something tells me it may be a little on the basic side. Who knows, we'll see.

Question. Is there a way to make the interstage base invisible? Maybe by deleting the model? It'd be great to have it just so the nodes appeared and the fairing walls would be the only thing you see.

As it is now, the PFs work great. If/when Squad makes their own spin on them, i'm afraid whatever unintentional bugs get introduced could be unsurmountable obstacle for PFs relying on that code. Ofcourse i'm not speaking againts Squad, without them there would be no KSP at all, but when it comes to functionality there are only two outcomes - either it works or not. And for now, PFs WORK.

As for invisible interstage - if you want to make a hole behind PFs, you can remove the whole interstage (and making a hole in front is a bit weird, but doable).

For example engine shroud to reduce drag (if using FAR, and even stock KSP in future versions) or make a cool-looking crafts.

Note that the following example is using fairing base rings, not interstages.

Add a base ring (with proper orientation), stack engine on it (you can even add multiple engines using thrust plate from PF pack), then add another base ring rotated to face the first one (you should see that proper shrouding will be constructed by seeing blue guide lines fitting between base rings). Then add shrouds from structural parts, right-click on them for menu and use shape locking option. Then just detach the rear base ring and you've got nice hole an engine can burn fuel out of it.

[Dermeister]

I'm looking for tips and suggestions... When I make a fairing often my problem is the top of the rocket has to much lift... I can find solutions for the first stage but when I seperate the second stage the COL goes way at the top of the rocket causing it to want to go ass over. I thoguhto f adding wings at the first stage but real rockets don't need wings on stage 2... I tried to put the cargo's mass higher in the fairings but that requires to expand the fairings thus creating even more lift at the top.

[Enceos]

I'm looking for tips and suggestions... When I make a fairing often my problem is the top of the rocket has to much lift... I can find solutions for the first stage but when I seperate the second stage the COL goes way at the top of the rocket causing it to want to go ass over. I thoguhto f adding wings at the first stage but real rockets don't need wings on stage 2... I tried to put the cargo's mass higher in the fairings but that requires to expand the fairings thus creating even more lift at the top.

Your problem is that your second stage fires too early in the atmosphere. You'd better stick some solid rocket boosters on the sides of the rocket and after you dump them you'll still have wings on your core stage. Second stage ignition should be achieved only around 30km of altitude where lift has little effect.

[Dermeister]

Your problem is that your second stage fires too early in the atmosphere. You'd better stick some solid rocket boosters on the sides of the rocket and after you dump them you'll still have wings on your core stage. Second stage ignition should be achieved only around 30km of altitude.

Will try

[Motokid600]

As it is now, the PFs work great. If/when Squad makes their own spin on them, i'm afraid whatever unintentional bugs get introduced could be unsurmountable obstacle for PFs relying on that code. Ofcourse i'm not speaking againts Squad, without them there would be no KSP at all, but when it comes to functionality there are only two outcomes - either it works or not. And for now, PFs WORK.

As for invisible interstage - if you want to make a hole behind PFs, you can remove the whole interstage (and making a hole in front is a bit weird, but doable).

For example engine shroud to reduce drag (if using FAR, and even stock KSP in future versions) or make a cool-looking crafts.

Note that the following example is using fairing base rings, not interstages.

Add a base ring (with proper orientation), stack engine on it (you can even add multiple engines using thrust plate from PF pack), then add another base ring rotated to face the first one (you should see that proper shrouding will be constructed by seeing blue guide lines fitting between base rings). Then add shrouds from structural parts, right-click on them for menu and use shape locking option. Then just detach the rear base ring and you've got nice hole an engine can burn fuel out of it.

Wait... So I can hit shape lock, remove the base and the fairings will remain? What I'm trying to do actually is make fuel tanks with individual oxidizer/liquid fuel tanks with procedural parts then procedural fairings for the tank walls.

Edited February 28, 2015 by Motokid600

[fatcargo]

Well.. shape lock can be (ab)used to whatever end. My idea was engine shrouds. Your idea is worthwhile too, especially if you want to add radialy attached parts to main tank and then you want it all hidden from drag with shrouding. BUT. Please note that in my example i left the front fairing to properly hold shrouds in place. PFs really are not meant to be attached to anything else than their own fairing base / interstage adapter / fairing base ring, if you consider their effects with FAR.

You could use them as decoration too (stock aero won't be affected as much as FAR), but don't consider them structurally strong.

Note also that adding PFs to tank just enlarges the cross-section (and thus drag). Most tanks are already aerodynamic. If you are willing to add Modular Fuel Tanks plugin, you could configure various tanks to hold whatever fuel type you want.

DUHH ! I just realized my example in previous post has wrong part description. Replace "fairing base" with "fairing base ring". Details like this can make things difficult later on.

[Pecan]

I'm looking for tips and suggestions... When I make a fairing often my problem is the top of the rocket has to much lift... I can find solutions for the first stage but when I seperate the second stage the COL goes way at the top of the rocket causing it to want to go ass over. I thoguhto f adding wings at the first stage but real rockets don't need wings on stage 2... I tried to put the cargo's mass higher in the fairings but that requires to expand the fairings thus creating even more lift at the top.

I'm confused - where is this lift coming from. PF fairings don't generate lift do they?

[taniwha]

Pecan: if you are using FAR, then a gold brick generates lift, though with abysmal L/D. Also, in FAR, the CoL is not the center of lift, but rather the aerodynamic center, and it will move around as you rotate your vessel in the editor (I guess it's the centroid of all aerodynamic forces for that orientation).

For NEAR: HAND, YHBT.

For stock... why are you bothering with fairings?

[Pecan]

For stock... why are you bothering with fairings?

Aesthetics. Why are you bothering with FAR? Lol, it's just about style.

Anyway, back to the problem, if the fairings are generating lift it must be because they have positive AoA. I find it hard to believe they are generating enough LIFT from that to make the ship flip or otherwise be uncontrollable. Isn't it more likely that it's the DRAG from incidence of the air on the underside of the fairings that is pushing it further nose-up and increasing AoA more until something gives. Solution, keep the AoA very small in the first place, so airflow is from as close to ahead as possible and therefore symmetrical.

[Triarius]

This mod seems to have installed successfully but I am missing parts that the tech tree says I should have. It only gives me 1.25m fairing bases.

[futrtrubl]

This mod seems to have installed successfully but I am missing parts that the tech tree says I should have. It only gives me 1.25m fairing bases.

Have you right clicked on the base once placed in the editor and changed its size?

[Kurld]

I've been away for over a year. The interstage fairing seem to be missing an adjustment that I used quite a bit before. For the conic fairing, it starts to angle in towards center as soon as it leaves the base plate. I remember being able to adjust how "tall" the fairing was before it started angling towards the center. Has this gone away?

Edited March 6, 2015 by Kurld

[Triarius]

Have you right clicked on the base once placed in the editor and changed its size?

Oi, missed this.

[futrtrubl]

One thing I think the procedural fairings of 1.0 will lack is mk2 and mk3 shaped fairings and having fairings morph between cylindrical, mk2 and mk3 profiles.

Maybe that is something PF could look at. Even currently it is something I wish I had.

[Oddible]

Help! I've been using Proc Fairings forever, just came back to the game... now my fairings don't appear in the staging list, and there is no option to jettison in the right click menu. How to I get these fairings off my ship!?! I'm not talking about a stage decoupler, I'm talking about splitting the fairing in half to reveal what is inside. No idea how to do that anymore if it doesn't show up in staging.

EDIT: Apparently this is a Procedural Fairings bug. I just went back to the ship in the VAB removed and re-added the fairing sides and it re-appeared in the stage list... well that is one satellite launch failure noted... need to check that PF is doing what it is supposed to before I launch.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Oddible

[Cyst]

Help! I've been using Proc Fairings forever, just came back to the game... now my fairings don't appear in the staging list, and there is no option to jettison in the right click menu. How to I get these fairings off my ship!?! I'm not talking about a stage decoupler, I'm talking about splitting the fairing in half to reveal what is inside. No idea how to do that anymore if it doesn't show up in staging.

EDIT: Apparently this is a Procedural Fairings bug. I just went back to the ship in the VAB removed and re-added the fairing sides and it re-appeared in the stage list... well that is one satellite launch failure noted... need to check that PF is doing what it is supposed to before I launch.

Perhaps I've had the same "problem", took me quite a few minutes to realize there are 2 versions of each fairing, one under aerodynamics tab (which is ejectable) and the other under structural (which isn't [supposed to be]). Did you not use one instead of another by accident?

- - - Updated - - -

Also folks, if you could,

I have a question.

I am trying to use the mod's ability to build custom fuselages but it's always ejectable; it shouldn't be if I'm not mistaken. I use v.3.11, of the mod, I use the "fuselage" fairings under structural tab, not aerodynamics, and I use the "interstage fairing adapter" (with the tooltip of "...remember to add a decoupler if you need one" which I didn't), yet it cuts my craft in half.

Any ideas why?

Perhaps a solution/alternative?

Thank you.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Cyst
Because fun.

[ian9018]

So the strength of the interstage connections, the strength of the connection is based off of the interstage ring's breakforce/breaktorque? Tough as nails man... >.>

Edited March 19, 2015 by ian9018

[Starwaster]

I am trying to use the mod's ability to build custom fuselages but it's always ejectable; it shouldn't be if I'm not mistaken. I use v.3.11, of the mod, I use the "fuselage" fairings under structural tab, not aerodynamics, and I use the "interstage fairing adapter" (with the tooltip of "...remember to add a decoupler if you need one" which I didn't), yet it cuts my craft in half.

Any ideas why?

Perhaps a solution/alternative?

Thank you.

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement.

[Kurld]

re: being able to control the shape of the fairings: I know there are structural fairings, but they seem to be even less adjustable than the interstage/aero ones.

[Northstar1989]

@e-dog

Hi,

It's a great mod you've got here- and has been a must-have (along with FAR, RealFuels, DRE, RSS 64K, and Procedural Parts) for my KSP installs for some time now!

However, the tech-limits are currently much too restrictive. For instance, it's impossible to build fairings larger than 3 meters in diameter when you have Heavier Rocketry- at which point mods like NovaPunch2 and (if I'm not mistaken- I don't currently play with it) KW Rocketry already have 3.75 meter fuel tanks and engines available... This is a huge issue for me as I tend to use a lot of interstage fairings for the control equipment (reaction wheels, batteries, etc.) for Space-X style launch stage recoveries!

I would like to see a new set of tech-limits that are a bit looser: with large enough diameters allowed that I can at least build interstage fairings for the largest NovaPunch2/ KW Rocketry size-class of engines available at any given tech-level. Something similar to the following re-balance I proposed for Procedural Parts so that I could at least stack appropriately-sized procedural fuel tanks on top of my NovaPunch/ KW Rocketry engines, and which OtherBarry approved of using in future versions of Procedural Parts by Private Message:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106975-0-90-Procedural-Parts-Parts-the-way-you-want-em-v1-0-Jan-11?p=1779472&viewfull=1#post1779472

So, umm, what do you think of using the new tech-limits I posted?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/106975-0-90-Procedural-Parts-Parts-the-way-you-want-em-v1-0-Jan-11?p=1779472&viewfull=1#post1779472

Regards,

Northstar

Hey, yeah, saw them, they look fine. I'm rather busy IRL atm, so I really don't have the time for PP. If you want to submit a pull request on github, I'll happily accept that, otherwise I'm on holidays from easter friday, so I plan on getting to tech limits and Karbonite support done then.

Basically, I would like to be able to build Procedural Fairings with bases at least the same diameter as the ones in Procedural Parts for a given tech-level... This is especially important for players like me who use RealFuels and Real Solar System (6.4x scale in my case), because I need extremely large rockets just to get small payloads to orbit with the higher Delta-V requirements and reduced fuel-density...

While I'm at it, I would also very much like to relax the max diameter a bit once players unlock Experimental Rocketry (which is an extra node beyond the stock tech tree anyways- and certainly represents slightly futuristic technology). Currently the fairings and thrust plates are limited to 10 meters- the same base diameter as the Saturn V in real life. However, Saturn V was 1960's technology, and substantially larger rockets were proposed that could have been built even back then (Sea Dragon, for instance- a design which was validated by NASA engineers and could have been built if there had been any mission requiring such a large payload- was 23 meters in diameter at the base...)

In Sandbox fairings and thrust plates go up to 50 meters in diameter, and I would like to see them go up to 25 or 30 meters in diameter in Career Mode (so I can build Sea Dragon sized rockets in Career Mode- which will still be insanely expensive) instead of being limited to 10 meters max... If the tech-limits earlier in the tree were loosened like I suggest (so players can at least build interstage fairings wide enough for their largest Novapunch2 or KW Rocketry launch-stages), than having a higher limit at the end of the tree would help maintain a sense of continuous progress. It would also help prevent Procedural Fairings from being as much of a limiting-factor on the maximum size of procedural rockets once players have unlocked the whole tech tree- Procedural Parts already removes all size restrictions once players unlock Meta-Materials...

e-dog, if you'd like, I could write up a new tech-limits file for Procedural Fairings just like I did for Procedural Parts. Would that be helpful?

Also, one last issue- the fairing bases (particularly for the Interstage Fairings) don't currently scale in a manner that would be very mass-efficient for rocket design. Rather than scaling mostly in two dimensions, with at most a small increase in height with increasing width, they seem to scale at or close to a simple linear scale-up of the base in all directions. The result is that when you use very wide fairing bases (say the 50 meter bases that are possible in Sandbox) you even up with very, very tall fairing bases as well.

This is unrealistic (the thing that really matters in determining is the ratio of base height to total fairing height- a 2 meter tall fairing shouldn't magically require twice as tall a base just because you increased the diameter from 3 meters to 6 meters...) and drives up the physical size of the bases (and if I'm not mistaken the mass and cost as well) with the cube of the diameter instead of at or close to the square of the diameter as would be realistic... Also, taller bases means you require a taller fairing just to clear the base at all, which adds additional mass and cost to the rocket beyond the increased mass/cost of the fairing relative to the diameter. I would like to eventually see this issue fixed if it's possible so that fairing bases remain of an approximately constant height (perhaps with a *slight* increase in height with increasing diameter) and scale in two dimensions instead of three... The sooner this could be implemented, the better- but I understand if due to the complexity of coding/modeling something like this you didn't want to tackle it for quite a while... I wanted to make sure you were aware of the issue- and encourage you to fix it sooner rather than later...

Regards,

Northstar

P.S. Feel free to let me know here, or by Private Message, if you would like to have me draw up a new set of tech-limits. Please let me know any concerns you have I didn't address here with these proposed changes, or if there are any other information you desire, etc. If nothing else, please let me know if and why, if you decide not to do anything about the currently over-restrictive Career Mode tech-limits...

Edited March 19, 2015 by Northstar1989

[undercoveryankee]

However, the tech-limits are currently much too restrictive. For instance, it's impossible to build fairings larger than 3 meters in diameter when you have Heavier Rocketry- at which point mods like NovaPunch2 and (if I'm not mistaken- I don't currently play with it) KW Rocketry already have 3.75 meter fuel tanks and engines available... This is a huge issue for me as I tend to use a lot of interstage fairings for the control equipment (reaction wheels, batteries, etc.) for Space-X style launch stage recoveries!.

I don't know NovaPunch, but I can address KW.

KW introduces 3.75m parts in Very Heavy Rocketry. That's the same tier of the tech tree as Heavy Aerodynamics, which has the PF 6-meter unlock, and Meta-Materials, which has the KW 3.75m interstage decoupler. KW's fixed 3.75m fairings are one tier earlier in Advanced Aerodynamics. Since I leave the KW fairings installed and use them for payloads that fit the standard sizes, that placement works for me.

If you strip the fixed-size fairings out of KW to reduce the number of parts you're loading, the new PF sizes should probably unlock one tier earlier where the KW fairings would, so you don't have to unlock two separate 550-point nodes before you can take advantage of either.

If I were using NovaPunch and had size-3 engines in the 160-point tier, I would probably edit the PF config locally to make size-3 interstages available there. But if you follow NovaPunch's progression in the standard package, you end up with limits that don't affect anyone who isn't using NovaPunch.

[Cyst]

Kerbal Joint Reinforcement.

Gesundheit.

.

.

.

...What in the name of sweet potatoes is that?

[RainDreamer]

Gesundheit.

.

.

.

...What in the name of sweet potatoes is that?

What is "Gesundheit?" I know it is german for "health" or something similar, but I am lost on the context here.

Anyway, Kerbal Joint Reinforcement is this nifty mod that does a lot of things in the background to ensure your rocket just doesn't disassemble itself.

[undercoveryankee]

What is "Gesundheit?" I know it is german for "health" or something similar, but I am lost on the context here.

Anyway, Kerbal Joint Reinforcement is this nifty mod that does a lot of things in the background to ensure your rocket just doesn't disassemble itself.

In at least parts of the English-speaking world, "Gesundheit" is the traditional thing to say when someone sneezes. So you hear people say it sarcastically to mean "that made about as much sense as a sneeze" or "that contributed to the conversation about as much as a sneeze."

[Northstar1989]

What is "Gesundheit?" I know it is german for "health" or something similar, but I am lost on the context here.

Anyway, Kerbal Joint Reinforcement is this nifty mod that does a lot of things in the background to ensure your rocket just doesn't disassemble itself.

In at least parts of the English-speaking world, "Gesundheit" is the traditional thing to say when someone sneezes. So you hear people say it sarcastically to mean "that made about as much sense as a sneeze" or "that contributed to the conversation about as much as a sneeze."

"Gesundheit" is a word that means "Good Health". Hence the "Gesundheit Institute" founded by the real life Patch Adams (an extremely lovely man who I've have the opportunity to actually meet... Unusually for a doctor, he likes to give people hugs, but otherwise he's nothing like the Disney-fied version played by Robin Williams- I mean he wears a polka-dot CLOWN SUIT everywhere he goes... OK, maybes he's a *bit* like the Disney-fied version played by Robin Williams... )

Regards,

Northstar

Edited March 20, 2015 by Northstar1989