Stock fairings: Procedural or not?

[Bill Phil]

Wait wait wait...

So, you guys are saying " Don't force your way to play ( non proc parts) on us!" When you're trying to do force yours on US?

Just sayin'.

[cpast]

I really don't see how any of that is Lego-like. Lego-like, as I understand it, means that components are taken as given. You have no ability to make tweaks to parts; you have what's in the box and that's it. Your task is to use fixed parts in creative ways. You combine parts very simply; you don't have to do anything complicated to attach things, you just stick them together (provided that they're designed to be attached in the manner you're attaching them). The amazing thing is how much can be accomplished without any customization of the blocks in any way; standard 2x4 blocks can produce amazing things, and you don't have to let people design their parts to have them do whatever sorts of stuff they want.

[Bill Phil]

Lego like DOES mean you take the parts out of the box and build with them. I mean, with standard lego bricks you have millions of combinations with only ten of them. I like that about KSP. I've loved Legos for my whole life, and combining that same thing with space is truly amazing. I would be fine if everyone had the OPTION of either. I like working inside limits but still pulling through in the end. That's a challenge.

[tater]

If you think there are only 10 legos… you don't have a small child

When I was a kid, yeah. My son's legos are way better, no caveats.

[Tuareg]

Wait wait wait...

So, you guys are saying " Don't force your way to play ( non proc parts) on us!" When you're trying to do force yours on US?

Just sayin'.

just sayin' that with proc fairing u can make standard and non standard size parts. with fixed u can make only standard. who is forcing what?

its like: "dont force ur freedome on me"...

Edited January 27, 2015 by Tuareg

[Bill Phil]

If you think there are only 10 legos… you don't have a small child

When I was a kid, yeah. My son's legos are way better, no caveats.

I mean if you only have 10 2*4 stud pieces. There's obviously millions if pieces.

[Brotoro]

Because Lego is about snapping together multiple fixed-size parts; you have a fixed group of blocks, at fixed dimensions and fixed shapes, and do not get to do things like make a tall 2x4 of just the right height because you don't want to stack short 2x4s. If you consider making custom parts to be legolike, you and I played with very different Lego sets growing up.

I was just building a rover in KSP...and I was offsetting parts into other parts, and rotating parts that have been snapped into place... all stuff you can't do with legos. Let's not push the Lego analogy to far. This is KSP, not Lego.

[Daze]

I'm very happy that they are going for procedural, it's the bettet choice for everyone:

Pro fixed person: you can simply storage the payload inside the fairings in a realistic way (as i do) and still have a fairing that looks "fixed"

Pro proc person: they can simply make CRAZY payload and pay a little more with drag

Another thought... It's funny how people overracted for a "realistic aero" that would have ruined their game but actually they are overracting for a thing (proc fairings) that are exactly in the "funny" and non realistic style of KSP that people blamed against pro-realism player

[m4v]

I don't like procedural parts mainly because they increases the likelihood of breaking physics due to connecting parts with high mass ratios (see here) and explosions being less interesting because a big chunk of your rocket goes "poof" since is just one part.

But in particular with proc fairings I feel that they trivialise the problem of making an aerodynamic rocket, since no matter the size of the payload, you just put a fairing and problem solved, hence when I started playing with FAR proc fairings was a mod I removed. Also ever since Squad introduced part offset and removed the part clipping restriction, fitting a payload into a fairing is much less of the issue it used to be.

Edited January 27, 2015 by m4v

[rkman]

Current stock engine fairings are procedural, just not as flexible as the PF mod.

Hasn't Squad recently said fairings will be procedural out of necessity?

[vexx32]

Aye, Maxmaps said that very thing on the last Squadcast stream.

[Jouni]

I'm very happy that they are going for procedural, it's the bettet choice for everyone:

Pro fixed person: you can simply storage the payload inside the fairings in a realistic way (as i do) and still have a fairing that looks "fixed"

Pro proc person: they can simply make CRAZY payload and pay a little more with drag

They're not a better choice for everyone.

As I've said in another thread, the issue between fixed and procedural fairings is similar to game balance. From one perspective, there's no need for balance in any game, no matter whether it's single player or multiplayer, competitive or not. If the players want balance, they can always choose to follow self-imposed rules to avoid the unbalanced aspects of the game. By not making the game balanced, the developers can often make it more flexible and support more diverse playstyles.

Still, people usually enjoy balanced games more, even though they're almost always more restrictive than unbalanced games. Maybe they find the challenges more real or the game more fun, when they don't have to avoid the best solutions they know, because the solutions would be too good. Maybe they just enjoy the game more, if they can just play it, without having to remind themselves what they're not allowed to do. Whatever the reason, people often find balanced and unbalanced games completely different, even when the unbalanced game would allow the same gameplay as the balanced game.

For similar reasons, fixed fairings are a completely different thing than simulating the same fairings with procedural fairings. Default choices also matter. A game, where procedural fairings are the default and fixed fairings an alternate option, is going to be developed into a different direction than a game, where fixed fairings are the default option.

[rkman]

Because Lego is about snapping together multiple fixed-size parts; you have a fixed group of blocks, at fixed dimensions and fixed shapes, and do not get to do things like make a tall 2x4 of just the right height because you don't want to stack short 2x4s. If you consider making custom parts to be legolike, you and I played with very different Lego sets growing up.

If KSP parts would be designed so that both part dimensions and part attachments would snap to a 'universal part grid', it would be more like lego and remove a lot of tedium involved in attaching parts in such a way that it looks good (not having to translate/rotate parts a few millimeters just for aesthetic reasons).

Any procedural parts would then automatically snap to the 'universal part grid', because there would be no attach nodes and no surfaces in-between the grid.

[KSK]

But in particular with proc fairings I feel that they trivialise the problem of making an aerodynamic rocket, since no matter the size of the payload, you just put a fairing and problem solved, hence when I started playing with FAR proc fairings was a mod I removed. Also ever since Squad introduced part offset and removed the part clipping restriction, fitting a payload into a fairing is much less of the issue it used to be.

Hang on - don't those two points cancel out somewhere? Procedural fairings make aerodynamic rockets trivial - but presumably fixed size fairings are also trivialized because of part offset. So does it actually matter that much which one we get in stock?

Anyhow - covering up a huge unwieldy payload with a procedural fairing does not an aerodynamic rocket make. It'll help a bit, but I'm guessing that a hammer shaped rocket is still going to have significantly more drag than a nice tapered one.

[FishInferno]

Anyhow - covering up a huge unwieldy payload with a procedural fairing does not an aerodynamic rocket make. It'll help a bit, but I'm guessing that a hammer shaped rocket is still going to have significantly more drag than a nice tapered one.

Proof that Yoda has a forum account.

Anyway, somebody tested this in NEAR a few pages back and proved that a large mushroom rocket isn't very aerodynamic

[Jouni]

Anyway, somebody tested this in NEAR a few pages back and proved that a large mushroom rocket isn't very aerodynamic

In that test, the rocket was guided by MechJeb, which was set to allow extremely high angles of attack. A bit later, I launched an even more ridiculous mushroom rocket in FAR, and got it to orbit with a bit more drag than usual.

[Daze]

They're not a better choice for everyone.

As I've said in another thread, the issue between fixed and procedural fairings is similar to game balance. From one perspective, there's no need for balance in any game, no matter whether it's single player or multiplayer, competitive or not. If the players want balance, they can always choose to follow self-imposed rules to avoid the unbalanced aspects of the game. By not making the game balanced, the developers can often make it more flexible and support more diverse playstyles.

Still, people usually enjoy balanced games more, even though they're almost always more restrictive than unbalanced games. Maybe they find the challenges more real or the game more fun, when they don't have to avoid the best solutions they know, because the solutions would be too good. Maybe they just enjoy the game more, if they can just play it, without having to remind themselves what they're not allowed to do. Whatever the reason, people often find balanced and unbalanced games completely different, even when the unbalanced game would allow the same gameplay as the balanced game.

For similar reasons, fixed fairings are a completely different thing than simulating the same fairings with procedural fairings. Default choices also matter. A game, where procedural fairings are the default and fixed fairings an alternate option, is going to be developed into a different direction than a game, where fixed fairings are the default option.

Well the only problem i can see is that people who like fixed fairing woldn't do realistic payload only because there's no effective limitations

[Jouni]

Well the only problem i can see is that people who like fixed fairing woldn't do realistic payload only because there's no effective limitations

People often find it less fun to play with self-imposed restrictions than with restrictions imposed by the game. If it's possible to have ridiculous fairings, people might not find fitting the payload inside the fairing that fun, even if they choose to use only reasonable fairings.

As I said, game balance is always unnecessary, but people still find it fun.

[Daze]

People often find it less fun to play with self-imposed restrictions than with restrictions imposed by the game. If it's possible to have ridiculous fairings, people might not find fitting the payload inside the fairing that fun, even if they choose to use only reasonable fairings.

As I said, game balance is always unnecessary, but people still find it fun.

So because people can't self-impose objective the majority of casual player shouldn't """""have fun"""""?

[Jouni]

So because people can't self-impose objective the majority of casual player shouldn't """""have fun"""""?

Are you opposed to all efforts to balance the game as well? After all, game balancing almost always means making something impossible, in order to make the remaining parts of the game more "fun" for some people.

[Daze]

Are you opposed to all efforts to balance the game as well? After all, game balancing almost always means making something impossible, in order to make the remaining parts of the game more "fun" for some people.

No, simply because it's not a fact of "balancing", pfairing with a drag that increase with radius it's perfectly balanced imo

[Jouni]

No, simply because it's not a fact of "balancing", pfairing with a drag that increase with radius it's perfectly balanced imo

There are basically two ways to balance a game. You can find things that are too easy and make them harder, effectively making some things that used to be possible impossible. Alternatively you can find things that are too hard and make them easier. Unless you always choose to make the game easier, you are making some things impossible, if you try to balance the game.

Whether extremely wide fairings would be balanced or not has nothing to do with this branch of the discussion. What I'm arguing is that more options and more flexibility don't always make the game better. People often find fun in the restrictions the game has.

[Daze]

There are basically two ways to balance a game. You can find things that are too easy and make them harder, effectively making some things that used to be possible impossible. Alternatively you can find things that are too hard and make them easier. Unless you always choose to make the game easier, you are making some things impossible, if you try to balance the game.

Whether extremely wide fairings would be balanced or not has nothing to do with this branch of the discussion. What I'm arguing is that more options and more flexibility don't always make the game better. People often find fun in the restrictions the game has.

I repeat, if people in a sandbox game, can't made self-restrictions it's their fault, it's not a fact of balancing

[Jouni]

I repeat, if people in a sandbox game, can't made self-restrictions it's their fault, it's not a fact of balancing

I wasn't talking about balancing in some particular sandbox game, but in all games. Balancing is completely unnecessary even in competitive multiplayer games, because the players can always choose to follow self-imposed restrictions. Many people still want the game to be balanced, because the forced restrictions make the game more fun, even if the same gameplay would be possible without them.

For another comparison, go to The Spacecraft Exchange. How many ships can you find there that look good, assuming that they were created by a competent 3D modeller with the proper tools and enough time? My guess: 0. The ships only start looking good, when you take the restrictions imposed by KSP into account.

[tater]

If hammer/mushroom rockets should not be a thing (because of physics), then the new aero model should make sure they are not a thing in game. Period.

The limit on fairings should be physics, not some arbitrary notion of what a fairing should look like, or some arbitrary sizes determined by… committee. I personally don't care as long as I can fit reasonable KSP landers inside a fairing.