Devnote Tuesday: Fairing well

[Bill Phil]

When you put a procedural fairing on a rocket, you're not just slapping a part on there either. It's being built by the Kerbals for that rocket. You just don't see that happening behind the scenes. But that is what is represented by procedural part.

I'm saying that it doesn't fit that well with KSP.

Perhaps a morph-able fairing?

- - - Updated - - -

But then there is this, and it baffles me.

What exacly in the context of KSP makes it cheaty? What fairing didn't obviously go well? And what isn't "a lot of engineering" when it comes to building rockets?

the context of KSP that it's cheaty in, is the context of building. You put work into building the rockets. that's an equal part of the gameplay as flying is.

The Skylab fairing actually failed somewhat during flight. One of the main solar panels was damaged and the sunshield were completely taken off.

The fairing has to fit an ever changing payload. Unless you want to, maybe STANDARDIZE it.

[cpast]

Which is why I'm happy that the system now seems to involve some amount of actually *building* the fairing, instead of being automagical.

[regex]

Perhaps a morph-able fairing?

If I take your meaning, that's the exact same thing as procedural. The method whereby it is procedural does not change the fact that it's procedural.

the context of KSP that it's cheaty in, is the context of building. You put work into building the rockets. that's an equal part of the gameplay as flying is.

The fact that KSP allows everone to build their carrier rockets in whatever manner they want, including clipping tanks into each other to make massively wide lifters and other such craziness, precludes predefined fairing sizes. My carrier rockets are entirely different than yours (in the same manner that POCKOCMOC, NASA, and ESA use different fairings and carrier rockets), that's the whole point of KSP. Therefore, my fairings should be entirely different than yours. Procedural fairings make sense. Edited February 25, 2015 by regex
grammar, how do I?

[basic.syntax]

There's a separate thread about procedural fairings. In it, the argument was between adding various fixed-size fairing parts, and automatic "procedural" fairings for stages. Because career-mode KSP already forces players to work within limits of parts count, mass, and size - an argument can be made that designing payloads to fit inside one of the (theoretically proposed) fixed-size fairings - is a good extension to already existing craft-construction gameplay. Fully procedural, automatic fairing enclosures for payloads seemed like a missed opportunity to extend thoughtful design challenge, that is already in the game via career-mode VAB / SPH limitations.

Edit:

clipping tanks into each other to make massively wide lifters and other such craziness, precludes predefined fairing sizes.

that's a great point. Part clipping is a thing now, I use it for rovers and structural parts. New arguments about how much is too much, "purists" vs. artistry. I think clipping stuff enables some very cool artistic designs, love looking at KSP recreations of real world stuff - but I'd feel "wrong" going to the extreme of hiding all my reaction wheels, batteries,

(other random parts)

inside a fuel tank. So for the less extreme ways I use part clipping, I would not cram a massive thing into a predefined small fairing.

What we will get sort of splits the difference between fixed-size and fully procedural, since a large fairing will eat into career-mode mass limits, and the cost will also go up with size.

Edited February 25, 2015 by basic.syntax

[Bill Phil]

If I take your meaning, that's the exact same thing as procedural. The method whereby it is procedural does not change the fact that it's procedural.

The fact that KSP allows everone to build their carrier rockets in whatever manner they want, including clipping tanks into each other to make massively wide lifters and other such craziness, precludes predefined fairing sizes. My carrier rockets are entirely different than yours (in the same manner that POCKOCMOC, NASA, and ESA use different fairings and carrier rockets), that's the whole point of KSP. Therefore, my fairings should be entirely different than yours. Procedural fairings make sense.

Morphable like clay. AS in the PLAYER morphs the fairing. Or build it as one part....

Your rockets are different mostly due to the mods you use.

If you played mostly stock, you'd probably build in a similar manner to me... and everyone else. But you don't play all-stock all that often.

KSP is about building. It's also a kind of puzzle. Puzzles aren't puzzles if all the pieces can change shape.

[regex]

Morphable like clay. AS in the PLAYER morphs the fairing. Or build it as one part....

In other words, it's procedural. The player procedurally-generates the part.

Your rockets are different mostly due to the mods you use.

If you played mostly stock, you'd probably build in a similar manner to me... and everyone else. But you don't play all-stock all that often.

The beauty of KSP is that, even if I use entirely stock parts, my rockets will be, and can be, entirely different than yours.

KSP is about building. It's also a kind of puzzle. Puzzles aren't puzzles if all the pieces can change shape.

KSP is many things to many people and allowing the parts to change shape or providing critical information (such as delta-V) does not, in any way, ruin the troubleshooting or puzzle aspect of the game (if developing a hybrid Buran/STS-style orbiter for RSS has taught me anything). Parts than can change their size or shape just give the player more options to design their craft without blasting their machine with additional memory-reducing parts. Edited February 25, 2015 by regex

[Nemrav]

Morphable like clay. AS in the PLAYER morphs the fairing. Or build it as one part....

Your rockets are different mostly due to the mods you use.

If you played mostly stock, you'd probably build in a similar manner to me... and everyone else. But you don't play all-stock all that often.

KSP is about building. It's also a kind of puzzle. Puzzles aren't puzzles if all the pieces can change shape.

Sorry Bill, but you missed Regex's point completely...

What he meant was that procedural does not mean the same as the procedural fairings mod... Procedural is much much broader than that....

You're defining procedural as one click and the computer does it for you, but procedural can be much more like the procedural wings mod, where you stretch the thing using keys (which is what Squad seems to be going for)

[NoMrBond]

If individuals wish to create their own limitations then there is nothing stopping them from creating their own standardised fairings using the shape creation tools and then locking them (in either PF or in the stock solution by HarvesteR's description), players can even save them as subassemblies

I don't get the ongoing argument about how everyone else is enjoying it wrong because individuals are enjoying it differently

Instead of wasting time worrying about who is enjoying it 'right' and who is enjoying it 'wrong', spend your time enjoying it for your own reasons.

[basic.syntax]

Mods and sandbox allow players to enjoy the game any way they like, I think that's awesome. The fixed-versus-procedural fairings discussion is mainly to ask what the stock career mode game should look like, what kinds of challenges should be baked into it. I will cope with whatever we eventually get, and am really looking forward to 1.0 for a ton more reasons than how Squad chooses to implement fairings

[Majorjim!]

You may find this lacking in details, but, its something to hang a hope on -

Edit: found the above in a search, but right on top of KSP tweets, this today - lol.

[Caelib]

It may be asking for too much, but I really feel like we're going to need to a petal-adapter with these fairings I'm thinking of something similar to what was used in the Apollo missions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_%28spacecraft%29#Spacecraft_Lunar_Module_Adapter_.28SLA.29

[regex]

It may be asking for too much, but I really feel like we're going to need to a petal-adapter with these fairings I'm thinking of something similar to what was used in the Apollo missions:

While undeniably cool, I personally think interstage fairings, especially if they can cone, would fit the bill pretty well there.

[KasperVld]

You may find this lacking in details, but, its something to hang a hope on -

Edit: found the above in a search, but right on top of KSP tweets, this today - lol.

Ah, that would be my bad, I didn't realize realchutes had been featured recently already

[basic.syntax]

Kasper, the Maxmaps tweet on Feb 6 looked like a general comment about some kind of possible design review for parachutes in KSP 1.0.

It wasn't connected to the Realchute mod.

[ArcFurnace]

Morphable like clay. AS in the PLAYER morphs the fairing. Or build it as one part....

You seem to be conflating "procedural fairings" (non-predefined-shape fairings) with Procedural Fairings (the mod). In Procedural Fairings you just place a fairing base and a fairing panel, and it automagically reshapes itself to fit the payload- am I right that you feel that this is "cheating"/"too easy" since it requires no effort from the player to ensure that the payload fits in the fairing? The actual description of how the fairings work by HarvesteR seems to imply that this is not the case for their implementation.

Felipe (HarvesteR): [...] place them in the editor and sculpt the fairing as you wish [...] During construction, you can place a fairing and build it up immediately after placement, or you can use Tweakable actions to edit it later. There are actions to delete, re-build and edit fairings at any time in the editor.

I see nothing in there about automatic fairing shaping, and several things about manual fairing shaping. If your desire is for fairings that are manually shaped by the player, you seem to be getting your wish.

[Caelib]

While undeniably cool, I personally think interstage fairings, especially if they can cone, would fit the bill pretty well there.

That would be perfect.

[Whirligig Girl]

Oh yes please! Something like realchutes would be great.

I would hate RealChutes integration. it's way too complicated. Changing parachutes would be fine, but not implementing something as advanced as RealChutes.

[Superfluous J]

How is allowing a lower part count (and thus, better performance) cheating? Personally, I would be really happy if I could knock off 40 parts from a complex design, because that means I can have more fun actually using it. It doesn't become more or less functional based on arbitrary part counts.

It was a sideways (and childish, really) slap at Bill Phil for his championing the stance that procedural fairings was "cheating" (his word). I'm both proud and ashamed of that post.

...which now that I'm reading more I see you found out

- - - Updated - - -

I would hate RealChutes integration. it's way too complicated. Changing parachutes would be fine, but not implementing something as advanced as RealChutes.

Agreed. I prefer how Tweakable Everything does it. Just the chutes we have now, that open slowly.

[NoMrBond]

The stock parachutes need their deployments significantly slowed

A tweakable toggle which switches the parachute autocut feature between vertical (default) and horizontal speed (for landing drogues or braking 'chutes) would also be very nice

My desire for parachutes which can handle larger parts is tempered by the growing part clutter, maybe if parachutes sized to the nodes they were attached to?

[basic.syntax]

Agree with above posts about minor tweaks to existing parachutes.

XL chute needs radial version... b/c the small chutes have both mounting types.

Excluding a possible stock-game balance decision, XL radial seems like it was overlooked.

[regex]

maybe if parachutes sized to the nodes they were attached to?

Please no. Stock Tweakscale would be much more flexible.

[cpast]

Agree with above posts about minor tweaks to existing parachutes.

XL chute needs radial version... b/c the small chutes have both mounting types.

Excluding a possible stock-game balance decision, XL radial seems like it was overlooked.

Isn't the radial in between small and large? Also, you can just add more radials if needed, which means it's a lot less important to have the XL one.

[basic.syntax]

Isn't the radial in between small and large? Also, you can just add more radials if needed, which means it's a lot less important to have the XL one.

Radial seems to have the same stats as the small one that sits on top of things. I'd like a radial XL to save on parts count. I'm using a bunch of XL's, to land a heavy EVE return ship.

[TheMoonRover]

The stock parachutes need their deployments significantly slowed

Somewhat like the parachute in the first ever release version: 0.7.3 (see the second linked thread in my signature)

Incidentally the Mk16 parachute, along with the AV-R8 Winglet, are the only two parts whose appearance has gone completely unchanged* since 0.7.3

*Although if anyone's wants the rest of the parts from 0.7.3, or any other deprecated stock parts, check out the first thread linked in my signature. In fact I contributed a few of them.

EDIT: Parachutes will HAVE to be changed in some way since their drag (like any other part) is multiplied by the mass.

Edited February 25, 2015 by TheMoonRover

[kofeyh]

The problem with procedural parts not being 'fixed' (and thus less cheat-worthy and or more like lego so more legitimate (or something?) I still don't get that argument by the way) is.. part count. That and it appears the mod in question (procedural fairings) is actually not well understood by quite a few. Leading to some assumptive reasoning.

We have many parts, even in career quite a few do not get used. Or they are used (due to forced progression) and then almost never used again. The part count is getting out of control and is dramatically impacting the amount of memory KSP requires. Remember, absolutely every texture and part is loaded on start. This is not an inexhaustible resource. So adding 20 fairing shapes to cover the "fixed" school of thought, for example, isn't really sustainable.

Finally - as it happens the current procedural fairing mod actually constrains the maximum size when used in career. You must unlock various tiers of parts, to unlock larger fairing capabilities. This emulates 'fixed' fairing sizes by limiting the maximum payload that will fit, without the horrendous part tax.

This mechanic (dynamic parts with defined, progression-based constraints in career) could easily be extended to any number of parts; fuel tanks, rcs tanks, batteries and a number of other components. Simplifying part count, yet maintaining the mechano or lego like nature many relish the challenge of.

It allows for the proverbial cake, and the eating of said. Note that I refer to career or science modes. Arguing for balance in sandbox (which thankfully doesn't seem to be happening) is a pointless exercise. Sandbox should be as as free of restrictions as possible. That, mostly, is the point.

Lastly, I can't imagine parachutes will remain unchanged given the change to the aerodynamics model; having said that, there's no clear indication they will be adversely impacted under the new model. Stock chutes work with NEAR or FAR, so I would be surprised if this hasn't already had some work done. Regardless, I'd rather see some smarter mechanics around 'chutes, rather than pure complexity for the sake of it.

Edited February 26, 2015 by kofeyh