Proper Fairings ASAP

[KAP1985]

with all due respect, I think customers have every right to ask for changes they feel would fix things

[OrbitusII]

As long as the fairings break up like solar panels because they haven't been coded to jettison as a single piece yet we'll be fine. I'm fine with confetti fairings for the time being, but I'd like to see them jettison as single pieces by the time 1.0 comes out (assuming it is just a limitation of how the fairings are currently working)

Heck, a tweakable option could be cool: just toggle the "Jettison Together" option on the fairing base to get confetti or clamshell fairings, no sweat.

[NasaSpace101]

As long as the fairings break up like solar panels because they haven't been coded to jettison as a single piece yet we'll be fine. I'm fine with confetti fairings for the time being, but I'd like to see them jettison as single pieces by the time 1.0 comes out (assuming it is just a limitation of how the fairings are currently working)

Heck, a tweakable option could be cool: just toggle the "Jettison Together" option on the fairing base to get confetti or clamshell fairings, no sweat.

You sir are indeed correct.

But seriously squad, chip fairings?

[Guest]

I missed something? They do not plan to implement fairings as in great Procedural Fairings mod?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/39512-0-90-Procedural-Fairings-3-11-manual-shape-controls-%28December-17%29

[TeddyDD]

@WildLynx No.

Procedural Fairings have predefined shape per part (so you can attach egg shaped one or conic shaped) It's defined in config file (as Bézier curve or something). You can adjust fairing diameter.

Squad version is different. You create fairing shape by youself by adding points by clicking. It's like a polyline. You can create any shape but curvature will be only approximation (through adding lot of points) Not really great idea while most fairings looks like this http://wordlesstech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/The-Most-Powerful-Space-Rocket-How-It-Works-2.jpg Squad decide to use this method because the whole "lego like feeling" thingy.

IMHO the best solution would be implementing Procedural Fairings method with simple curve editor so user could define any fairing they need(smoothly curved and sharp if will)

[OrbitusII]

I missed something? They do not plan to implement fairings as in great Procedural Fairings mod?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/39512-0-90-Procedural-Fairings-3-11-manual-shape-controls-%28December-17%29

From what I've heard and read, they're not going with Procedural Fairings because the way it's being implemented now allows for much more control over the fairing shape. You attach individual fairing sections and adjust them, then repeat until the fairing is complete, similar to how KW or NovaPunch do their fairings except with extra customization. Unfortunately, this method of fairing construction does lead to confetti fairings where each section gets separated when the fairing gets jettisoned.

[curtquarquesso]

I don't think that's how fairings are going to work for the everyday player. I'm pretty sure that's just a showcase of how you can get them to work in sections. I like the idea of being able to chop up fairings into sections, and I also like having nice, long, smooth payload fairings. I'm pretty sure the image they released was just for demonstration purposes. Anyone else concur?

[GusTurbo]

I don't think that's how fairings are going to work for the everyday player. I'm pretty sure that's just a showcase of how you can get them to work in sections. I like the idea of being able to chop up fairings into sections, and I also like having nice, long, smooth payload fairings. I'm pretty sure the image they released was just for demonstration purposes. Anyone else concur?

I think it's likely that you're correct, but you never know. I would prefer to know sooner by talking about it rather than be surprised.

[Bill Phil]

I don't think that's how fairings are going to work for the everyday player. I'm pretty sure that's just a showcase of how you can get them to work in sections. I like the idea of being able to chop up fairings into sections, and I also like having nice, long, smooth payload fairings. I'm pretty sure the image they released was just for demonstration purposes. Anyone else concur?

Then why not make a statement...? Like:

Squad: Here's a side by side comparison of two ways of fairing sep: *shows clamshell sep and chips sep*

[Guest]

@WildLynx No.

Procedural Fairings have predefined shape per part (so you can attach egg shaped one or conic shaped) It's defined in config file (as Bézier curve or something). You can adjust fairing diameter.

Squad version is different. You create fairing shape by youself by adding points by clicking. It's like a polyline. You can create any shape but curvature will be only approximation (through adding lot of points) Not really great idea while most fairings looks like this http://wordlesstech.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/The-Most-Powerful-Space-Rocket-How-It-Works-2.jpg Squad decide to use this method because the whole "lego like feeling" thingy.

IMHO the best solution would be implementing Procedural Fairings method with simple curve editor so user could define any fairing they need(smoothly curved and sharp if will)

That's terrible. PF doing it's job pretty good, I rarely need to make any adjustments. Actually, there is more tweaks then just diameter.

Add points by clicking ... I rarely click on something in the VAB/SPH without detaching some part by accident! Click thru bug is annoying as hell, as well as mouse click lag bug. How I supposed to define curves by myself without tearing craft apart?

I usually move camera way away from the craft in VAB/SPH before accessing any menus ...

P.S.

1.0 Hype looks more like 1.0 nightmare to me lately. Not only changes they announced look bad for me, but modders, cast Bless and Giant Strength on them, stopping updating their mods to avoid doing their work twice.

Before 0.9 I was thinking like: SQUAD, optimize the game and add something interesting.

Now I think: SQUAD, don't break stuff, or at least, not too much. And increasing memory footprint by 25% is well enough. Ok, 30% is still good.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Guest

[curtquarquesso]

Then why not make a statement...? Like:

Squad: Here's a side by side comparison of two ways of fairing sep: *shows clamshell sep and chips sep*

Because it's a beta, and because it's a teaser, not a full-on explanation of how it works.

[LABHOUSE]

☺☻â¤☻☺ If it seperates in two parts

â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘

░░☹░░░░░░░ ☹░░

â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘

░░░░░☹☹☹☹░░░░░If it stays like this

░░░☹☹░░░░☹☹░░░

â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘â–‘

Edited April 19, 2015 by LABHOUSE

[Bill Phil]

Because it's a beta, and because it's a teaser, not a full-on explanation of how it works.

If it's beta, why use teasers?

Showing off the capabilities/flexibility would mean mutliple images of a bunch of different things. That's not happening.

[TeddyDD]

Not only changes they announced look bad for me, but modders, cast Bless and Giant Strength on them, stopping updating their mods to avoid doing their work twice.

Don't worry about free (free as in speech) mods. They do not disappear. There always is someone who will maintain this mods. Also I'm going use PF after 1.0 hits and I think many users also will. So this mod probably will be OK

About non-free mods... Well, they will die sooner or later. So personally I don't care.

[waterlubber]

I vote for stock integration of Procedural Fairings!

[Bill Phil]

I vote for stock integration of Procedural Fairings!

I don't vote for that.

These fairings are "moldable"... and the lack of clamshell separation can be fixed.

I'm surprised that THIS, of all things in KSP, is what gets to people.

[regex]

I'm surprised that THIS, of all things in KSP, is what gets to people.

They've addressed most everything else, the next update is looking pretty good. We'll never get realistic planets out of stock, unfortunately, and there are some issues that will probably wait until Unity 5, and delta-V displays are confirmed planned, so really it's just little details that are left.

[magnemoe]

From what I've heard and read, they're not going with Procedural Fairings because the way it's being implemented now allows for much more control over the fairing shape. You attach individual fairing sections and adjust them, then repeat until the fairing is complete, similar to how KW or NovaPunch do their fairings except with extra customization. Unfortunately, this method of fairing construction does lead to confetti fairings where each section gets separated when the fairing gets jettisoned.

I think KW or NovaPunch fairings opens clam shell style even if build from parts, you first add the bottom adapter, then put decopler and payload on top, then you add the rings and the top.

Then you drop it it split down the vertical seam and from the base, I thought I remember having to use seperatrions on the larger ones.

Main downside of premade fairings is the huge part count and the limited size, I regularly make stuff who is 7.5 meter wide.

They also showed some preview where they draw the fairing as an line around the payload.

The seperation picture looks like seperate parts but why is the two straight body pieces different, one is slightly shorter than the other and is yellow on inside.

I suspect that the upper section is not straight but angle a bit, this causes it to get an yellow inside like the top part. I guess the top is an standard nosecone, this let us have insterstage fairing pretty free but we have to get rid of the nosecone as in seperator.

[Bill Phil]

They've addressed most everything else, the next update is looking pretty good. We'll never get realistic planets out of stock, unfortunately, and there are some issues that will probably wait until Unity 5, and delta-V displays are confirmed planned, so really it's just little details that are left.

KSP should not have realistic planets. It's scaled down for the sake of gameplay, but that's getting off-topic... So I'll drop it.

I thought the Dv Displays might get canceled?

This is more addressed to the KSP Community here:

We should be happy for all of the other things in 1.0.

New aero

Resources

Fairings

Heatshields

Etc...

At least we're getting fairings. That's what we should be glad about, and then being disgruntled about the bag-o-chips fairings is okay. But don't go crazy over it.

[LethalDose]

First off: Again, I vote for this being fixed because I don't want to have to fly around a whole cloud of my own debris after fairing separation.

I'm surprised that THIS, of all things in KSP, is what gets to people.

No, this is just what gets people and that we're allowed to talk about (There are plenty of things that are on the "Do not suggest list") or what gets us and has been recently announced. Just because people are discussing/criticizing/complaining about this decision definitely does NOT mean there are not other issues with the game.

Edited April 19, 2015 by LethalDose

[SpenSpaceCorp]

Hi everybody,

I have read some comments in the suggestions thread regarding this topic asking for a poll, so I decided I would make one.

How would you like to see stock fairings separate? Would you rather have fairings separate as clamshells or as confetti similarly seen in the Squadcast summary? I know I would like to see an option to separate as either, and on top of that, how many sections separate. For instance, interstages could be made by creating a fairing that separates into only one piece.

I am by no means trying to bash Squad or jump to conclusions based on the pictures we have received (as things change - such as the toroidal 8 fuel tank), I want to see the general interest of the community on this topic.

EDIT: Keep up the excellent work Squad!

Edited April 19, 2015 by SpenSpaceCorp

[Scoundrel]

IMHO, after a bit of searching through the forums and a thorough examination of the screenshot, I have come to the conclusion that the picture is showing off the ability of the player to determine where and how the fairing separates. I strongly suspect that it will in fact default to a clamshell style of fairing separation, though, for the purposes of interstage separation, HarvesteR likely has designed it so that we can do some inventive stuff with the fairings for whatever weirdness we players decide to create.

Furthermore, I suspect that the only reason someone from Squad hasn't confirmed or denied this at this time is because they're still testing it and can't say with any certainty that it will be how the release version functions.

[Master Tao]

Duplicate threads merged, which mostly means that this thread now has a poll.

[SpenSpaceCorp]

Duplicate threads merged, which mostly means that this thread now has a poll.

Why thank you haha!

[panzer1b]

i agree that fairings (assuming we cant actually customize how they fall apart) should be in whole pieces and not kessler style. While i personally am not one to give a crap about 100% realism, i feel itd look better splitting into 2-4 whole pieces and not alot of small junk.

Now id very much love to be able to configure how many petals there are when they split, as almost all of my designs use 3 or 6 way symmetry, and id very much like to have the fairings split into 3 or 6 parts as well. Not that im gonna complain if i dont get that option, but itd be nice to keep them with the trend of my sci-fi designs.