Proper Fairings ASAP

[Temeter]

Way to blow things out of proportion. Just asking would have told you that we indeed have free choice, as with most things in KSP. So, since this is basically settled:

OP, your poll is a joke. What are you trying to achieve with that thing? If this is about getting a general opinion, then it failed hard. Giving the choice you're not favoring some mocking name a la 'confetti shell', even making the font italic, is around as manipulative as putting some giant pictures below telling people what to vote for, or limiting all other choices to thing you like more.

At this point it's just some thing where you try to tell people to support your own opinion. Which would be pretty low.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Temeter

[J.Random]

KW Rocketry and Procedural Fairings for me. Voted "Do not care". I'll probably delete this confetti crap from my install anyway.

To anyone who likes the confetti, I'll laugh at you when you try to recreate Constellation lander with it (upper half of the aeroshell decouples way before the lower one), for example.

Edited April 21, 2015 by J.Random

[sumghai]

KW Rocketry and Procedural Fairings for me. Voted "Do not care". I'll probably delete this confetti crap from my install anyway.

To anyone who likes the confetti, I'll laugh at you when you try to recreate Constellation lander with it (upper half of the aeroshell decouples way before the lower one), for example.

If you had read the prior posts (and quotes from SQUAD), you'll note that the confetti is, in fact, 100% optional. The stock fairings can, in fact, also be configured to jettison in a clamshell manner.

The only reason Maxmaps showed a picture of the confetti fairings is simply to demonstrate the precise level of control over individual segments - so you could, for instance, have partial fairing jettison for certain applications, or jettison very specific fairings for special flights.

[OrbitusII]

The only reason Maxmaps showed a picture of the confetti fairings is simply to demonstrate the precise level of control over individual segments...

In that case, it might have been nice to have multiple photos demonstrating both confetti and clamshell fairings as they're both possible, but then I'm sure we'd find something else to complain about.

At least Harvester himself was able to clear things up, it's good to know that he's thinking about and working on this issue as we debate the matter ourselves.

[J.Random]

The only reason Maxmaps showed a picture of the confetti fairings is simply to demonstrate the precise level of control over individual segments - so you could, for instance, have partial fairing jettison for certain applications, or jettison very specific fairings for special flights.

No, I haven't read all 12 pages in search of developers' posts. Ted have said that fairings are like broken solar panel parts. Do you remember having any control over specific solar panel segment? What I remember is that solar panel segments are uncontrollable, glitchy (dance around on the surface or react to kerbals climbing ladders, for example), locked to the vessel's frame of reference and disappear after you leave physics range of that specific vessel they're attached to (or reload), like most of the engine fairings. I am reserved to my opinion that fairings we have now are better until I actually see what Squad has made.

[basic.syntax]

This just posted, an ultra-short video showing the buildup process (link) but only about 2 video frames devoted to separation, because the rocket was still under high acceleration, lol.

[Bill Phil]

No, I haven't read all 12 pages in search of developers' posts. Ted have said that fairings are like broken solar panel parts. Do you remember having any control over specific solar panel segment? What I remember is that solar panel segments are uncontrollable, glitchy (dance around on the surface or react to kerbals climbing ladders, for example), locked to the vessel's frame of reference and disappear after you leave physics range of that specific vessel they're attached to (or reload), like most of the engine fairings. I am reserved to my opinion that fairings we have now are better until I actually see what Squad has made.

HarverstR said so in a DevNote, though...

A few pages back, someone dug up what Harv said.

[Master Tao]

If you had read the prior posts (and quotes from SQUAD), you'll note that the confetti is, in fact, 100% optional. The stock fairings can, in fact, also be configured to jettison in a clamshell manner.

The only reason Maxmaps showed a picture of the confetti fairings is simply to demonstrate the precise level of control over individual segments - so you could, for instance, have partial fairing jettison for certain applications, or jettison very specific fairings for special flights.

I wouldn't be so sure. Looking at the quote Scoundrel found, it seems there's been some wishful misinterpretation of HarvesteR's words:

... we can have full control over how the fairing will come apart once it’s jettisoned.

To me, that "we" means the devs rather than players, meaning the code could be extended for clamshell fairings, but that feature may not have been implemented.

Try them out when 1.0 is released next week to see what they actually do in the release version. If they're not to your liking, you can post a feedback report and I'm sure we can help you find a few mods that meet your aesthetic sense. I'm partial to [thread=39512]Procedural Fairings[/thread] with [thread=68892]blackheart's textures[/thread].

[Superfluous J]

it seems there's been some wishful misinterpretation of HarvesteR's words

Interesting. I find your interpretation to be almost hopefully negative. As much as you think we are trying to read into the quote that we're getting what we want in spite of the evidence, it seems to me that you are trying to find ways to read the quote so you will NOT get what you want.

[basic.syntax]

I also wondered about different possible interpretations of "we" in HarvesteR's explanation. While it is possible to program for all sorts of combinations and outcomes, if previous features (and complaints by experienced players) can be a guide: they also don't want new players to get confused by a bewildering number of controls and options. I really don't know how much customization stock fairings will have, we've only been shown a few screenshots, and today's short video... is very short. Only 6 days to go

[nholzric]

I also wondered about different possible interpretations of "we" in HarvesteR's explanation. While it is possible to program for all sorts of combinations and outcomes, if previous features (and complaints by experienced players) can be a guide: they also don't want new players to get confused by a bewildering number of controls and options. I really don't know how much customization stock fairings will have, we've only been shown a few screenshots, and today's short video... is very short. Only 6 days to go

I agree - I was surprised to hear we'll be building fairings with the mouse. That sounds complicated and frustrating enough never mind any sort of extra separation options and combinations, I'm surprised given how concerned SQUAD has been in the past about not confusing new players. Or, maybe it'll just work; we'll see in 6 days.

[tntristan12]

Interesting. I find your interpretation to be almost hopefully negative. As much as you think we are trying to read into the quote that we're getting what we want in spite of the evidence, it seems to me that you are trying to find ways to read the quote so you will NOT get what you want.

Ugh. I'm more annoyed about the lack of clarification on this matter than I am about the argument itself. It's almost as if they enjoy seeing the forums in complete chaos. All it would take is a simple tweet from Maxmaps and this entire thing could go away.

Perhaps I am being wishfully positive in thinking that we shouldn't have to deserately grasp at straws just to get an answer to what is, ultimately, a very simple question with a yes or no answer.

[J.Random]

Of course, there wouldn't be any need for interpretations if there was no freaking embargo. Then we would just see how it works from youtube and KSP-TV streams.

[TMS]

Make of it what you will:

From: http://boards.4chan.org/vg/thread/100899842/kerbal-space-program-general-kspg#p101071167

Edited April 22, 2015 by TMS
added link

[r4pt0r]

Make of it what you will:

http://i.imgur.com/OWGnYzz.png

by the nine....

I just need to see something from the media team. soon. the fact that the 'fairings' clip was so sped up so as to hide the broken ejection system they decided on is distressing.

[stibbons]

Make of it what you will:

[entitled tears intensify]

[technicalfool]

Make of it what you will:

It's /kspg/. As a group, they seem physically incapable of anything except jaded pessimism. Everything else about 1.0 shaping up to be awesome? Quick guise, we can latch onto the fairings! BITE, BITE AND NEVER LET GO.

And the worst part is, who are you likely to pay more attention to? Someone who comes up with a useful idea or some actual criticism, or a whirlwind of screaming trolls who'll jump on any real or imagined thing they can get their hands on? "Ignore them, they're just trolls", amirite?

[TMS]

Like I said, make of it what you will.

Leave your outrage elsewhere.

[John FX]

Outrage aside, what are the options for a user to control fairing separation?

Myself if they are limited to 'SoKerbal' I'll probably just continue using Procedural fairings, which makes stock fairings sort of pointless to implement (if a mod that already exists that does it better and just as reliably) and the work done could have been used to make clouds...

[Pthigrivi]

I have a suggestion: we could all get a grip, have fun with all the crazy cool new stuff thats coming, enjoy the game for what it is, or if we are really so bothered by the 2-second aesthetics of discarded physicsless debris we can mod the game as we always have. Like Pfairings better? Great! Like B9 stuff and remote tech? Great! Use em! Now we have stock resources and drills and scanners and complete IVAs and optimization and heat shields and utility bays and a bigger zenon tank and real aerodynamics! I promise, all will be okay.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Red Iron Crown]

I have a suggestion: we could all get a grip, have fun with all the crazy cool new stuff thats coming, enjoy the game for what it is, or if we are really so bothered by the 2-second aesthetics of discarded physicsless debris we can mod the game as we always have.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with players sharing what they think of a new stock feature, as long as it is constructive. It has nothing to do with the other features being added or the availability of mods.

[Pthigrivi]

Oh I know, but I feel like the message has been delivered. I even agree with it! Maybe I just get a little snarky in the morning.

[Capt Snuggler]

I have a suggestion: we could all get a grip, have fun with all the crazy cool new stuff thats coming, enjoy the game for what it is, or if we are really so bothered by the 2-second aesthetics of discarded physicsless debris we can mod the game as we always have.

Yeah. Just wait 6 days and see how they actually work first hand. Then complain if necessary.

All this speculation fueled outrage has become tedious... if only we could fuel rockets with speculation we could visit any planet we want.

(note. I also prefer to choose the number of fairing segments and how they separate but I will wait and see)

Edited April 22, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[hawk_za]

I'm just grateful cones and faring's now have a purpose ...man it used to irritate me to Have to leave the nose cones off my rockets.

How they come off im sure will be modded in time but for now im just happy to not only have them but have them be useful.

edit for punctuation:D

[Wallygator]

I think I'm in the majority here who have a general feeling that the mechanism surrounding fairings are still not fully understood.

The construction mechanism seems a bit tedious - and I can only surmise that if there are changes to the internal payload, then the Fairing might need to be completely reconstructed. Now, that actually might be a good thing in some instances because it give a great deal of flexibility in the fairing profile, BUT... if the majority of a player's payloads and fairings are simplistic, then it could be a real repetitive PITA.

Still, I prefer to reserve judgment on fairings, BUT I still want to share my thoughts and concerns with other community members in a "trolling free" environment.

Mega thanks to RIC for the well needed public service announcement. I would like to add: Until 1.0 is released, we are STILL in early access. That means we as a community still feel we have a bit of influence and say regarding planned changes and added features - we joined in this journey because we really like the idea of KSP and want to contribute.

What we chat about in the threads is equally about features of the game AND the effectiveness of how Squad communicates it.