Proper Fairings ASAP

[Captain Sierra]

I like it but the currents ones for me are best maybe having 2 types of fairing 1 normal and 2 this.

As someone who was an avid KW fairing user, I'm not digging these new ones, not at all. Backing up my current sig.

[void_error]

As someone who was an avid KW fairing user, I'm not digging these new ones, not at all. Backing up my current sig.

I'm a KW Rocketry user as well so I prefer fairings that don't split into a dozen splinters.

[Rocketfeline]

So does squad wanna do anything about this?

[Eric S]

So does squad wanna do anything about this?

They've at least implied that the original intent was to reach the point that we could get clamshell style fairing ejection and that they're not done working on it.

[SmashBrown]

Yeah i kinda agree with the OP on this. I am guessing they seperate that way because that's how they are constructed, the fairing mass being stored in the base is total BS though. That bothers me more than the separation method.

[John FX]

I'm just not using them. While I really like the way you can interact with the payload while the fairings are on, that is all I like about them...

They really are poorly thought out if the thought was to give the user useful fairings with building options.

I'll stick with procedural fairings until SQUAD start to make things properly (I won't hold my breath)

I am stumped as to how a company could look at a mod (if they did) and the features it has and then release a version with none of the functionality already available to the user of that mod.

There were a few voices pre-launch that expressed concerns about the fairings and we were told not to worry in the dev notes threads.

I also support this thread.

[Wallygator]

In another post I made note of the fact that ejected fairings still absorb and radiate heat if the fairing base is receiving thermal load. It was funny to see these fairings getting hotter and hotter while they were 100's of meters away spinning into the darkness. (This being the result of forgetting to add a decoupler between the base and the engine - oh well)

There are a number of irritating little elements in the stock fairing implementation that need to be fixed - it just looks messy.

[Wjolcz]

Now that I've played with the fairings a bit I gotta say they scare me when going full confetti-of-chaos mode. Sometimes a piece gets stuck in the vessel and it renders it as landed even when showing it's clearly on a highly eccentric orbit.

[GusTurbo]

In another post I made note of the fact that ejected fairings still absorb and radiate heat if the fairing base is receiving thermal load. It was funny to see these fairings getting hotter and hotter while they were 100's of meters away spinning into the darkness. (This being the result of forgetting to add a decoupler between the base and the engine - oh well)

There are a number of irritating little elements in the stock fairing implementation that need to be fixed - it just looks messy.

Ok that's bizarre. That might deserve it's own bug report thread.

[Sidereus]

Yeah i kinda agree with the OP on this. I am guessing they seperate that way because that's how they are constructed, the fairing mass being stored in the base is total BS though. That bothers me more than the separation method.

I thought they fixed that in 1.1. I remember running a test right after it came out, and ejecting my fairings caused the vessel's weight to go down.

[Superfluous J]

Whenever I toss my fairings the rocket goes down in mass by several tons. It encourages me to try to figure out when best to ditch them.

[Pippin]

they'll have it right for their 1.0 version, right?

... Apparently not.

[Aerolfos]

So this thread was all but ignored. Great.

Just want some clarification... are these fairing parts handled as nuclear engine fairings?

Because then, WE HAVE ISSUES. I had to completely redesign, mess with and spent a couple hours on a design of fuel tanks hanging radially from a central tank with nuclear engine, to get landing gear on the radial tanks, for a lander of 10000+ delta V. The latest in planetary exploration. Only, it exploded because of the fairing. And there is no option to simply turn it off. Most annoying bloody thing so far honestly. Workarounds are possible, yes, but something that would have worked with a normal/no fairing as is had to be completely scrapped because of the lack of option. And as they say, if something can go wrong, it will.

Plus, a confetti design now, on bigger fairings, it friggin EXPLODES. Hitting the button for fairing detachment is equal to losing all visual for a few seconds as the massive debris cloud disperses. Slowly. I like seeing whats going on in my rocket, especially as for all I know I (Or someone) could design something that really needs to not be cluttered like that.

[GusTurbo]

So this thread was all but ignored. Great.

Just want some clarification... are these fairing parts handled as nuclear engine fairings?

Because then, WE HAVE ISSUES. I had to completely redesign, mess with and spent a couple hours on a design of fuel tanks hanging radially from a central tank with nuclear engine, to get landing gear on the radial tanks, for a lander of 10000+ delta V. The latest in planetary exploration. Only, it exploded because of the fairing. And there is no option to simply turn it off. Most annoying bloody thing so far honestly. Workarounds are possible, yes, but something that would have worked with a normal/no fairing as is had to be completely scrapped because of the lack of option. And as they say, if something can go wrong, it will.

Plus, a confetti design now, on bigger fairings, it friggin EXPLODES. Hitting the button for fairing detachment is equal to losing all visual for a few seconds as the massive debris cloud disperses. Slowly. I like seeing whats going on in my rocket, especially as for all I know I (Or someone) could design something that really needs to not be cluttered like that.

I don't think this thread has necessarily been ignored. I think it's too big to be ignored, and I think we have heard indications that the fairings are going to gain additional customizability.

[tntristan12]

I don't think this thread has necessarily been ignored. I think it's too big to be ignored, and I think we have heard indications that the fairings are going to gain additional customizability.

[citation needed]

[Superfluous J]

[citation needed]

Note: That could also be used for "this thread was all bug ignored" as well.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't think we can say one way or the other just yet. There's not exactly a changelog for the next patch or update yet, all we have is speculation.

[GusTurbo]

[citation needed]

There's only one part, which is the fairing as a whole. Fairing panels aren't independent parts, they're sub-objects of the fairing until you deploy them. A fairing that is 10 sections high and divided into 4 sides would have 40 panels, yes. How many objects this will produce on deployment depends on how they group together (that's next up on my to-do list actually).

Cheers

This post from February 25 implies that Harvester is working on making the number of fairing panels controllable.

[basic.syntax]

No date specified on this statement, but a fairing option should be Stock, one of these days.

[bdito]

Anything but the current confetti. I'd also like to see a proper round top.

[tntristan12]

This post from February 25 implies that Harvester is working on making the number of fairing panels controllable.

[citation found] Thank you!

[Superfluous J]

This post from February 25 implies that Harvester is working on making the number of fairing panels controllable.

[citation found] Thank you!

Problem: That quote was before 1.0 was released. Many (including myself) took it as proof that they were going to be clamshell capable in 1.0.

So, YMMV.

[tntristan12]

Well, I'm sure this is just a placeholder and they will flesh it out in future updates and WHY ARE THEY CALLING THIS UPDATE 1.0!?!?!?

*breathes deeply* Happy place. :|

[Motokid600]

Any chances of this in 1.0.3?

[stibbons]

Problem: That quote was before 1.0 was released. Many (including myself) took it as proof that they were going to be clamshell capable in 1.0.

So, YMMV.

Considering the quote is "We'll add the option to divide them in two panels after release" (emphasis mine), I'm a little curious about how anybody could think that meant it would be in 1.0.