Proper Fairings ASAP

[tntristan12]

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.

Yeah... Silly us for expecting a feature to be complete in the release version of a game.

[basic.syntax]

Two quotes are in play here: 5th was referring to the first, when HarvesteR said he was building the Fairings code, so that it would be possible to split them open in many ways. They picked the "Kerbal Kaos" method. It was a style choice.

The second quote is from Maxmap's reddit AmA, on April 26, a day before 1.0 was released. By then, Squad knew that many players would like to have some options. I've no clue if the fairing split option will come with 1.0.3.

[Superfluous J]

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.

Actually the quote I quoted someone quoting said nothing about "after release."

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).

As for how the broken-off bits behave after deployment, they are handled as solar panel pieces or engine fairings. They aren't fully persistent (which is good if you like your framerates to be a two-digit number). That doesn't mean they aren't solid objects, however. Point away from face.

Cheers

And amusingly this isn't even the quote I wanted it to be (though it implies some bit of control over number of pieces). The one I wanted to quote said something along the lines of "We'll have full control over how they separate" or something.

[Columbia]

To make things even worse, you can't duplicate them - You need to redo it every time.

It's really starting to be frustrating.

[Superfluous J]

To make things even worse, you can't duplicate them - You need to redo it every time.

It's really starting to be frustrating.

I'm not really all that frustrated by it but it is annoying when you change something on your rocket and need to totally redo the fairing to match. I'm more annoyed, however, by how frequently (but not always) if the text for the fairing goes from green to brown (saying it's invalid), it won't EVER go back to green until you right click to remove that section and start over from scratch.

[Wallygator]

I'm not really all that frustrated by it but it is annoying when you change something on your rocket and need to totally redo the fairing to match. I'm more annoyed, however, by how frequently (but not always) if the text for the fairing goes from green to brown (saying it's invalid), it won't EVER go back to green until you right click to remove that section and start over from scratch.

^^^ This!!! So much this...

So annoying. Its not game breaking, but it does test my patience. It would be a bit better if there was a RAG traffic light displayed instead of the text. If done correctly, it would also address colour blind users.

I think there is still a good bit of optimisation that can be done on these stock fairings.

All told, I'm about 80% satisfied, still looking for some additional improvement. I will await this patiently and not pull out my torch and pitchfork.

[Columbia]

It's a good concept, but it has a lot of errors and bugs. I especially get frustrated when you're very, very confined to the shapes that you create when there's very little possible area to shape a fairing - I mean, why is it invalid at nearly every position? I might as well just get a single fairing shape every time.

It just has too much bugs and errors.

[basic.syntax]

... this isn't even the quote I wanted it to be ... The one I wanted to quote said something along the lines of "We'll have full control over how they separate" or something.

That's in HarvesteR's actual devnote, what you have there is a later reply in the thread. It was discussed back in post 133; I side with Master Tao and said the same, back there. The evidence in code, exposed by Claw's mod patch show that his "we" meant Squad, not the players. Squad chose to implement one particular method, but by 1.0 launch day had heard this feedback.

I agree with / also find it a minor annoyance, that fairing shapes aren't very persistent if you need to move parts around. At least they are quick to draw/build.

[GusTurbo]

To make things even worse, you can't duplicate them - You need to redo it every time.

It's really starting to be frustrating.

The workaround to not being able to duplicate them is to save them as a subassembly. See here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43086-Open-Source-Construction-Techniques-for-Craft-Aesthetics?p=1880822&viewfull=1#post1880822

[Majorjim!]

The workaround to not being able to duplicate them is to save them as a subassembly. See here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43086-Open-Source-Construction-Techniques-for-Craft-Aesthetics?p=1880822&viewfull=1#post1880822

These terrible fairings are the only reason I haven't released my Constellation pack. They just don't work as well as ANY faring mods.. I'm tempted to just make my own again. The part count penalty makes me shiver but as they are they are so cumbersome and inelegant as to be unusable.

They need a major overhaul.

[Hcube]

Yeah i have also experienced pretty much every issue mentioned in this thread, and i really dont like fairings... I don't want to be the usual criticizing ***hole, so even though i have concerns with some features i just get over them. However the fairings are just waaaay to bad right now.

-its usually better not to use any, however aerodynamic-inefficient the payload is, because those fairings add drag (weird as hell) and have a crazy mass (they are usually heavier than the payload that is inside)

-they separate like a frag grenade, wich looks awful, and the shrapnel parts can and do get stuck in some crafts

-the problem with the text not ever turning back to green unless you right click and start over

-and the one that gets my OCD crazy(er) : If you have an adapter on top of a fairing base (ex: rockomax brand adapter attached on top of a 2.5m fairing base) , you can't build the fairing vertical because it will clip through the adapter. You have to make a small angle and make the fairing a bit wider than the rest of the rocket. ->there is no way to make your rocket look like a ariane 5, or delta4heavy and so, only convex fairings like on top of the falcon 9..

And it adds mass and drag even though your payload is not very wide and could fit inside a vertical, 2.5m-wide fairing section

[Rocketfeline]

I have been trying to make areoshells out of fairings lately and when I detatch it says im "Stowed" And that bugs me. I also like for some diffrent colors. I hate seeing a orange line and stuff.

[Majorjim!]

Yeah i have also experienced pretty much every issue mentioned in this thread, and i really dont like fairings... I don't want to be the usual criticizing ***hole, so even though i have concerns with some features i just get over them. However the fairings are just waaaay to bad right now.

-its usually better not to use any, however aerodynamic-inefficient the payload is, because those fairings add drag (weird as hell) and have a crazy mass (they are usually heavier than the payload that is inside)

-they separate like a frag grenade, wich looks awful, and the shrapnel parts can and do get stuck in some crafts

-the problem with the text not ever turning back to green unless you right click and start over

-and the one that gets my OCD crazy(er) : If you have an adapter on top of a fairing base (ex: rockomax brand adapter attached on top of a 2.5m fairing base) , you can't build the fairing vertical because it will clip through the adapter. You have to make a small angle and make the fairing a bit wider than the rest of the rocket. ->there is no way to make your rocket look like a ariane 5, or delta4heavy and so, only convex fairings like on top of the falcon 9..

And it adds mass and drag even though your payload is not very wide and could fit inside a vertical, 2.5m-wide fairing section

Yup. Have you noticed that if you add a lip at the bottom, which you need to do frequently, The first fairing section isnt even straight!! They scream BODGE JOB.

It's a real let down.

[Columbia]

How long ago was this thread? Literally more than a month and thirty-four pages? And yet, they (Squad) don't say a word on this - They've kept quiet despite all the backlash that's happened ever since. Please, Squad, at least try to address the tad lot of bugs in the fairing systems. I am really infuriated by what happened - We've all tried our best, yet they've barely done anything to fix this.

It just takes a few code changes, and we'll all be satisfied. This isn't like trying to fix aerodynamics.

[rkman]

And yet, they (Squad) don't say a word on this

They are under no obligation to do so.

I am really infuriated by what happened - We've all tried our best, yet they've barely done anything to fix this.

How the heck would you even know what Squad is or isn't doing?

[Hcube]

They are under no obligation to do so.

How the heck would you even know what Squad is or isn't doing?

i agree with you, although the fairings are infuriating, i'm pretty sure squad are good at what they do (just look at KSP) , and they will probably fix this in a future update. No need to comport ourselves like annoying kids not having everything that they want all the time, let's be a bit more patient and not tell squad what they should or should not be doing.

EDIT : not tell them _overly agressively and imperatively_ what they should or should not be doing. Of course we give feedback. But we can't expect them to answer to every message and complaint.

(but god, the fairings really suck though ! )

Edited May 24, 2015 by Hcube

[Aerolfos]

They are under no obligation to do so.

How the heck would you even know what Squad is or isn't doing?

As far as I am aware they are selling the game promising continued development, and getting to be some part in the development process, basically they listen and fix when the community wants something really badly.. as far as I understand. Under that, they should at least say SOMETHING. And they are pretty obligated because payers and all that.

[Red Iron Crown]

As far as I am aware they are selling the game promising continued development, and getting to be some part in the development process, basically they listen and fix when the community wants something really badly.. as far as I understand. Under that, they should at least say SOMETHING. And they are pretty obligated because payers and all that.

Payers paid for the game as is, there is no legal obligation to continue development (read the EULA and TOS). One could argue there is a moral obligation, but that is a whole other thing that really guarantees nothing.

As for doing what the community wants badly, well no. Squad is developing the game as they see fit, they listen to feedback and incorporate it where it fits their vision and ignore it where it doesn't.

[Roderik]

they don't live in our world and now we can create beautifull fairing flowers in space so i actually like the fairings we have now.

[Columbia]

They are under no obligation to do so.

How the heck would you even know what Squad is or isn't doing?

Still though, I am in no way bashing them, but neither can they ignore people trying to make a point. There's nothing wrong with not being able to implement certain things, but not even trying to give word is still really frustrating (and often considered rude) for us players. All I'm saying is that it is starting to infuriate me myself.

Would you want an appliance manufacturer that you depend a lot on ignore you when you report issues?

I will quote Aerolfos on this:

they should at least say SOMETHING.

As I said, I will be completely okay if they don't want to implement it or anything, but can't they at least tell us?

[Aerolfos]

Payers paid for the game as is, there is no legal obligation to continue development (read the EULA and TOS). One could argue there is a moral obligation, but that is a whole other thing that really guarantees nothing.

As for doing what the community wants badly, well no. Squad is developing the game as they see fit, they listen to feedback and incorporate it where it fits their vision and ignore it where it doesn't.

Because this is Squad. I had more faith in them than that.

Guess worst case scenario it is after all.

Thats part of the promise of an early access? The writing on the store page said "To be a part of the development process as it happens" if my memory is not completely off. OK, they are not an early access anymore. But still... are they actually going to go and do what I projected as the worst case scenario (alternatively known as end of the world) and just abandon us and ignore us? That is... horrible. And I would prefer that is not the truth. Nor have anything to do whatsoever with the truth.

[Red Iron Crown]

Because this is Squad. I had more faith in them than that.

Guess worst case scenario it is after all.

Thats part of the promise of an early access? The writing on the store page said "To be a part of the development process as it happens" if my memory is not completely off. OK, they are not an early access anymore. But still... are they actually going to go and do what I projected as the worst case scenario (alternatively known as end of the world) and just abandon us and ignore us? That is... horrible. And I would prefer that is not the truth. Nor have anything to do whatsoever with the truth.

There are no plans to abandon KSP at this point, they are working on another patch and Unity 5 after that, and afaik stock multiplayer is still planned for a future free update. I was more pointing out that because a lot or even most players wants some feature in particular does not obligate them to implement it, paying customer or not.

[basic.syntax]

I think that they think, that they have spoken on this subject.

The Thread started April 17th.

KasperVld responded in post #105, on April 20th.

Maxmaps addressed this subject directly, in a Reddit AmA the day before 1.0 launched, on April 26.

Also keep in mind, Squad "lost" a week this month, due to a well-deserved break after patch 1.0.2 was released.

[Tankman101]

But still... are they actually going to go and do what I projected as the worst case scenario (alternatively known as end of the world) and just abandon us and ignore us?

Not obligated to continue/communicate != Ignore everyone ever.

Stop being such a drama llama.

[Columbia]

Not obligated to continue/communicate != Ignore everyone ever.

Stop being such a drama llama.

Wow, that waa rather personal.

Aerolfos has a point, though; It is true that they have spoken little on the subject and it is rather irritating, but I think we should cut them some slack for now.