I love the fairings!

[Guest]

I totally agree. I don't know why this seems to bother people.

Tons of additional points of failure (not modeled in KSP) and the possibility for the pieces to hit the payload. All those seams are weak points where aerodynamic pressures and heating can cause problems. Basically the suspension of disbelief required, even for LOLSOKERBAL stuff, is pretty high.

[Columbia]

The concept is bright and enables lots of possibilites, but the way they were implemented was horror to me. I was better off with wing fairings as long as I'd be able to strut the payload in the fairing properly. Separation is more appealing, and the limits mean that I can just assemble a wing (a.k.a old stock fairings) fairing aroud payload in a way current fairings can't.

It has potential, but still requires a lot of work.

[MacroNova]

Try making an interstage that doesn't decouple but still leaves the top end open so stuff can be removed from it. Let me know how you do.

Other than aesthetics, why do you need to be able to do this?

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe sometime a mod will come up to make them seperate in two parts?

This functionality was in the previous edition of the Stock Bugfix mod, but it was removed in the latest release (not sure why).

[Alshain]

Other than aesthetics, why do you need to be able to do this?

To carry landers without burying your command module inside a fairing. But aesthetics is a good reason too, so why discount that?

[klgraham1013]

Maybe sometime a mod will come up to make them seperate in two parts?

There have been for quite a while now.

...or did you mean for the stock fairings. Not sure there.

Edited May 4, 2015 by klgraham1013

[tater]

Aside from the obvious flaw of the shrapnel-fairings, my biggest beef is the very tip. They should have a rounded nose.

[-RanZ-]

do fairings work as heat shields? Could I use a giant flat fairing in the front of a craft instead of multiple heat shields to accomplish the same thing?

[Jonboy]

Try making an interstage that doesn't decouple but still leaves the top end open so stuff can be removed from it.

To carry landers without burying your command module inside a fairing. But aesthetics is a good reason too, so why discount that?

You're absolutely right that you can't build an interstage that remains intact after separation. So you can't perform a perfectly accurate Apollo transposition and docking, retaining the Stage 3 booster and fairing until after the maneuver is complete, like below:

But there's really no practical difference between having the fairing remain attached and separating it. And you can still use interstage fairings to do things you never could have done before in KSP, like making interstage fairings for landers beneath command modules, and streamlining your rocket when you're using a Skipper or Mainsail with a 3.5 meter tank. I do both of those things with the Saturn V I slapped together as a demonstration, and it's a much nicer looking and more streamlined rocket than anything you could easily make in stock before 1.02. Overall I think the new fairings are definitely a useful improvement.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[katateochi]

I totally agree. I don't know why this seems to bother people. Kerbals are just a little goofy like that.

Because the rest of KSP, especially when ascending to orbit, is just so beautiful and majestic and then suddenly, AhCHOO!! ...oh excuse me, I just sneezed fairing all over that beautiful space scene. There is something very majestic about the way traditional fairings separate so evenly, leaving a nice geometric pattern behind. I think KWRocketry's fairings had the best separation action and sound effect, but the procedural fairings mod is more convenient.

The other problem is that single piece fairings tend to separate more cleanly. For the most part the grenade fairings do clear the ship, and I'm guessing this hasn't happened to many of you as I don't see it mentioned much, but when the current fairing panels do end up in contact with the ship after being jettisoned it really bugs the game; you can't warp because it thinks you are moving over terrain and the orbit disappears from map mode. To be fair(ing) I do build odd things, but that actually happened on my very first use of the new fairings (here's my bug report of the incident).

Aside from the obvious flaw of the shrapnel-fairings, my biggest beef is the very tip. They should have a rounded nose.

Yeah I'd really like the option to choose between pointy and rounded.

[Maolagin]

B-but....they split apart like a frag grenade

You know, that gets me thinking ... have any of the military-minded players who spend all their time devising insane flying battleships and whatnot tried using the new fairings AS a fragmentation warhead? I could swear I saw someone mention that they'd had a craft damaged by fairing bits.

To carry landers without burying your command module inside a fairing. But aesthetics is a good reason too, so why discount that?

Help me out, I'm also not understanding this. The Apollo spacecraft DID decouple from its upper stage, after which it turned around and docked with the LEM inside the upper stage fairing.

Okay, maybe I see what you're saying. Just tried this in the sandbox: when I left the decoupler attached to the lander, I got a fairing tube, but the decoupler also obstructs the lander from getting out. As soon as I disconnect the base of the fairing from the part closing the top, it disassembles using apparently the same connection logic as struts. I guess what you want is more like the procedural fairing that gets created when a decoupler is mated to an engine, which do (usually?) stick around after decoupling.

[stibbons]

I think that's the first valid concern around the stock fairings that isn't just based on aesthetic appeal. Kudos.

[CaptainKipard]

I'd love better separation of the panels, but it's a small price to pay.

I can't really put into words how I feel about this sentence.

[Majorjim!]

Because the rest of KSP, especially when ascending to orbit, is just so beautiful and majestic and then suddenly, AhCHOO!! ...oh excuse me, I just sneezed fairing all over that beautiful space scene. There is something very majestic about the way traditional fairings separate so evenly, leaving a nice geometric pattern behind. I think KWRocketry's fairings had the best separation action and sound effect, but the procedural fairings mod is more convenient.

The other problem is that single piece fairings tend to separate more cleanly. For the most part the grenade fairings do clear the ship, and I'm guessing this hasn't happened to many of you as I don't see it mentioned much, but when the current fairing panels do end up in contact with the ship after being jettisoned it really bugs the game; you can't warp because it thinks you are moving over terrain and the orbit disappears from map mode. To be fair(ing) I do build odd things, but that actually happened on my very first use of the new fairings (here's my bug report of the incident).

Yeah I'd really like the option to choose between pointy and rounded.

I too have encountered the fairings bug mate. They also destroyed my new constellation lander... They are not just ugly, but a menace too!

[malkuth]

Try making an interstage that doesn't decouple but still leaves the top end open so stuff can be removed from it. Let me know how you do.

. Yes that is an annoying bug. Haven't checked to see if 1.02 fixed it yet though.

[Alshain]

Okay, maybe I see what you're saying. Just tried this in the sandbox: when I left the decoupler attached to the lander, I got a fairing tube, but the decoupler also obstructs the lander from getting out. As soon as I disconnect the base of the fairing from the part closing the top, it disassembles using apparently the same connection logic as struts. I guess what you want is more like the procedural fairing that gets created when a decoupler is mated to an engine, which do (usually?) stick around after decoupling.

Yeah I think you understand. The way I did it with Proc fairings was I used the interstage ring to build a structural fairing without a top on it. I had a decoupler, but only because of the bug where engine fairings won't go away when undocked, only when decoupled (which has been around for ages). So I had a redundant decouper attached to a docking port. I'd undock without staging, turn around, dock, pull the lander out and then stage the left over engine fairing to access the command module engine. That was about as close as I could get. With stock you can't even do that much, because the fairing seems to attach itself to the decoupler and then rips apart when you undock. I had pictures in this thread. You can see the full mission by clicking the pic in my signature.

Now, if the engine fairing would separate in 2 pieces and the decoupler didn't have those annoying little things on the inside, I could probably extract the lander through the decoupler ring, problem solved. But that isn't the case. Maybe the easy solution to this issue is for Squad to add a completely hollow interstage ring that you can put at the top of the interstage fairing and remove stuff through it. Then the fairing could just attach to that and it wouldn't have to be removed with the command module like the decoupler.

So yeah, all we need is a structural part that is a very thin completely hollow ring that fits all the 3 sizes, allows fairings to be "closed" to it, and has 2 attachment nodes on top & bottom. Call it an interstage ring. Something like a TR-XL that doesn't have a separation action and made in 3 sizes.

Ok, I put this idea in suggestions, go support it please!

Edited May 4, 2015 by Alshain

[SelectHalfling0]

The GUI and building mechanic is beautiful (I played with it for more time than I should have).

[Randox]

My only issue so far is that you have to flair the base of the fairing so much. No everyone mounts the widest point of the payload 2m above the fairing base. Perhaps there is a good reason for that. To my mind, it seems like it would create excessive, perhaps dangerous, turbulence behind the fairing.

The exploding fairing doesn't bother me too much. It strikes me as the way Kerbals would do it anyway, points of failure and all. Mostly though, I just appreciate not having these payloads with horrific aerodynamics strapped to the front of my rocket. Now I have this nice pretty fairing instead. I wouldn't object to a 4 part separation though. I think that would be more majestic.

[Red Iron Crown]

I can't really put into words how I feel about this sentence.

Perhaps try harder? I don't even know if you're agreeing or disagreeing or what.

If it helps, I meant that the better work inside mechanic is good enough to make the stock fairings preferable to me over mod ones, even though the separation of the mod ones is aesthetically better. Thus, "I'd love better separation of the panels, but it's a small price to pay." Of course the best option would be fairings that allow working inside and have better separation, but that isn't an option at the moment.

[Maolagin]

Now, if the engine fairing would separate in 2 pieces and the decoupler didn't have those annoying little things on the inside, I could probably extract the lander through the decoupler ring, problem solved. But that isn't the case. Maybe the easy solution to this issue is for Squad to add a completely hollow interstage ring that you can put at the top of the interstage fairing and remove stuff through it. Then the fairing could just attach to that and it wouldn't have to be removed with the command module like the decoupler.

So yeah, all we need is a structural part that is a very thin completely hollow ring that fits all the 3 sizes, allows fairings to be "closed" to it, and has 2 attachment nodes on top & bottom. Call it an interstage ring. Something like a TR-XL that doesn't have a separation action and made in 3 sizes.

Ok, I put this idea in suggestions, go support it please!

But would that actually work? If your lander is attached to the interstage ring via a node, I'm pretty sure the game engine will consider them physically attached, even if in the rendering there isn't anything "there" in the middle of the ring. Just like you can attach a probe to the 2.5m decoupler and that's a perfectly stable connection, even though as rendered the probe is floating in space. And it would still be the case that the fairing doesn't create a connection, so if you undocked the lander from the ring, then the ring would no longer be attached to the ship below.

[ArchGaden]

I really like the fairing solution as well. I love the system for creating fairing shapes and the way it smoothly separates and ghosts out when I want to work on the payload. I prefer customizing the fairing shape over preset or procedural shapes, so I think they went with the best approach there. The only issue I've had is that I've had the payload harmlessly swing out through the fairing during flight on a tall payload. It didn't cause any harm, but it was strange. I think I probably needed a few more struts somewhere.

KSP has never been big on aesthetics and I could really care less about fragmention vs clean shell separation. I usually stage my fairings with final stage separation and I love watching the excess engines and fairings blast away. I figure the function comes first. Aesthetic updates can come later.

[CaptainKipard]

Perhaps try harder? I don't even know if you're agreeing or disagreeing or what.

If it helps, I meant that the better work inside mechanic is good enough to make the stock fairings preferable to me over mod ones, even though the separation of the mod ones is aesthetically better. Thus, "I'd love better separation of the panels, but it's a small price to pay." Of course the best option would be fairings that allow working inside and have better separation, but that isn't an option at the moment.

I guess the whole 1.0-lol-jk thing makes me cynical. There's no good reason why you shouldn't have both the editor function and normal function during the game, but you made it seem like there was. It's difficult to put my thoughts into words because nothing about this situation is simple.

[FellipeC]

I love they too. Just need to fix the zero mass behavior

[Red Iron Crown]

I love they too. Just need to fix the zero mass behavior

Already fixed.

[Randox]

I love they too. Just need to fix the zero mass behavior

Perhaps there is some circumstance I am missing, but the fairings definitely have mass, at least according to Kerbal Engineer.

Since I got ninja'd...

I noticed yesterday that my fairings hide rocket wobble. I actually like this since it looks way nicer not having the rocket flex on the way up visually, and it holds the aerodynamics stable. It's neat if you go IVA inside the fairing though. Now all I need are deployable struts with cables that I can extend radially once clear of an atmosphere to help stiffen long rockets without interfering with aerodynamics during ascent (don't need them on the way up anyway. Boosters strapped to the side do a fine job of adding rigidity).

Edited May 5, 2015 by Randox

[Brotoro]

And hopefully the mass of the fairing gets put forward where the center of mass of the fairing should be, and not just at the position of the base part. (I haven't checked yet to see if this is true.)