Interstage fairings size with decoupler, not engine

[GeneCash]

Right now, the little interstage fairing that appears when you put an engine on top of a decoupler is the size of the engine, not the decoupler.

So if you put a Rockomax 2.5m decoupler on an orange tank, then an LV-T30 or LV-T45, and another 2.5m tank on that, you have this skinny thing that looks ugly.

The obvious fix is to size the fairing to the decoupler, so you get a 2.5m fairing.

Plus if you cluster engines using the cubic octagonal strut hack, it looks better, as all engines end up inside the larger fairing.

Edit: If you do this with the LV-Ns, then it should eliminate the fratricide from the center engine destroying the rest of the cluster at staging.

[sal_vager]

The new fairings can make interstages, and effectively replace the need for engine fairings like this

[Starwhip]

The new fairings can make interstages, and effectively replace the need for engine fairings like this

Still would be nice, because then decouplers could hide structural or science bits, or engine clusters.

Fairings work though.

[pincushionman]

The new fairings can make interstages, and effectively replace the need for engine fairings like this

Yes. BUT now you have an engine (with its own fairing), a decoupler, AND a fairing base (also with its own fairing). All connected through weak 1.25m nodes instead of strong 2.5m or 3.75m ones.

[rkman]

Yes. BUT now you have an engine (with its own fairing), a decoupler, AND a fairing base (also with its own fairing). All connected through weak 1.25m nodes instead of strong 2.5m or 3.75m ones.

In addition, it would reduce part count and finickyness. Plenty good reasons

[Murph]

Yes. BUT now you have an engine (with its own fairing), a decoupler, AND a fairing base (also with its own fairing). All connected through weak 1.25m nodes instead of strong 2.5m or 3.75m ones.

The engine nodes will always be 1.25m in that example, and I imagine that it will work on a "weakest link" principle, so the basic suggestion would not improve overall strength there (unless we get auto-struts for fairings).

In addition, it would reduce part count and finickyness. Plenty good reasons

It only saves 1 part, by effectively combining fairing base and decoupler (which may well be a good idea). That's not really enough to sell it on part count benefit. If it gave STRONG auto-struts, that benefit would increase, maybe to 9 or higher, then it's more of a valid point.

[Red Iron Crown]

I'd rather we just did away with the auto-fairings altogether. Now that we can make our own interstages they're just redundant.

[Murph]

I'd rather we just did away with the auto-fairings altogether. Now that we can make our own interstages they're just redundant.

Possibly, but the new style fairings would need to be improved so that it would be no harder or slower to clip a decoupler below an engine in a simple stack. I.e. some extremely quick, easy, reliable automatic method for the simple case.

[Tex_NL]

I'd rather we just did away with the auto-fairings altogether. Now that we can make our own interstages they're just redundant.

Absolutely! And at the same time decouplers and fairing bases should be one and the same thing to reduce part count.

[pincushionman]

The engine nodes will always be 1.25m in that example, and I imagine that it will work on a "weakest link" principle, so the basic suggestion would not improve overall strength there (unless we get auto-struts for fairings).

I must be mixing this up with another recent suggestion about automatic struts in this. In the real world, the outer tube of the rocket is the logitudinal structural member, regardless of the size and strength of the interior parts (in this case, the engine(s))

It only saves 1 part, by effectively combining fairing base and decoupler (which may well be a good idea)…

Two. (1) The fairing base and decoupler are merged. (2) The engine shroud "parts" go away. These may be non-persistent and do not contribute to debris build-up, but they are not physicsless. There are many threads on this forum describing the NERV shrouds in particular hanging on each other and having to be burned off at the expense of dV or crashing into other parts and damaging them.

The new fairing system allows the old engine shroud system to be replaced with no work at all on Squad's part other than to disable those models/modules, since the fairing system is already implemented. More flexible too. Autostrut functionality would be more work, but the strut system itself is already present as well.

[tater]

I posted a similar thread. Stock fairings don't reliably make interstages (I tried a couple times more than I should have to, then installed PF which simply works). PF autostruts, which as was said above makes sense since the fairing/shroud IS the structural linkage (ksp acts like the rocket is balanced on the engine bell). I also use KJR for the same reason (and to lower part counts to delay my inevitable crash after x minutes of play).

[Murph]

The new fairing system allows the old engine shroud system to be replaced with no work at all on Squad's part other than to disable those models/modules, since the fairing system is already implemented. More flexible too. Autostrut functionality would be more work, but the strut system itself is already present as well.

No, it's not no work. It would be at least some work to remove the existing engine shrouds. It would also require significant new work to make the new fairings adequately replace the engine shrouds, so that the correct simple default is created for the simple case of clipping a stack together. It's not an acceptable replacement unless it has that. Throwing together a quick simple stack needs to be no slower or more complex than it already is.