The fairings.....

[Nansuchao]

Sincerely, who cares about the textures, confetti isn't so important, but the question in my mind is: why they did not take as an example the old beautiful KW fairings? Simples, beautiful and easy to use and include in stock.

[Tankman101]

Sincerely, who cares about the textures, confetti isn't so important, but the question in my mind is: why they did not take as an example the old beautiful KW fairings? Simples, beautiful and easy to use and include in stock.

Probably because each KW segment was a new part.

That and also they wanted something procedural.

[montyben101]

As compared to?

They are worse than the fairings in The Sims, I suppose.

To pfairings, the ones in KWrocketry and the ones in a SLS mod and other smaller mods which have them

[Nansuchao]

Probably because each KW segment was a new part.

That and also they wanted something procedural.

I was just suggesting the easy way, if Procedural Fairings was too difficult to include

[Arsonik]

I was just suggesting the easy way, if Procedural Fairings was too difficult to include

While procedural fairings may be the most eloquent solution, I always enjoyed building with KW fairings the most. I haven't used them in ages simply due to the necessity of downloading the whole KW pack just for the fairings. So I tend to use Procedural Fairings mod. If I were to rank them in form/function using an arbitrary ranking system I just came up with I end up like this...

Aesthetics:

1. KW

2. Stock

3. Zero-Point //&// Procedural

Functionality:

1. Zero-Point

2. Procedural

3. KW

4. Stock

Total:

1. KW (4) / Zero-Point (4)

2. Procedural (5)

3. Stock (6)

To be fair Stock is the newest implementation of fairings and so it has the hardest time competing. The other mods have been around a long time. They had the luxury of being developed in an environment where there were no aerodynamic effects of using them. In fact you were only penalized by adding dry mass for aesthetics. As FAR became more popular they had the added luxury of being able to develop for that environment naturally as ferram implemented it. Given some time and patching I am sure Stock will become much better. I don't consider the Stock fairings to be bad. But they are the worst of all options at the moment (IMHO). I have been using them anyways simply due to the convenience of no longer needing to get mods for fairings. I am sure many are like me in that respect, and so they are more outwardly opinionated about fairings because they want them to work up to their expectation. Even though there is an alternative, some people just want to jump in and play and not have to worry about mods so much. Now that fairings are somewhat required, an expectation of them working excellent is somewhat understandable.

I would like to see a best of both worlds implementation. Procedural fairings mod functionality should be the default behavior in stock. There should be "advanced mode" if you want to manually shape your fairings. 2/3/4 part fairings really need to be a thing either way in my opinion. Alternate skins would be GREAT. Fix the bugs!!!!!

At the end of the day I would have rather gotten KW style fairings as I feel they are more in-line with the theme of the game. I respect the decision to go with procedural as long as we can get them in working shape soon!

[Nansuchao]

Completely agree

[Tankman101]

-snip-

I just want to point out that Zero-Point is in a different class of fairing (Purely inline). Comparing stock fairings to Zero-Point is like comparing apples to pineapples

It's also worth pointing out that ProcFairings look REALLY bad.

[Arsonik]

I just want to point out that Zero-Point is in a different class of fairing (Purely inline). Comparing stock fairings to Zero-Point is like comparing apples to pineapples

It's also worth pointing out that ProcFairings look REALLY bad.

Well, Stock fairings are in a different class from KW and Procedural Mod as well than (Purely top-mounted). It is obvious that using the stock fairings for inter-stage was not intended. I guess I could be wrong here but that is my presumption.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I love the way stock fairings are built, I can live with how they separate, but don't love it, but my least favorite part of the fairings is how they look. They don't match the stock art style at all.

[steve_v]

I, for one, can't stand the stock fairings... The part I don't understand is how, given at least 3 excellent examples of how to do a fairing (from mods) Squad somehow managed a system that is considerably more annoying than _any_ of the existing solutions.

Struts from the fairing base? No.

Pretty separation? Yeah, right. Not only is it ugly, it's forceful enough to damage the craft, and anything else within the "exploding crisp packet" radius.

Easy to place / shape in the VAB? Not a chance, lets play 'pick the pixel' instead.

Holds shape when removed? Again, no. Let's play pick the pixel ad-nauseam.

Makes effective interstages? Nope, you're gonna need struts anyway (see 1).

Fairing mass helps out with rocket mass distribution? Not when the fairing mass is added to the base - for the love of Dog, WHY?

The only feature these have over the (0.90) available mods I can see: That bloody annoying animation/transparency thing in the VAB.

Once again, making them actually work like a fairing works is left to mods - like fairings with mass and clamshell fairings.

Did anyone actually look at the existing solutions before cooking up this mess?

Edited June 16, 2015 by steve_v

[Columbia]

I, for one, can't stand the stock fairings... The part I don't understand is how, given at least 3 excellent examples of how to do a fairing (from mods) Squad somehow managed a system that is considerably more annoying than _any_ of the existing solutions.

Struts from the fairing base? No.

Pretty separation? Yeah, right.

Easy to place / shape in the VAB? Not a chance, lets play 'pick the pixel' instead.

Makes effective interstages? Nope, you're gonna need struts anyway (see 1).

Fairing mass helps out with rocket mass distribution? Not when the fairing mass is added to the base - for the love of Dog, WHY?

The only feature these have over the (0.90) available mods I can see: That bloody annoying animation/transparency thing in the VAB.

Once again, making them actually work like a fairing works is left to mods - like fairings with mass and clamshell fairings.

Did anyone actually look at the existing solutions before cooking up this mess?

In all honesty, I agree with this 100%. ​nein questions asked.

[NecroBones]

I honestly expected stock fairings to be an extension of the ModuleJettison system used for engine shrouds (including the two-panel ones used by the LV-N). That is, I thought it would look more like what I did with 0-Point fairings, but with a better size-choosing system than what I could do by just making parts without a plugin.

However, I understand why they went in the direction they did. They don't want to overly limit people's creativity, so they made the fairings procedural, with some maximum angles for each "ring".

I don't hate the new fairings. To me they're just one more option.

[GusTurbo]

My concerns with fairings are well-documented. One thing I really don't like is how finicky the fairings are to actually place. Half the time, the text just doesn't want to turn green to signify a legal placement, even when there is no apparent reason for it not to.

[TimePeriod]

The fairing is not the problem.

Its you.

[Wallygator]

I find the stock fairing system to just barely acceptable.

A fairing that covers a top placed payload seems to work reasonably OK - the editing and placement mechanisms are poor, but workable 80% of the time.

OTOH the impractical and unreliable mechanisms for in-line fairings are deplorable.

Obviously, the developers were ONLY thinking of payload focused fairings.

One should be able to close a fairing at any point during the build process.

Perhaps the fairing closure process highlights a bit of poor modelling regarding stock parts??? Who knows...

[pywicket]

I think my biggest problem has been payload clipping/slamming into the fairing. Recently I found that a couple of cubic octagonal struts on the payload to be really helpful in adding stability. If you strut down from the cubic strut to your main lifting body, the struts seem to attach to the interior fairing wall.

[DancesWithSquirrels]

My biggest problems have been fairing segments getting caught in piercing struts (needed to keep my payloads from wobbling), causing the entire rocket to vibrate until I can shake them loose. I can't even create a maneuver node when that's happening, I suspect because my rocket doesn't have a single velocity for the physics to lock onto.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Struts from the fairing base? No.

Pretty separation? Yeah, right. Not only is it ugly, it's forceful enough to damage the craft, and anything else within the "exploding crisp packet" radius.

Easy to place / shape in the VAB? Not a chance, lets play 'pick the pixel' instead.

Holds shape when removed? Again, no. Let's play pick the pixel ad-nauseam.

Makes effective interstages? Nope, you're gonna need struts anyway (see 1).

Fairing mass helps out with rocket mass distribution? Not when the fairing mass is added to the base - for the love of Dog, WHY?

Yep, that's pretty much my opinion as well.

[TimePeriod]

I don't get the hate.

I use the new fairings a lot and find them pretty useful. Most of the problems people seem to have can be migrated with a little bit of clever rocket design, intuition and the most important thing - stubbornness to learn something new.

[RogalDorn]

I was super excited when 1.0 fairings came out. I still love them, even though they are tough to get used to.

[Xannari Ferrows]

I have a feeling I'm part of the 1% that actually loves the fairings. The fact that they're customizable is what sells me. My only complaint is that struts can't be attached to the walls or base, but there are far too many workarounds for that.

[Temeter]

I have a feeling I'm part of the 1% that actually loves the fairings. The fact that they're customizable is what sells me. My only complaint is that struts can't be attached to the walls or base, but there are far too many workarounds for that.

The people complaining are a vocal minority, it doesn't really say much if the majority likes it or not. Just ask if you're supposed to use far, and then you'll see what i mean.

Only problem i've personally got with them is the fiddly interstage fairing connection (and lack of structural farings). Otherwise, In this regard I found stock farings actually to be more usefull than procfarings (less parts, less unnecessary weight).

Edited June 16, 2015 by Temeter

[Majorjim!]

I have a feeling I'm part of the 1% that actually loves the fairings. The fact that they're customizable is what sells me. My only complaint is that struts can't be attached to the walls or base, but there are far too many workarounds for that.

You can strut TO the base but not FROM.

Sadly many are needed as the fairing bases are as floppy as a very floppy thing.

[GusTurbo]

I don't get the hate.

I use the new fairings a lot and find them pretty useful. Most of the problems people seem to have can be migrated with a little bit of clever rocket design, intuition and the most important thing - stubbornness to learn something new.

It's not really hate, so much as the fact that the fairings do not work well enough in their current state. They can be difficult to construct, don't behave predictably, and can jeopardize missions because of all the shrapnel they create.

Do you believe that the fairings should not be improved from their current state?

[Majorjim!]

I don't get the hate.

I use the new fairings a lot and find them pretty useful. Most of the problems people seem to have can be migrated with a little bit of clever rocket design, intuition and the most important thing - stubbornness to learn something new.

Not so. I am confident in my building abilities to the point that I can pretty much do anything in KSP.

I have worked with the fairings since they came out and they are a bit** to work with. Plain and simple. Anyone who says they are easy or useful is obviously making very simple rockets.

Did you notice that the sides of the fairings are often not even straight?

the 'open view' thing lags like crazy and gets in the way constantly. And woe betide anyone who tries to subassembly them or move them. They just disappear.

Squad needs to completely redesign them or pay someone to do it. Play time is over! We have hit version 1 FFS!

I know Squad are working hard on the game but they are reluctant to hire more real staff. People have been saying this for YEARS! the game could be a done and dusted jewl if they had use some of the piles of cash to fix and finish the game. And thier excuse of being worried that others wont understand their 'vision', is hubris plain and simple.

Edited June 16, 2015 by Majorjim