What bothers me about the fairings...

[p1t1o]

I suspect a factor there is that KSP payloads often are pretty aerodynamic themselves. A Kerballed spacecraft is usually a round capsule atop a round fuel tank. There might be some bits on the side but overall it's pretty streamlined. Even the one-Kerbal lander can is at least symmetric. Probes are similarly as often as not basically cylindrical.

Compare that to many real life payloads. The LEM had some seriously irregular angles and wasn't axisymmetric. New Horizons has a boxy triangular shape with the RTGs sticking out of one side.

The example which brought it home for me was launching a probe with a folded up M700 survey antenna on it, plus a few other scientific odds and ends, some solar panels, more antenna etc. which would IRL be torn to shreds and likely result in the destruction of the entire vehicle if exposed to Mach 3 airflow.

Personally I prefer the stock fairings to "procedural fairings mod" (though still an excellent mod, and before stock fairings, they were essential), they are much more flexible, I enjoy setting them up, they seem to be the same weight as each other (IMO? I've tested both on the same craft, there seemed to be no difference in general properties?) and the same drag/stability effects, they're a bit sexier than procfairs as well. What I mainly miss though (aside from them having a use, see above) is a "PTSSSHHHHHH" sound when you jettison them

PS: What is the problem with symmetry? Trying to set up two parallel fairing cones?

Edited September 9, 2015 by p1t1o

[PB666]

I am going to be the odd-ball here. I had problems with the fairings, but once I got the knack, I liked them.

First off you can use multiple fairings. I designed and aerodynamic Size2 station hub where the first fairing went to the bottom of the hub, and the second fairing covered the top. You can use for example decouplers in the fairings that throw off parts, such a size0 decoupler under a size1 nose cone that the fairing attaches to. You can also, carefully use struts in your fairing, which can be detached if they attach to the fairing and say, not a docking port. So for instance if you start with a size 3 fairing, then have a retro pointed large docking port, then station stuff (e.g. karmony module or crew quarters) then a hub, and the fairing joins the hub, then another fairing from the hubs other side to a nosecone (say size 2 or size 1).

What I really like about the fairings is that at 24,000 meters, boom they Stage off, adios, and I have never had a problem with this.

I think one of the things about fairings is that folks are not considering all the parts you can use. For example you could use a Size3/2 adapter, and fair between the payload bottom and top with the stage. If you are starting with a size3 fairing, its not a problem to place a size2 object at the top of the rocket.

Then there are task the fairing should not be doing, if you have a lander with offset or nacells then wide out (size2 or 3 depending on the distance) with a very thin fueltank (e.g. 200) to the nacell, place a fairing on top that covers the top (or if you are using a 3 person lander, on top of the lander. The nacell you can make aerodynamic and the bodies can be made aerodynamic and dont use the fairing, use aerodynamic fuel tanks.

In my career mode, which did several landers, I never used fairings at all, aerodynamic lander design did everything I needed.

[metl]

I think they work perfectly fine. Not had any problems.

[p1t1o]

The fairings seem to add ALOT of drag.

As far as I understand it, IRL fairings are not there to reduce drag, and IRL rockets are often aerodynamically unstable, with thrust vectoring keeping them pointing the right way - they are there to protect the payload. It is just that in KSP at the moment, there is nothing for the payload to be protected from. You get all the disadvantages of a fairing, whilst the advantages are not (yet?) simulated. It should be noted that this counts the same for procedural fairings.

[Hcube]

I really don't like the stock fairings... They seem flawed from many aspects :

-they seem to add a lot of drag

-they cannot be rounded, there are always some ugly angles...

-the "cannot start engine while stowed" Bull.

-you can only make interstages between some specific parts

-interstages add no structural reinforcement although that should be their primary fonction... They look like interstages, but they are only welded to the base, and not to the upper part. ---->wobble wobble wobble

-interstages require a fairing base, usually heavy and thick

-interstages cannot be separated in a single piece, Saturn V-like. They always do the chips bag explosion effect.

-difficult to place: sometimes the game won't let me close a fairing at some point, but if i move the mouse around and try again it suddenly will let me, and vice versa...

-ideally used to protect the payoad from mach 6 airflow, but parts ingame can withstand such stress with ease

-usually negatively affects the DeltaV budget instead of making it bigger

-And the worst of all, the thing that i really, really can't stand : they do not match the size of the adapters. Example :

You have a 2.5m fairing base, then on top of it you have a 2.5-1.25m adapter, and on top of it is the payload. You can not make the fairing straight up and make it a cylinder with a 2.5m radius. The fairing will ALWAYS clip into the above adapter. You have to do a small lip every single time even if your payload doesn't require it. It often looks wrong, adds mass, price and drag, and it prevents me from making ariane 5-style paload fairings where the fairing is a prolongation of the core.

And while we're on it, could the fairings also have a less ugly texture ? Pretty please... That yellow line... Urgh. And maybe some visible structure on the inside ?

Not even talking about separation ; i've heard that some people like it so... As long as the clamshell sep mod is working, i won't complain about it.

Edited September 9, 2015 by Hcube
Forgot a few "features"

[RocketBlam]

I'm not complaining just to complain.... I think I've been pretty fair about KSP on these forums, and I love the game, but these stock fairings... I'm trying to be kind here, they just don't work right. As I said, Procedural Fairings works a lot better, and it's just a mod.

So, I get the impression that Squad wanted to do it their own way, rather than just copy a mod, but every time I try to use the dang things, I come up frustrated.

BTW, I did end up making a reasonable fairing with it, but it was much more difficult than it should have been.

It doesn't have to be fully automatic like Procedural Fairings, but.... when I click to end a segment, especially when I've made it as long as it can possibly be.... dang, it should end the segment! I don't understand why it doesn't!

Edited September 9, 2015 by RocketBlam

[Coyote27]

You have a 2.5m fairing base, then on top of it you have a 2.5-1.25m adapter, and on top of it is the payload. You can not make the fairing straight up and make it a cylinder with a 2.5m radius. The fairing will ALWAYS clip into the above adapter. You have to do a small lip every single time even if your payload doesn't require it. It often looks wrong, adds mass, price and drag, and it prevents me from making ariane 5-style paload fairings where the fairing is a prolongation of the core.

You could just remove the adapter altogether and save some mass and height while you're at it. Put the 1.25m decoupler right atop the 2.5m fairing base.

[keeper]

I've never had issues with stock fairings. Never got around to installing that procedural fairing mod which does look rather tasty.

Never had to replicate a fairing, but i have noticed when selecting/moving the fairing base the entire fairing is reset, to which you can put exactly how you had it again :s its not hard. I now put fairing on last because of this.

I edited the config .cfg part file thing so I could have absurdly wide fairings, and it works a treat.

And i love using them, just to see the seperation, but i do find they are quite heavy which can sometimes be a problem lol the fairings do flex from the base ALOT sometimes the actual payload comes THROUGH the fairing. I have resorted to building small frames out of I-beams all the way up around the fairing, then adding struts from the frames to the payload, then lastly building the fairing to which the struts will go through.

[regex]

I much prefer Procedural Fairings; they are easier to use, easier to edit, are all one piece (per "slice"), have a dedicated interstage that works well and that I have even used as a boattail, and are just plain textured better. The stock ones aren't terrible, they're just ... fiddly.

[Pax Kerbana]

Well now, what do we have here? This just goes to show all you procedural supporters were wrong.

What we really need is a part based fairing system. Gimme dem big white tubes! Imagine everything you could build with white tubes! With integrated toggable decoupler, what more could you want?!

[Xyphos]

The best solution is to NOT use the stock fairings, they're too much trouble to work with.

[Moach]

Shouldn't this be in the development section?

oh, look! it's there now!

what sorcery is this?!

back on topic... I usually prefer the Procedural Fairings mod fairings... haven't been able to work these new ones out yet (likely, from lack of trying) -- and I'm kinda lazy with my designs, as my rapidly multiplying roster of dead kerbals will surely attest to

so if it works, I stick with it... lest too many more kerbals become deceased (which administration says is bad for business)

[Renegrade]

What bothers ME about the stock fairings is that it seems to have some rather angrily fixed snap-to behavior. The regular VAB controls (ex shift) don't seem to help with that either...

Well, that and the bugs (things that are 'inside' which are not, the engines not firing if they're "contained", weird heating behavior, etc). I'm assuming for the sake of this thread that the bugs will eventually be fixed (not holding my breath though~).

Anyhow, the concept is a good one, but the implementation is falling short.

[tater]

I much prefer Procedural Fairings; they are easier to use, easier to edit, are all one piece (per "slice"), have a dedicated interstage that works well and that I have even used as a boattail, and are just plain textured better. The stock ones aren't terrible, they're just ... fiddly.

As is frequently the case for me, "what he ^^^ said."

[InsaneDruid]

I found that adjusting (reducing) snapThreshold and xSectionHeightMin result in better handling fairings that are easier to shape the way I want.

Also, nsides and narc can be adjusted to define the number of polygons the fairing is made of.

Each narc needs one additional nside, though. So for a 24 faces/cylinder fairing with 2 narcs (=fairing parts) nsides need to be set to 24 (number of faces) +2(number of narcs)*1=26. For a 48 face/cylinder compatible fairing, set nsides to 48+2=50.

Still, procccedural fairings handles a lot better and gives more possibilities.