Engine fairings should match the decoupler size, not the engine size

[Alshain]

Does this not set off anyone else's OCD? It drives me crazy. It should look at the size of the decoupler and the size of the part the engine is attached to and create an aerodynamically appropriate fairing. In this picture it would be a full 2.5m fairing, but if that upper stage were a 1.25m, it should create an angled fairing.

[Dfthu]

Yes, we need this! I use 2m engines on 3m tanks all the time

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

This was a sserious issue until procedural fairings were introduced. Making interstages with the P-fairings is just more expensive, but that's all.

[Alshain]

This was a sserious issue until procedural fairings were introduced. Making interstages with the P-fairings is just more expensive, but that's all.

This is broken though, the engine won't fire after being staged from those fairings. Plus it's more mass and cost.... and they are ugly, maybe not as ugly as the above, still ugly. Plus they don't behave like a conventional engine fairing, they stage off in confetti, engine fairings don't usually do that (no fairings do that really). Honestly, the stock procedural fairings aren't a solution to payload fairings, how can they possibly be a solution to this.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Alshain

[Claw]

Well, I'd say it needs to be the maximum of the decoupler or the engine, because what happens if you put a smaller decoupler under the engine (or other part). But that rule doesn't work when hooking decouplers to something like a quad coupler.

Also, if it's the size of the decoupler, that still doesn't work for the case where the decoupler is bigger then the bottom of that fuel tank too. Then the fairing is open on top.

I think there are a lot of strange combinations with these, which would also lead to unusual scenarios if the fairing is just set to the size of the decoupler. Not sure what's ideal here...

Cheers,

-Claw

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

the engine won't fire after being staged from those fairings

stage off the fairing first

engine fairings don't usually do that (no fairings do that really)

XD

[Alshain]

stage off the fairing first

Then it's not an engine fairing. Squad didn't bother to complete the job with the fairings which is the biggest problem. As usual when attempting to implement a mod, they did it half way. So we do not have fixed structural fairings. Your best bet is to download the procedural fairings mod in that case. But, I would rather see these ones fixed.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I'd say it needs to be the maximum of the decoupler or the engine, because what happens if you put a smaller decoupler under the engine (or other part).

True, good point.

But that rule doesn't work when hooking decouplers to something like a quad coupler.

Why would it need to? You are creating the faring to the decoupler, not the quad coupler. If the decoupler is the same size as the quad coupler node, it would look just fine even if you were using a 0.625m stack on top.

Also, if it's the size of the decoupler, that still doesn't work for the case where the decoupler is bigger then the bottom of that fuel tank too. Then the fairing is open on top.

My original post covered that scenario already. It's a two part check. The first check as you say would be the max of the engine or decoupler attachment node and the second part would be the node of the part the engine is attached to. It should create the fairing between those two sizes. This would work in any scenario.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Alshain

[paul23]

Well, I'd say it needs to be the maximum of the decoupler or the engine, because what happens if you put a smaller decoupler under the engine (or other part). But that rule doesn't work when hooking decouplers to something like a quad coupler.

Also, if it's the size of the decoupler, that still doesn't work for the case where the decoupler is bigger then the bottom of that fuel tank too. Then the fairing is open on top.

I think there are a lot of strange combinations with these, which would also lead to unusual scenarios if the fairing is just set to the size of the decoupler. Not sure what's ideal here...

Cheers,

-Claw

Just make fairings be possible to be non cylindrical, but also (untopped) cone shape. Then the "rules are simple:

top circle diameter = min(Diameterpart_above, diameter_engine)

Bottom circle diameter = min(Diameterpart_below, diameter_engine)

And there you have the two circles which give a perfect "streamline". (also working correctly with say an orange rockoman fuel tank, a micro engine, and a standard 1.25m decoupler).

[Guest]

My suggestion: Remove engine fairings altogether (seriously, they're terrible artifacts now). Make decouplers have an optional open fairing that can be connected as desired.

[Alshain]

Just make fairings be possible to be non cylindrical, but also (untopped) cone shape. Then the "rules are simple:

top circle diameter = min(Diameterpart_above, diameter_engine)

Bottom circle diameter = min(Diameterpart_below, diameter_engine)

And there you have the two circles which give a perfect "streamline". (also working correctly with say an orange rockoman fuel tank, a micro engine, and a standard 1.25m decoupler).

Right idea, wrong logic.

top circle diameter = Diameterpart_above

Bottom circle diameter = max(Diameterpart_below, diameter_engine)

[pincushionman]

Alshain, you say that since the stock fairings suck, therefore they're not the answer. Then you say that the problem is the stock fairings need to be fixed. Are you agreeing that, assuming the several issues with the stock fairing implementation ARE in fact addressed, the fairing system would be the proper means to address this problem? That's the way I'm seeing it - there's no reason to carry two separate systems to accomplish this particular effect when one can be extended to do it all. It just needs to be fixed.

[Alshain]

Alshain, you say that since the stock fairings suck, therefore they're not the answer. Then you say that the problem is the stock fairings need to be fixed. Are you agreeing that, assuming the several issues with the stock fairing implementation ARE in fact addressed, the fairing system would be the proper means to address this problem? That's the way I'm seeing it - there's no reason to carry two separate systems to accomplish this particular effect when one can be extended to do it all. It just needs to be fixed.

There are issues with the stock fairings that can not and will not be addressed. The mass difference between them and the current engine fairings is actually the biggest problem. If you removed the engine fairings, people would just not use any fairings because the drag penalty on an interstage isn't worth the mass cost, and that doesn't even include the actual cost. This would actually make things worse, rockets would be even uglier than they are now, and Squad isn't going to make their fairings mass less. Interstage drag of that type isn't as much as an unaerodynamic payload on the front of your rocket and some people don't use fairings for those because of cost.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Alshain

[mattinoz]

Right idea, wrong logic.

top circle diameter = Diameterpart_above

Bottom circle diameter = max(Diameterpart_below, diameter_engine)

Yes they should ignore engine parts although and create a structural faring based on the next tank part up the chain.

[Claw]

Why would it need to? You are creating the faring to the decoupler, not the quad coupler. If the decoupler is the same size as the quad coupler node, it would look just fine even if you were using a 0.625m stack on top.

My comment was aimed at if you're trying to size the engine shroud based on the size of the part above the engine.

My original post covered that scenario already. It's a two part check. The first check as you say would be the max of the engine or decoupler attachment node and the second part would be the node of the part the engine is attached to. It should create the fairing between those two sizes. This would work in any scenario.

This would still fail if you have an FL-T45 attached to an FL-T800, and you put a size 2 decoupler underneath. Then you'd have a size 2 engine shroud surrounding that FL-T45. It's the opposite problem.

Why would anyone do this? Idk. Same reason you sandwich a size 1 engine between a size 2 tank and size 2 decoupler I guess. Because it works for whatever you're doing at the time.

I do much prefer the angled idea, where it's detecting part sizes on the top and bottom nodes (as posted). By the way, it's actually the engine that's creating the shroud, not the decoupler. The engine has no idea what's above or below it. It just checks to see if the bottom node is filled.

Cheers,

~Claw

[Dafni]

My suggestion: Remove engine fairings altogether (seriously, they're terrible artifacts now). Make decouplers have an optional open fairing that can be connected as desired.

This gets my vote too. Good thinking there, Regex.

[paul23]

Right idea, wrong logic.

top circle diameter = Diameterpart_above

Uh now think about a FL-T400 tank (above) followed by a mainsail. Using this equation clipping would still occur.

[Darnok]

My suggestion: Remove engine fairings altogether (seriously, they're terrible artifacts now). Make decouplers have an optional open fairing that can be connected as desired.

Best solution I've seen in here.

[klgraham1013]

My suggestion: Remove engine fairings altogether (seriously, they're terrible artifacts now). Make decouplers have an optional open fairing that can be connected as desired.

This man has the answer.

[Alshain]

My comment was aimed at if you're trying to size the engine shroud based on the size of the part above the engine.

This would still fail if you have an FL-T45 attached to an FL-T800, and you put a size 2 decoupler underneath. Then you'd have a size 2 engine shroud surrounding that FL-T45. It's the opposite problem.

Assuming you mean LV-T45 since I have no idea what an FL-T45 is, no it wouldn't, it would create a conical engine fairing. Sorta like the Apollo SLA. The OP covers that.

- - - Updated - - -

Uh now think about a FL-T400 tank (above) followed by a mainsail. Using this equation clipping would still occur.

If you do that, lack of a fairing is the least of your concern. You are going to get drag from the engine butt. Do people ever do that?

- - - Updated - - -

This man has the answer.

Best solution I've seen in here.

Please take the off topic posts over to regex thread, thank you.

[klgraham1013]

Please take the off topic posts over to regex thread, thank you.

I apologize for not seeing Regex's thread tell after I read this thread.

[StormKat]

What a great idea!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/131394-User-Interface?p=2157742#post2157742

[paul23]

Assuming you mean LV-T45 since I have no idea what an FL-T45 is, no it wouldn't, it would create a conical engine fairing. Sorta like the Apollo SLA. The OP covers that.

- - - Updated - - -

If you do that, lack of a fairing is the least of your concern. You are going to get drag from the engine butt. Do people ever do that?

- - - Updated - - -

Please take the off topic posts over to regex thread, thank you.

I do right now: I've unlocked the poodle and not yet (20% science) better fuel containers. But the increase in efficiency of the poodle really pays of for the long-launches. But "worse efficiency" should never be a reason to "make it not possible".

[Alshain]

But "worse efficiency" should never be a reason to "make it not possible".

Yeah actually it should. It wouldn't serve a purpose. The whole purpose of fairings is to shield the engine, if the engine isn't shielded by the stack then the fairing won't help.

[paul23]

Yeah actually it should. It wouldn't serve a purpose. The whole purpose of fairings is to shield the engine, if the engine isn't shielded by the stack then the fairing won't help.

So the game doesn't allow me to build it?

Hey you know more often than not stacking further is adding more delta-v than required for the mission: should the game stop you from making an over complicate rocket?

[Alshain]

So the game doesn't allow me to build it?

Hey you know more often than not stacking further is adding more delta-v than required for the mission: should the game stop you from making an over complicate rocket?

Straw man argument, I refuse to pander to ridiculousness.