Remove the terrible "can't activate engine while stowed" mechanic

[Red Iron Crown]

Count me on the side that wants this mechanic removed. I'd prefer that it was up to me to stage things properly, not have the game decide that I need engines disabled for my own good. Making explosive mistakes is a critical part of the learning process in KSP.  

I guess I'm just not clear about what problem the stowage mechanic solves. I've read lots of reports of things not working when they should because of stowage issues, I don't think I've read a single post describing how this mechanic is beneficial (NathanKell's Mainsail-in-a-Mk3-bay example seems to be an issue with too-short thrust raycasts rather than the bays themselves).

[AlamoVampire]

12 hours ago, sal_vager said:

Stock Soyuz connector ring.

The KSP fairing is not the correct part for this use case.

@sal_vager Unless I am gravely mistaken, fairing or mesh, that engine on the 3rd stage is STOWED. Which is, again, what the OP is railing against. "can't activate engine while STOWED" which makes what ever contains said engine 100% irrelevant as the condition of the engine is STOWED. Its a stupid restriction that we do not need in my very blunt opinion.

[sal_vager]

Nope, what you need is for engines and other parts to lose their occluded state when the fairing opens, in exactly the same way as they currently do with cargobays.

But the only event the fairings check for is their being staged.

So by adding a check for the part the fairing is closed around being present in the vessel tree when the craft is reordered, such as when a lander is decoupled, KSP can tell if the fairing is open and remove occlusion on all parts in the "open" faring.

This way, players can't activate parts while occluded, but players can remove occlusion by staging a decoupler/separator to remove the part the decoupler was closed around.

Then, make a feature request that players should be able to finish a fairing with an open end, with no part closing the fairing it wouldn't occlude its contents and would allow for even more variety.

Simple.

[Guest]

I support the idea of removing the restriction.

There aren't designs that take advantage of that function, but there are designs that are impossible because of it.

And IIRC this isn't the first thread to ask for the removal of it, threads asking it to be disabled date to the very day 1.0 was released.

If the Soyuz thing isn't enough, compare the amount of posts asking for the feature to be removed to the amount of posts that actually support it.

A poll could be useful in a separate thread asking for such opinion, if comparing isn't enough.

Anyways, please get rid of that annoying thing. It doesn't have any advantages, only disadvantages.

[sal_vager]

As I already mentioned, if you want this changed it needs to be on the KSP tracker, it will carry much more weight there than any number of complaint threads or polls here.

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

As I already mentioned, if you want this changed it needs to be on the KSP tracker, it will carry much more weight there than any number of complaint threads or polls here.

You sure, mate?

^{Source: http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/projects/ksp}

[322997am]

I'll say that I don't like the can't deploy while stowed mechanic without caps lock and asterisks. This is relatively annoying when I want to burn a kerbal inside a cargo bay. And yes Ksp is not about safety. So this should be an option for the safety people.

[cfds]

I still don't see why "It has no use at all but breaks things" is not reason enough to remove a (anti-) feature. Regardless how vague these "things" are. It is just pointless code that can (and does) lead to at least inconsistent behaviour and every dev should be happy for any excuse to get rid of it.

[sal_vager]

9 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

You sure, mate?

^{Source: http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/projects/ksp}

Feedback is not a discussion or opinion on a feature or a policy unless you make it a discussion or opinion @Aperture Science.

I can't put this any clearer, if it's added to the tracker there's more chance that it will be changed, this is the system Squad uses and it's for stuff like this.

[r4pt0r]

1 hour ago, sal_vager said:

Feedback is not a discussion or opinion on a feature or a policy unless you make it a discussion or opinion @Aperture Science.

I can't put this any clearer, if it's added to the tracker there's more chance that it will be changed, this is the system Squad uses and it's for stuff like this.

If thats the case, then should we submit to the tracker that the fairing ejection is ugly and should be changed?

[sal_vager]

As feedback yes, I don't see an issue for fairing separation, searching for "confetti" also draws a blank.

[steve_v]

22 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

searching for "confetti" also draws a blank.

Dude, seriously?
It's been reported, discussed to death, and it's still (AFAIK) hideous. I guess I'll just keep using mod fairings.
If you're referring to putting such things on the bugtracker, I was under the impression that was for bugs... and the "suggestions and development" subforum was for suggestions - which this clearly is.
I'm not sure why anyone bothers to bring these things up tbh, it's seems clear nobody from Squad is reading this.

Edited December 16, 2015 by steve_v

[sal_vager]

3 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Dude, seriously?
It's been reported, discussed to death, and it's still (AFAIK) hideous. I guess I'll just keep using mod fairings.
If you're referring to putting such things on the bugtracker, I was under the impression that was for bugs... and the "suggestions and development" subforum was for suggestions - which this clearly is.
I'm not sure why anyone bothers to bring these things up tbh, it's seems clear nobody from Squad is reading this.

I see you missed the part where I said to use the tracker, please see three posts above yours.

[r4pt0r]

22 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

I see you missed the part where I said to use the tracker, please see three posts above yours.

So suggestions to improve the game go in the tracker, not the suggestions forum? that was the point i was getting at....

[Speeding Mullet]

I've literally never experienced this mechanic until I read this thread and had to boot up KSP to test it for myself.  I can see strong arguments for and points against, but on balance would definitely support removing the "cannot activate while stowed" mechanic.

As a side note, and happy accident - while testing I just discovered for myself the FOV change ability with Alt+Mousewheel.  That's awesome, this thread has been useful and my screenshots will be much improved. 

 

SM

 

 

[sal_vager]

Suggestions are fine here, feedback goes on the tracker, I have already made a feedback issue regarding fairings and their behaviour.

Squad has set up the tracker feedback to better deal with stuff like this, we have a system so lets use it.

[Superfluous J]

I added it. The one for activating while stowed was already on it.

[sal_vager]

7 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

I added it. The one for activating while stowed was already on it.

Thanks 5thHorseman, upvoting!

[Alchemist]

On 15.12.2015, 7:43:41, NathanKell said:

Again, I don't disagree the mechanic can be annoying, but...does this look like a fairing to you? Do please at least give examples of engines that ignite inside an insterstage fairing, not inside an open mesh.¹

The fairing is the orange thing around the engine (but above the nozzle openings). It gets dropped (splits into 3 pieces) several seconds after stage separation. (and the engine gets ingnited before separation)

Unfortunately, KSP is likely to conside this stowed as well

[John FX]

Myself the main reason I want to build rockets is because of the Apollo missions and one feature of the Saturn 5 was that when stage 1 staged the fairing remained connected to stage 2 and sheathed the stage 2 engines which burned for around 45 seconds at which point the air would be thin enough that it could be dropped without fear of colliding with the stage 2 engines.

this image

is from roughly half way through the stage 2 burn just after dropping the interstage fairing. I am pretty sure that during the discussions surrounding fairings before they were released we were told we could make an apollo rocket and I specifically brought up the fairing that stayed attached to stage 2 as it covers open ended fairings, interstage fairings and burning through an attached fairing and I am sure I was assured all those things would be possible (I know I would have continued questioning if I was not assured)

At least the game is open to modding, maybe one day it won`t be needed to mod the game in order to accurately build major historical rockets...

[ZooNamedGames]

In my personal opinion, I have to agree with the masses for the most part, however I have my own issues with fairings...

I would like to see them have physics applied and become more of a structural element, since when I use them on manned crafts, they look something like an Apollo Saturn V with the manned capsule above the payload, and more importantly, the fairing covers the payload from atmospheric effects and also help provide structure. As it stands right now, there's no structure. Fairings are as strong as paper.

Also, work on the fairing collision mechanic, specifically, when placing them in the editor. I try to make the aforementioned "flower pettle" design from the Apollo Saturn V as part of the S-IVB fairing, and the fairing won't close. I place it where it's needed, but it won't close. So I'd like to ask for a special fairing designed to close around parts.

 

I however do agree with the devs in certain aspects. The current mechanic does make a simple solution for wings, hidden landing gear, and solar panels. But ultimately, the players should have freedom to fail, and that what this is preventing. If a player activates an engine within a fairing then it's their problem and it adds to the games fun (or rage)! 

It was a simple fix, but now it needs something better. 

[Plusck]

On 14/12/2015 12:23:11, Bill Zarr said:

I'd rather have things not activate by default while stowed. [...]

In general the default behaviour of things not activating while stowed is more useful to me, and I would suspect that is true of most players. [...]

[quote snipped to save space]

Although I understand that people who use KSP to produce highly aesthetical rockets need a solution, I too find the default behaviour logical and useful.

And by "true of most players" I would read "players who only use fairings for their primary and obvious use (given the VAB thumbnail for them)". Meaning to shield the payload from atmospheric effects. In this case, you certainly don't want engines to activate - but this is more a staging issue than anything else. However you also don't want solar panels, antennae, landing gear, RCS thrusters or anything else to activate while stowed. That would just be silly, and an enormous hassle if by default you had to go round turning things off or creating multiple action groups for them.

So yes - if possible - it would be fine if this could be made into a toggle in the VAB along the lines of "Allow activation while stowed (danger!)" / "Prevent activation while stowed (default)". However the description of the way fairings are implemented seems to suggest that this isn't really an option, unless somehow fairings were treated as two-stage items where the first staging (bypassed by default) allows the contents to activate without releasing the shell.

[AlamoVampire]

This inane and frankly appalling mechanic is preventing many designs from being done. Most notably Soyuz and Apollo styles are forbidden by this mechanic if you want accurate and not "worked around"  stuff. 

 

 

[Columbia]

Also, even engines attached to a fairing base are considered stowed. Even engines connected to fuel tanks that are inside fairings, even if the engine is totally inside it.. Honestly, in my opinion, this "mechanic" does way more bad than good.

[xiej]

.

Edited November 15 by xiej