Clam Shell or Shatter Fairings?

[ZooNamedGames]

KSP fairings have always bugged me as odd and very unrealistic (as well as impractical), as the fairings shatter into small fragments rather than into two large "clam shell" pieces like fairings in real life do (such as from the Atlas V, Delta IV and SpaceX Falcon 9).

I'm curious, do people like these shattering fairings that the game has stock, or do they want something more realistic?

Edited July 11, 2016 by ZooNamedGames

[HoloYolo]

Clamshell is for my more realistic rockets.

Shattering is for when I want the fairings to look cool.

Is there an other?

[ZooNamedGames]

15 minutes ago, HoloYolo said:

Clamshell is for my more realistic rockets.

Shattering is for when I want the fairings to look cool.

Is there an other?

Clamshell is realistic- as to it being cool, I guess that's preference and I have no say on that. The other is for those who think of something else other than those two.

[AlmostNASA]

I like Clamshell fairings because the separation looks clean on separation also probably less lag. Shattering just looks ugly but in a certain case it could look like a disaster has happened. In stock ksp you can have something that could be like both. 8 sides and on clamshell deploy.

[Alshain]

50 minutes ago, HoloYolo said:

Is there an other?

If you do clamshell with more than 2 segments, it could be counted as an 'other' since it's not really a clamshell at that point

[ZooNamedGames]

18 minutes ago, Alshain said:

If you do clamshell with more than 2 segments, it could be counted as an 'other' since it's not really a clamshell at that point

Good point, should be Clamshell, Symmetrical Seperation or Shattering.

Added that as an option to the OP.

[AlamoVampire]

the one and only TRUE fairings: Procedural Fairings Clam Shell. Why? Simple.

1. Procedural Fairings are easy to use.
2. Procedural Fairings are easy to duplicate, as in, attach the shell bit to the attach point and it autoshapes, over and over.
3. The so called "Stock" fairings are neither easy to use OR easy to duplicate. They are a royal pain.
4. Clam Shell fairings are realistic, going confetti is NOT.

<drops mic, walks off>

[problemecium]

Why not both?

Sometimes I use the clamshell option and sometimes I use the potato chip option. It depends on what I feel like doing and the shape of the fairing in question.

[Norcalplanner]

Symmetrical separation with either three or four segments, depending on the configuration of the rocket below.  I like the look of clamshells, but I've had them caught up on my payload one too many times.  Never had a problem with three or four segments.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Norcalplanner

[Superfluous J]

I voted clamshell because I figured "Symmetrical" was something from some mod. I tend to do Clamshell in 4 segments. More and it doesn't look right, less and I get this:

1 hour ago, Norcalplanner said:

Symmetrical separation with either three or four segments, depending on the configuration of the rocket below.  I like the look of clamshells, but I've had them caught up on my payload one too many times.  Never had a problem with three or four segments.

Also, I love the term "shatter fairings" and think I may start using it from now on. It doesn't have the negative connotations of "potato chip" and even "confetti" (what I preferred up to this point because it sounded LESS negative, but still a bit negative).

[eddiew]

Tbh, there's something very satisfying about the shatter fairings... But I suspect clamshell is more sensible and realistic.

For an other suggestion; pop the top off forwards, and split the sides into 3, because we all know 3 is cooler than 2

[evileye.x]

Because your rockets deserve some beauty...

Just member to add 0.10 torque to side panels. Gorgeous

Spoiler

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-CDSU4As-NHS3VyRmVuZ3AxVzQ/view?usp=sharing

 

 

[KerikBalm]

How is this a suggestion/development discussion when symetrical/clamshel fairings are already stock?

why don't you right click on a fairing after placing it, and look at the options available to you.

The only thing not stock in this image are the rescaled goliaths that are now electric fans for the Laythe Sub.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

1 hour ago, KerikBalm said:

How is this a suggestion/development discussion when symetrical/clamshel fairings are already stock?

What he said^

We already have options in stock for Shatter/Clamshell/Symmetrical fairings as well as variable number of sides and variable ejection force.

Not sure what more anyone could want?

Edited July 11, 2016 by Rocket In My Pocket

[klgraham1013]

I like my rockets to look like rockets.  Confetti fairings is one of the most perplexing decisions Squad has made.  I still don't comprehend it.

[Red Iron Crown]

Moved to KSP Discussion, as there's not really a suggestion or development discussion here given that stock already has both styles available. </moderator>

I prefer clamshells or symmetric separation and never use shatter/confetti/whatever we're calling it this week. I used the mod before the feature came to stock, never cared for fragmented fairings. Can't vote as two options apply to me. :/

[KerikBalm]

And, as mentioned, and then quoted directly above, Squad re-thought that decision and you now have the choice between clamshell (with player selectable symettry/numbers of segments) and confetti.

So... this suggestion has already been developed and implemented...

At most you could ask for 2 piece clamshell to be the default instead of confetti.

All you need to do right now is right click on the fairing base, and click the button for clamshell deploy.

Why is this a topic?

[katateochi]

Wasn't this one of the things we had a small riot about? After which squad added the option to have clamshell separation (thanks Squad!).

13 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

At most you could ask for 2 piece clamshell to be the default instead of confetti.

I would like clamshell/symmetrical to be the default, as it is it's just another minor detail to need to remember to set, every single time. But I guess there are those who like the confetti fairings, so really it should be a game setting that enables you to select which you want as your default. 

[pandaman]

I prefer symmetrical/clamshell, how many sides depends on size and my mood at the time.

I would prefer clamshell as the default though, but if I forget to select it then I'm not too bothered as it's only a cosmetic thing that's not persistent for long anyway.

[Mjarf]

I have a semi-related question: Have they fixed the aerodynamics of fairings yet? Last time I used fairings was in 1.1.2, and it was like having a giant sail on top of the rocket. It flew more stable through the atmosphere without a fairing... I may be using fairings wrong though, there's probably an ideal shape for them or something.

[steuben]

I prefer the exploding potato chip bag. But I play closer to the what will the engine let me get away with, or beg me to stop doing, then the realistic end of the scale.

Sometime the clam shell looks good, usually around a basic satellite payload. Sometimes the exploding bag looks good, like around a large moon lander that has a bit of a muscular line to it.

[NeoMorph]

I don't like shattering fairings. I tend to use procedural fairings that break away or the petal fairings from SSTU (like below).

[ZooNamedGames]

Seeing as this Fairing aspect has been answered I have another ill type up under Suggestions here soon.

[Snark]

I voted for "Other", simply because "couldn't care less" wasn't listed as an option.

To me, the point of a fairing is that when I trigger it, it goes away.  How it goes away is, to me, just a piece of irrelevant eye candy.  "What the heck difference does it make," about sums up my own attitude towards it.  I realize that there are other people who do care about this, which is presumably why Squad implemented it; but as far as I'm concerned, I would have been just as happy if Squad had taken the time they put into this feature, and instead spent it on any one of the dozens of other things that are IMHO more important than fairing style.

I recognize that my opinion may be a minority one, which is why I'm not particularly vocal about it. 

FWIW, I do kind-of-sort-of like clamshell a bit better than confetti fairings.  It does look kinda cool.  But it's so low on my mental priority scale that I usually end up launching with confetti fairings anyway, simply because that's the default and I can't be bothered to remember to tweak it in the VAB before launch.  (Incidentally, for folks who mention "tends to get caught up on the rocket" as a potential disadvantage of clamshell:  I've found that that's easily fixed by sliding the "ejection force" slider up.  It default to the extreme low end, I know not why.)

If I have to consider just why I care so little about this... it's probably because the experience is so brief.  I only have one fairing on a rocket.  I trigger it only once.  And invariably, the point where I trigger it is when I'm under high thrust during the launch sequence, which means the fairing debris (be it clamshell or confetti) falls behind the rocket so fast that I've got at most a second or two to admire the fairing-ejection sequence.  It's just hard for me to work up that much give-a-darn-one-way-or-the-other over an event that happens only once per mission and lasts for a second or two.

[Brainlord Mesomorph]

I had a ship with nacelles below the fairing, and potato chip fairing pieces would get caught and cause drag.

Clamshell separated cleanly.

/so there's one reason