Stock Fairings or Node Attachment Fairings

[ZooNamedGames]

A long time ago... In a version far far away...

 

In the ye old days of KSP, before there were stock fairings; to get them you had to use mods. The most popular ones to use for fairings were Procedural Fairings which auto created the fairings depending on the payload or the specific one I liked, KW (or at the time) NovaPunch part packs.

KW/NP had a unique and different approach to fairings than we have currently, back then you had various ring sizes and you add to attach each segment manually. Now, we have a free form fairing creation mechanic which is simpler to use albeit, but less of an engineering challenge (and far buggier than desired!)

I liked KW/NP's take on fairings lot more and still do as it created an engineering challenge. You had to make your payloads fit within the fairings and since they didn't free form to whatever shape, you had to make them fit which caused you to change your payloads, possibly segmenting them over several launches or just changing their shape entirely to work. This is realistic as you don't see fairings of any shape dependent on payload, often the payloads are dependent on the fairing size. I feel this creates a more reasonable challenge to the players without causing too much of an issue.

I will admit that this method is more time consuming, but I will list a few issues I have with the current system:

• Segment placement is VERY buggy, often not acknowledging placement clicks at all
• Cancelling out of the process is difficult because of the previous statement
• Placement of sections are very unpredictable with the only fix being to just wave the mouse around where you want it to be and hope it works.
• Closing of the fairings don't always work because of reasons 1 and 3.

So please tell me, would you prefer something new? Or would you prefer we kept this system... _{and possibly fix it?}

[Jarin]

I just want the stock system to quit defaulting to confetti farings, so I don't have to toggle it every time I build something.

[ZooNamedGames]

15 minutes ago, Jarin said:

I just want the stock system to quit defaulting to confetti farings, so I don't have to toggle it every time I build something.

Fair enough.

[Alshain]

LOL, @ZooNamedGames, I hate to keep criticizing your polls, but again there is a third option. The Procedural Fairings mod combines more limited node attachment than KW with a more automatic procedurally built fairing than Stock, that is my preference.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Alshain

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, Alshain said:

LOL, @ZooNamedGames, I hate to keep criticizing your polls, but again there is a third option. The Procedural Fairings mod combines more limited node attachment with a more automatic procedurally built fairing than Stock, that is my preference.

How so? I am unfamiliar with this.

Besides, I'm referring to classic .23 ish (something of that era) fairings vs the current. So this isn't supposed to induce all ideas for it, just current system vs one I really really liked and I was curious if anyone else liked it to.

[Alshain]

5 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

How so? I am unfamiliar with this.

Besides, I'm referring to classic .23 ish (something of that era) fairings vs the current. So this isn't supposed to induce all ideas for it, just current system vs one I really really liked and I was curious if anyone else liked it to.

In procedural fairings, you add a base, just like stock, but instead of building the fairing from the base like stock, you have to add a fairing shell part, like KW.  However, the part magically conforms in shape to the payload when you do this, unlike KW where you have to piece together more of them.  It also automatically struts the payload to the fairing sorta magically.  The fairing is solid and persistent when discarding like KW, unlike stock.  The mod has been around since at least 0.20, so it's still of that era, it existed when I started playing.  Plus it's fairings look a heck of a lot nicer than anything stock or KW have.  I suggest at least testing it out to see if you like it.

 

 

Edited July 11, 2016 by Alshain

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, Alshain said:

In procedural fairings, you add a base, just like stock, but instead of building the fairing from the base like stock, you have to add a fairing shell part, like KW.  However, the part magically conforms in shape to the payload when you do this, unlike KW where you have to piece together more of them.  It also automatically struts the payload to the fairing sorta magically.  The fairing is solid and persistent when discarding like KW, unlike stock.  The mod has been around since at least 0.20, so it's still of that era, it existed when I started playing.  I suggest at least testing it out to see if you like it.

 

 

Oh the standard auto creation PFairings mechanic. That I know and again I feel it's an even easier engineering cheat card (personally).

[Alshain]

Well it's up to you, I'm going to abstain from the poll then since neither of the options really apply to my preference.  My preference would be to scrap the stock system in favor of the PFairings method.

45 minutes ago, Jarin said:

I just want the stock system to quit defaulting to confetti farings, so I don't have to toggle it every time I build something.

I'm looking to see if this can be done with an MM patch. EDIT: I believe it can, give me some time to test and then check the second link in my signature.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Alshain

[Snark]

Of the two original options that ZooNamedGames provided, I prefer the stock method.  Yes, it has some annoying UI quirks, but I view those as bugs to be fixed, not a reason to axe the feature.  If they'd just fix the bugs / UI-warts, I'd be happy with it as-is.

That said, I find the process of building the fairing to be somewhat uninteresting-- I mean, I'm always going to just click-click-click to try to build the smallest, tightest fairing I can that will enclose the content, and make sure to give it a pointy front end-- so if they could make it more automatic, I'd be all in favor of that.  If I had to describe my ideal fairing experience, it would be this:  have everything exactly the way it is in stock, except that I don't actually have to go through the process of clicking to create the fairing itself:  it just automatically sizes/shapes itself to conform to whatever payload is above the fairing base.

44 minutes ago, Jarin said:

I just want the stock system to quit defaulting to confetti farings, so I don't have to toggle it every time I build something.

...Well, presumably you could just add a snippet of ModuleManager config to tweak the default to whatever you want it to be.  Couple of minutes with a text editor and problem solved.

[Alshain]

@Jarin / @Snark

Works perfectly, I added a patch to the Database

[klgraham1013]

I prefer KW, only because I like Lego, and having a random procedural element doesn't fit with the current games construction philosophy.

[Jarin]

6 hours ago, Alshain said:

@Jarin / @Snark

Works perfectly, I added a patch to the Database

Awesome, thanks!

[cfds]

Procedural Fairings all the way. For the purists, there is even an option to set the basic parameters (radius, start of cylindrical part, end of cylindrical part) by hand.

[XB-70A]

This time I have to set myself with the stock product, even if non-realist it stays creative. And as the recent versions give us the so waited choice to set a "clamshell" without mods I just see one thing I would ask : would like a way to "blank" these stock fairings. The yellow/orange lines are hideous, a united full white or black option could be cooler in my opinion.

[klgraham1013]

2 hours ago, XB-70A said:

Snip

First thing I did after trying the stock fairings: Edit the texture.

[swjr-swis]

• Procedurally formed fairings please. 1 part to place/manage instead of XX parts.
• Choice of clamshell separation with persistent debris (simulation of hard/rigid shells) or confetti that auto-dissolves (fabric fairings). If clamshell, choice of how many radial/longitudinal segments to separate into. If confetti, the pieces should be tiny or become tiny quite quickly and be physicsless. Choice is good, and I would use both depending on circumstances/design goals.
• Choice of automatic or manual shaping of the fairing. Again, choice, and only fully automated 'perfect' shaping would no longer allow me to create specific designs for reasons other than pure optimal aerodynamic shielding.
• When manually shaping: allow the fairing to have an open end. Ie. like stock, default left-click to place a segment and edit next segment, but add a mod key (ctrl/shift/alt) when left-clicking to indicate stop editing after placing this segment, and leaving it the fairing open ended.
• Choice of exact angles or smoothed curves for segment transitions. Stock fairings automatically smoothly curve over longitudinal segment edges, but not the radial edges... which is a rather odd combination neithe entirely smooth nor entirely angled. Let me choose for either one if I want smoothed edges.
• Remove the 'exploding' animation in the editor: it's pretty eye-candy but only hampers the building process and affects performance. Making it somewhat translucent is enough. Make the outside and inside of the now static fairing shell surface-attachable.
• Implement collisions to the inside of the fairing shell. Option to 'allow/disallow deployment/activation of payload' in the fairing.
• Choice of textures.

Ok I got a bit carried away, thought the question was how I would like stock fairings to work.

[Stoney3K]

I like the puzzle fairing from KW batter than I do the procedural ones from either the mod or in stock, As the OP already said, having a certain payload profile which you must conform to makes you take different engineering choices. If the payload is not gonna fit in the fairing, you can't enlarge the fairing so you need to shrink down the payload. It almost starts to sound like real spaceflight engineering.

Fairings that magically conform to anything you stick on top of it are unrealistic. There is a reason that rockets don't look like water towers or like footballs with an arrow stuck into them. Anything that is wider than 125% of the fairing base size would just get a "Nuh-uh, this is never gonna fit in the fairing!" warning, leaving the fairing unconstructed.

[pincushionman]

I would not have a problem with KW-style fairings…

EXCEPT.

We do not have the tools to properly collapse probes so they can fit into said fairings. Sure, solar panels, radiators, and antennas deploy, but nothing else. Wheels are a particular problem in this regard.

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, pincushionman said:

I would not have a problem with KW-style fairings…

EXCEPT.

We do not have the tools to properly collapse probes so they can fit into said fairings. Sure, solar panels, radiators, and antennas deploy, but nothing else. Wheels are a particular problem in this regard.

bigger diameter fairing then  .