Stock "Fairings" vs Procedural Fairings

[AlamoVampire]

I have a short and simple question: Why does Squad still insist on using their inferior fairings over the demonstrably superior Procedural Fairings? Stock fairings are arguably hard to use, nearly impossible to make interstage fairings with them, they are impossible to duplicate, do not have clean lines. While Procedural Fairings are easy to use, can range in size from about 0.100 meters to a staggering 50 meters, yes you read that right FIFTY METERS. Can be conical or egg shaped, take SECONDS to put on and are easy to configure to your needs on the run while building. SO, why do they not use the Procedural Fairings already?

[klesh]

The procedural fairing's bases are alot nicer than the big clunky one in stock.  I especially like the raised base.

[Snark]

Moving to Suggestions.

[Alshain]

Even if they did use Proc Fairings (they probably won't), they would probably use fixed size bases like we have for the current stock ones, so you can't count on that 50 meter size.  Squad only wants the fairing shell to be procedural.

I agree, I dislike the stock fairings, but I do know there are also people that like them.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Alshain

[StarStreak2109]

I prefer fixed size fairings!

[KSK]

Haven't we already flogged this horse to death, buried it in soft peat for a year, recycled it as firelighters, ignited a fire with said firelighters and then, for an encore, perfected the art of molecular nanoassembly and reconstituted the poor beast from the ashes?

[r4pt0r]

I personally like the fairings, now that they added the clamshell option and I dont have to see "exploding potato chip bag" fairings.

Really my problem with fairings in KSP is we dont have hinges and motors so we can fold up our things to make them compact and fit better in the fairing.
 

Discussion on that can continue in my thread though, so please dont derail here.

Edited August 15, 2016 by r4pt0r

[Red Iron Crown]

I use both. I think you omit some of the stock fairings' advantages:

- Easy to work inside after placing.
- Less clutter in the part menus.
- More intuitive to build, especially for new players.
- More complex shapes are possible.

I agree with some of the benefits listed in the OP for PF's advantages, I just don't agree that they're as clearly superior to the stock ones as described.

[tater]

I just wish the stock fairings had 2 things:

1. that like every other rocket part, they didn't look terrible (the part itself).

2. That when the fairing was closed it automatically rounded the corners (or had that as a toggle) so that they looked like real fairings. They don't need to be prefect, just slightly radius all the direction changes, and make the closure on top form a smooth arc with the previous segment.

OK, one more thing. Have fairings remember your last choice for clamshell vs potato chip and treat your last choice as default, that way all my fairings will be clamshell without me having to click it.

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by tater

[Alshain]

2 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

I use both. I think you omit some of the stock fairings' advantages:

- Easy to work inside after placing - No different than ProcFairings, they are quite easy to work on.  You have to remove one piece, and the shell transparency doesn't get in the way of your view like with stock.
- Less clutter in the part menus. - A difference of three parts, four of which give functionality that stock does not have.  (1 Raised Base, 2 Elliptical ("egg shell") fairings, 1 structural conical fairing)  So when you boil it down, ProcFairings has only 2 parts equivalent to the stock 3.
- More intuitive to build, especially for new players. - Not really, no.  Not sure where you got that idea.  If you can build a rocket, you can place a ProcFairing shell part.  The stock fairings are in fact less intuitive.
- More complex shapes are possible. - True to some degree, but to what end?  The ProcFairings are very flexible in size and shape.  Most people will use the automatic option, but you can control it with tweakables as well.  The exception to this is that stock can build some very un-aerodynamic designs that ProcFairings can not, but most people don't want to build an umbrella out of fairing shells.  This is very little advantage as most designs can be done with either, and it certainly doesn't outweigh the superior design of ProcFairings.. 

I agree with some of the benefits listed in the OP for PF's advantages, I just don't agree that they're as clearly superior to the stock ones as described.

See my comments in green.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Alshain

[Red Iron Crown]

Quote

No different than ProcFairings, they are quite easy to work on.  You have to remove one piece, and the shell transparency doesn't get in the way of your view like with stock.

Removing parts removes the mass, so your dV calculator stops working correctly. It's a tradeoff, there are benefits to each approach and I don't think it's fair to call one objectively better, though I can certainly see why some would prefer PF's approach.

Quote

 A difference of three parts, four of which give functionality that stock does not have.  (1 Raised Base, 2 Elliptical ("egg shell") fairings, 1 structural conical fairing)  So when you boil it down, ProcFairings has only 2 parts equivalent to the stock 3.

We must be using different versions of PF. PF has way, way more parts than stock fairings in my install.

Quote

Not really, no.  Not sure where you got that idea.  If you can build a rocket, you can place a ProcFairing shell part.  The stock fairings are in fact less intuitive.

Strongly disagree, and it's based on my personal experience with both. Which upper node should I use to attach the PF base? What are all these settings in the right click menu? This part doesn't look big enough to enclose the fairing. Oh wait, it expands when placed? Why is it only covering part of the rocket?

I'll concede the complex shapes bit, it's an edge case that doesn't carry much weight.

[foamyesque]

My biggest gripe with the stock fairings is that it doesn't remember the fairing if I detach the base and reattach it. Aside from that, they're fine.

[AlamoVampire]

Stock fairings are ugly as rot.

seems stock fairings refuse to stay in clamshell where PF are by DEFAULT.

stock isnt intuitive at all. PF place and go. As to a dv calculator? Pfft soon as the parts on again bam recalced. If your ships so touchy that 500-1500 pounds that typicallys gone before circularization makes THAT big of a difference the fairings are not the problem. Engine choice is. But neither here or there. Stock fairings are bad. Proc Fairings are good. But i suddenly sense a mechjeb style fight coming

[Alshain]

2 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Removing parts removes the mass, so your dV calculator stops working correctly. It's a tradeoff, there are benefits to each approach and I don't think it's fair to call one objectively better, though I can certainly see why some would prefer PF's approach.

I'll grant you that one, you do have to put it back on to get your dV calculator.  A small issue, but still pretty easy to deal with.

2 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

We must be using different versions of PF. PF has way, way more parts than stock fairings in my install.

It has some parts not related to fairings for some reason, but I don't count those as they aren't part of the fairing system and wouldn't be necessary in stock had they used the PF method.  A thruster plate or something like that, it uses the same node modules and I think it was just crammed into the mod because the mod author didn't want to release it as as separate mod with the same code.

There was also a legacy base part for interstage fairings, I think it was left in so as not to break older rockets.  However the normal bases now serve both interstage and top fairings so again it's unnecessary and could be removed if stockified.  That leaves 2 bases, and 4 fairing sides as I said, 6 parts 4 of which add new functionality and if you must include the interstage fairing base, it would be 7 parts, 5 of which add new functionality.

2 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Strongly disagree, and it's based on my personal experience with both. Which upper node should I use to attach the PF base? What are all these settings in the right click menu? This part doesn't look big enough to enclose the fairing. Oh wait, it expands when placed? Why is it only covering part of the rocket?

As opposed to... Why won't this fairing expand up anymore?   I placed the base now I have to build the fairing before I build the payload?   How do I stop building the fairing?   There is text in the middle of the screen but it's washed out by the background, what does it say? Is it important?  How do you build a new segement or close the fairing... oh, when the unreadable text changes colors good thing I'm not color blind!  We will have to agree to disagree on that one, the stock fairings are much less intuitive.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Alshain

[Starwaster]

On 8/14/2016 at 11:57 PM, AlamoVampire said:

I have a short and simple question: Why does Squad still insist on using their inferior fairings over the demonstrably superior Procedural Fairings? Stock fairings are arguably hard to use, nearly impossible to make interstage fairings with them, they are impossible to duplicate, do not have clean lines. While Procedural Fairings are easy to use, can range in size from about 0.100 meters to a staggering 50 meters, yes you read that right FIFTY METERS. Can be conical or egg shaped, take SECONDS to put on and are easy to configure to your needs on the run while building. SO, why do they not use the Procedural Fairings already?

Making interstages is easy. I can do it consistently every time. 

Though I can definitely see the attraction in making fairings that are ridiculously huge, Squad apparently decided to put reasonable limits on fairing sizes. That's not hard coded though, it's a question of configuration. in the part's cfg file.

On the downside for the PF mod, have you checked that thread lately? There's quite a few complaints about buggy behavior with fairing stability, especially when using (but not limited to) the autostrutting feature which has been bugged for quite awhile with no fix in sight.

On 8/15/2016 at 7:50 AM, KSK said:

Haven't we already flogged this horse to death, buried it in soft peat for a year, recycled it as firelighters, ignited a fire with said firelighters and then, for an encore, perfected the art of molecular nanoassembly and reconstituted the poor beast from the ashes?

Sorry, request denied

The remains must now be re-burned back down to ash and the ash burned again with chlorine trifluoride. (a chemical that has been described as being able to burn even things you would normally consider burned to hell and gone - Also being able to set fire to glass, asbestos and test engineers)

Edited August 17, 2016 by Starwaster

[tater]

I gave up on stock interstages a long time ago... I hadn't realized that they had fixed that functionality. That's the problem with bad design that gets released, people learn that certain things are not possible, and never try doing it again. The interstage thing was so flakey for me, I gave up (I don't really like them at this point anyway).

My biggest complaints are merely aesthetic at this point. Like every single other rocket part in KSP, the fairings themselves, and the base part are all transcendently ugly. That any parts are being added at all to KSP before making the rocket parts look decent sort of bugs me. Spaceplanes look like stunning craft from science fiction (which, you know, they are), whereas rockets---something that actually exist---look like they are made out of stuff cobbled from the junkyard.

The base part (and every, single stage separator) needs to be flush. The fairings need a slight rounding to the transitions to look real. 

Edited August 17, 2016 by tater

[AlamoVampire]

@Starwaster Proc Fairings work just fine for me honestly. PF is vastly superior so I never use fools gold when I have real gold.

[KSK]

1 hour ago, tater said:

My biggest complaints are merely aesthetic at this point. Like every single other rocket part in KSP, the fairings themselves, and the base part are all transcendently ugly. That any parts are being added at all to KSP before making the rocket parts look decent sort of bugs me. Spaceplanes look like stunning craft from science fiction (which, you know, they are), whereas rockets---something that actually exist---look like they are made out of stuff cobbled from the junkyard.

The base part (and every, single stage separator) needs to be flush. The fairings need a slight rounding to the transitions to look real. 

Fair points but I'm also hoping the rocket part revamp doesn't go too far. I agree that more could be done to make the rocket parts fit together better (aesthetically speaking) but I'll be disappointed if they go fully 'spaceplane' and we just get small, medium or large sci-fi shiny parts. 

Three reasons, the third being by far the weakest.

1. The visual appearance of parts is a nice indicator of your space program's technological progress.

2. Early NASA or Soviet space hardware (especially the Soviet) stuff wasn't particularly sleek and sci-fi. Not viewed from the 21st century anyhow.

3. I like the junkyard aesthetic, at least on the early tech tree tiers. Wouldn't mind a complete overhaul of the part descriptions though - the kerbal komedy descriptions get a bit old, especially when applied to high tech spaceplane, sensor and ISRU parts.

[tater]

@KSK, I don't disagree that parts could have varied aesthetics over time, but the problem is that we have to use the same parts at every stage.

 

1. Currently the earliest parts are in fact sort of sleek, the middle parts are junk, and the late parts are sleek again---but early, middle, and late are defined only based upon size.

2. Having a texture toggle (check out SSTU for this) would work, and you could even predicate it on tech unlocks. Have allowed textures change as the tree is advanced. Once all the parts are unlocked, "sic-fi" textures become a thing.

3. I hate the junkyard aesthetic, but even if I didn't, then the spaceplane parts need to be junkified. Either everything is junk, or nothing should be junk. The schizophrenic mixture is absurd. Here's an idea. Add a new class of 0.625m rocket parts that look like they were cobbled together in an actual barn (I hate the barn, too, BTW, but I'll accept the notion for this). Those are tier 0 test rockets. Have a launcher part they come with (a rail) that you explicitly set to a launch angle, and they are unguided. Learn rocketry with it, it can be ugly.

[Starwaster]

28 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

@Starwaster Proc Fairings work just fine for me honestly. PF is vastly superior so I never use fools gold when I have real gold.

Hurrah for you. I don't have that issue either. That doesn't change the fact that there's people who for whatever reason effectively can't use the mod. 

Also the periodic pleas for help from people who still don't understand how PFs interstage works because they don't know what to do about the two top node system or because they think they have to use two base parts to do an interstage. (A situation not helped by otherwise knowledgeable and experienced veterans telling them you do need two base parts)

[KSK]

2 hours ago, tater said:

@KSK, I don't disagree that parts could have varied aesthetics over time, but the problem is that we have to use the same parts at every stage.

 

1. Currently the earliest parts are in fact sort of sleek, the middle parts are junk, and the late parts are sleek again---but early, middle, and late are defined only based upon size.

2. Having a texture toggle (check out SSTU for this) would work, and you could even predicate it on tech unlocks. Have allowed textures change as the tree is advanced. Once all the parts are unlocked, "sic-fi" textures become a thing.

3. I hate the junkyard aesthetic, but even if I didn't, then the spaceplane parts need to be junkified. Either everything is junk, or nothing should be junk. The schizophrenic mixture is absurd. Here's an idea. Add a new class of 0.625m rocket parts that look like they were cobbled together in an actual barn (I hate the barn, too, BTW, but I'll accept the notion for this). Those are tier 0 test rockets. Have a launcher part they come with (a rail) that you explicitly set to a launch angle, and they are unguided. Learn rocketry with it, it can be ugly.

Very few arguments from me here. I could quibble over your 0.625m parts idea but that's personal preference (and off-topic for this thread.  ). Points 1 and 2 are spot on, IMO, likewise your 'schizophrenic mixture' comment.

[tater]

5 minutes ago, KSK said:

Very few arguments from me here. I could quibble over your 0.625m parts idea but that's personal preference (and off-topic for this thread.  ). Points 1 and 2 are spot on, IMO, likewise your 'schizophrenic mixture' comment.

I only added the small parts idea to make you some early junk parts  .

[foamyesque]

3 minutes ago, KSK said:

Very few arguments from me here. I could quibble over your 0.625m parts idea but that's personal preference (and off-topic for this thread.  ). Points 1 and 2 are spot on, IMO, likewise your 'schizophrenic mixture' comment.

 

Yeah. The way I'd do it, personally, is something like FO4's power-armour paint system. Have a certain number of paints/skins unlockable as you move through the tech tree, that are toggleable on the parts in the VAB, and have various effects; no paint for cheap and lightweight and ugly, the smooth white & black for looks and thermal, that sort of thing. The 2.5m parts in particular are way out of line from the current 1.25m, spaceplane, and 3.25m parts and need the white&black texture job applied to them to fit in. 0.625m I'm less fussed about because they're largely used on probes, so the difference in looks doesn't clash as much b/c of the clear separation of the probe from the rest of the rocket.

[Alshain]

2 hours ago, Starwaster said:

Hurrah for you. I don't have that issue either. That doesn't change the fact that there's people who for whatever reason effectively can't use the mod. 

Also the periodic pleas for help from people who still don't understand how PFs interstage works because they don't know what to do about the two top node system or because they think they have to use two base parts to do an interstage. (A situation not helped by otherwise knowledgeable and experienced veterans telling them you do need two base parts)

Neither of those are very good points.  The fact that the mod is having a few buggy issues is not an issue because Squad would repair such defects, not that they don't have their own, the stock fairings have had issues too.

The support requests from people who don't understand something happens every stock feature and mod.  That's how it goes.  Again, that's not a good reason to avoid it.  There are people that do not understand how the stock fairing system works.  They just have to be educated.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Alshain

[tater]

I managed to figure out interstages in PF, but gave up on that in stock a while ago, though maybe they work...

I think that as part of the supposedly forthcoming improvements in rocket aesthetics they should fix the stock fairings. There is no need to replicate PF, just make stock fairings "not ugly." That seems a pretty low bar to me, to have them not be awful.