Default fairing deployment mode should be clamshell ON

[lajoswinkler]

I'd like to see the clamshell mode be enabled by default instead of each time users having to enable it.

I'm pretty sure most people use near clamshell deployment as it looks more realistic, presents less hazard for the ascending rocket, and less strain on the computer since it can be as little as 2 parts, whereas confetti is a disaster on multiple accounts.

When Squad first added fairings, there was no clamshell option at all, which rightfully caused lots of complains. Then it was added, but having to click the damn button each time just pokes my brain.

If someone knows how to make it be ON by default, do tell and I'll give them a cookie.

[OHara]

I think several people would agree, having made module manager patches to change the default to clamshell.

[lajoswinkler]

17 minutes ago, OHara said:

I think several people would agree, having made module manager patches to change the default to clamshell.

Oh, thank you for that, I had no idea. 

[Pthigrivi]

+1. I'd love to take this off my pre-launch checklist.

Edited April 13, 2019 by Pthigrivi

[lajoswinkler]

1 hour ago, OHara said:

I think several people would agree, having made module manager patches to change the default to clamshell.

Have a cookie.

[Superfluous J]

The problem is, confetti fairings work 100% of the time. Clamshell can get stuck even if you crank up the force number if you make your ship in a way that can stick them, and can also get stuck even if you make your ship in a way that can't stick them if you don't crank up the force number.

That said, I also install that config because I personally want them clamshell all the time, to the point where I'll rebuild my ship a bit if there's a problem.

[Tyko]

On 4/13/2019 at 2:00 PM, 5thHorseman said:

The problem is, confetti fairings work 100% of the time. Clamshell can get stuck even if you crank up the force number if you make your ship in a way that can stick them, and can also get stuck even if you make your ship in a way that can't stick them if you don't crank up the force number.

That said, I also install that config because I personally want them clamshell all the time, to the point where I'll rebuild my ship a bit if there's a problem.

I also added a line to the config to kick ejection force up as well. I think I'm using 500 as my default force.

[klgraham1013]

I still consider confetti fairings a bug that should have never happened.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

Yes.

[ZooNamedGames]

On 4/13/2019 at 5:00 PM, 5thHorseman said:

The problem is, confetti fairings work 100% of the time. Clamshell can get stuck even if you crank up the force number if you make your ship in a way that can stick them, and can also get stuck even if you make your ship in a way that can't stick them if you don't crank up the force number.

That said, I also install that config because I personally want them clamshell all the time, to the point where I'll rebuild my ship a bit if there's a problem.

Your stage can collide with themselves too, but I don't see anyone requesting confetti stages .

That said, making sure it stages properly is not only an engineering challenge, but also a realistic one.

Besides, there's no amount of disappointment that a player can have that can match this exact situation that happened to Gemini 9.

[Challyss]

I'd love an option to chose the default mode for fairings, autostruts, or other modules.

[Dunbaratu]

On 4/19/2019 at 9:25 AM, ZooNamedGames said:

That said, making sure it stages properly is not only an engineering challenge, but also a realistic one.

I would agree only if SQUAD gave us the tools to override what *they* are doing wrong with fairings, that is:

1 -They require all fairings to angle upward for their first segment out of the ring.  They don't let you make the fairing stick out sideways so it will correctly shift out of its slot and not get wedged.

2 - They keep insisting on flinging the fairing *forward and* out to the side, instead of just straight out to the side.  I'd like to be able to define the direction vector their explosive bolts push in rather than having it be a random surprise whether the clamshell goes sideways or diagonally forward when staged.

[ZooNamedGames]

1 hour ago, Steven Mading said:

I would agree only if SQUAD gave us the tools to override what *they* are doing wrong with fairings, that is:

1 -They require all fairings to angle upward for their first segment out of the ring.  They don't let you make the fairing stick out sideways so it will correctly shift out of its slot and not get wedged.

2 - They keep insisting on flinging the fairing *forward and* out to the side, instead of just straight out to the side.  I'd like to be able to define the direction vector their explosive bolts push in rather than having it be a random surprise whether the clamshell goes sideways or diagonally forward when staged.

1- You can have perfectly smooth fairings. It does seem to be buggy, but with some work, you can have fairings that go straight up. I use fairings a lot as interstages and this is feasible because they can be designed vertically.

2- Well that's a factor of realism. The bolts that split the fairing are at the base. Not at the top or the sides so as a result, when the charges fire (in real life) they produce a net force up and outward, creating this spread. It's rational KSP would follow that model.

[Dunbaratu]

5 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

1- You can have perfectly smooth fairings. It does seem to be buggy, but with some work, you can have fairings that go straight up. I use fairings a lot as interstages and this is feasible because they can be designed vertically.

Not up.  Out.  They require that the faring go up which is what I was saying I didn't want.  Plenty of real life fairings are wider than the base ring but in KSP when you try to make the fairing go outward it ends up getting jammed in with the part above it because the game insists on starting the fairing shell in between the two parts instead of starting it going outward.  To work around the bug you have to make a narrower diameter part above the fairing ring, then go back out to the normal diameter again above that. That lets you make the fairing go up without getting wedged in there, and *then* start having it take a turn outward before it hits the normal diameter part above that.  You have to build in this narrowing (which weakens the structure) just to work around the fact that the fairings refuse to be built outward.

[Superfluous J]

1 hour ago, Steven Mading said:

To work around the bug you have to make a narrower diameter part above the fairing ring, then go back out to the normal diameter again above that.

You can also enable the interior nodes of the fairing and mount your payload on the first set. I do this all the time, both to do what you say and also to make the fairings work going straight up.

[Dunbaratu]

4 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

You can also enable the interior nodes of the fairing and mount your payload on the first set. I do this all the time, both to do what you say and also to make the fairings work going straight up.

Okay that's fair.  I often forget about the hidden extra nodes you can enable.  It's still a bit annoying that fairings aren't allowed to be built straight outward and end up at most being allowed to go maybe 45 degrees tilted outward, and I really wish they'd stop clamping that feature down like that.  But yeah moving the next connector (usually a decoupler) up to an interstage node will probably accommodate the inability to make the fairing angle straight out.

[SiriusRocketry]

I like both, but I guess default clamshell would be better as most of the community uses it and it's not a game-changer or anything like decaying RTGs or multiplayer. 

[AVaughan]

13 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

You can also enable the interior nodes of the fairing and mount your payload on the first set. I do this all the time, both to do what you say and also to make the fairings work going straight up.

Personally I wish that the additional nodes weren't enabled by default.  I have had a few issues where I managed to mount a parachute on one of those nodes, rather than on the top of the capsule inside the fairing.  

[Superfluous J]

1 minute ago, AVaughan said:

Personally I wish that the additional nodes weren't enabled by default.  I have had a few issues where I managed to mount a parachute on one of those nodes, rather than on the top of the capsule inside the fairing.  

Just yesterday I watched my battery fly away with the lifter as I was trying to launch a probe.