Broken Part Under Fairing?

[dresoccer4]

Hey there! So I'm running into a frustrating issue.  As shown below in the screenshot, a small antenna is breaking apart upon ascent, even though it's protected under a shroud. I have a small rover attached under an engine plate, and there's  small antenna on the rover. 

Consistently upon ascent, it breaks off very quickly. The rest of the rover remains in good shape. What's going on???

P.S. I tried to use the alt+f12 cheat mode to stop it from breaking but its STILL breaks even with "no crash damage" and "unbreakable joints" enabled  

 

[Spricigo]

Seems the obvious solution is to keep the antenna retraced. I'm missing something here?

[bewing]

Shrouds are not fairings. Shrouds are just for decoration.

[dresoccer4]

38 minutes ago, bewing said:

Shrouds are not fairings. Shrouds are just for decoration.

Well I guess that's the answer right here! good to know. they sure look like  a fairing  . Is there a way to achieve what I'm doing using a fairing?

Using an engine plate is so handy because it automatically builds the shroud around your structure then easily allows construction below it, in 1 seamless design. How can I achieve this with fairings?

thanks!

7 hours ago, Spricigo said:

Seems the obvious solution is to keep the antenna retraced. I'm missing something here?

this actually did work  . my antenna i'm using is super small, and the "extended" version is just literally turned 20 degrees to the right. Didn't realize that'd make it fragile. thanks mate

[Wobbly Av8r]

I've found that shrouds and fairings are a bit finnicky; shrouds will only 'protect' their contents when properly constructed - and this applies to fairings as well. I would investigate what the shroud terminates AGAINST to determine what the problem might be...

And I'm not sure it's intentional, but the "structural tube" parts, while visually appearing to keep the integrity of parts placed inside them, actually do not - and behave as though there is no protection there at all and create very high drag profiles.

[OHara]

11 minutes ago, Wobbly Av8r said:

And I'm not sure it's intentional, but the "structural tube" parts, while visually appearing to keep the integrity of parts placed inside them, actually do not - and behave as though there is no protection there at all and create very high drag profiles.

The rule seems to be that only parts in the 'payload' section in the VAB will protect their payloads.   

If you want to change the rules in your own game, there is a mod to extend the mechanism of protection to other hollow parts (link)

Edited October 23, 2020 by OHara
repair link

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, dresoccer4 said:

Well I guess that's the answer right here! good to know. they sure look like  a fairing  . Is there a way to achieve what I'm doing using a fairing?

You can disable the shroud on the engine plate, and build it with a fairing. Put a fairing on top of the lower stage, same diameter. Put a decoupler one step smaller on top of that. Then the engine plate, minus the shroud. Then build the fairing so that it closes around the engine plate. Now everything inside the fairing is shielded.

When you decouple, the fairing will fall away with the lower stage.

(If you don't actually need the engine plate to hold the rover, you can omit it.

Edited October 23, 2020 by Guest

[steve_v]

1 hour ago, bewing said:

Shrouds are not fairings. Shrouds are just for decoration.

While true, this is both stupid and counterintuitive. Install a sensible aerodynamic model (i.e. FAR) and this problem just goes away, like all the other weird idiosyncrasies. If it looks like a fairing, it works like a fairing.

 

20 minutes ago, OHara said:

The rule seems to be that only parts in the 'payload' section in the VAB will protect their payloads.

The rule is that only parts with ModuleProceduralFairing or ModuleCargoBay  have the "zone of aerodynamics nullification" enchantment on them, because apparently magic modules and hacky approximations > realistic and intuitive aerodynamic model.

 

40 minutes ago, dresoccer4 said:

they sure look like  a fairing

Don't they just...
FWIW, I have been running FAR for years and I regularly hide stuff under engine shrouds. It works exactly as you would expect.

 

33 minutes ago, Wobbly Av8r said:

shrouds and fairings are a bit finnicky; shrouds will only 'protect' their contents when properly constructed

33 minutes ago, Wobbly Av8r said:

"structural tube" parts, while visually appearing to keep the integrity of parts placed inside them, actually do not

Yeah, about those idiosyncrasies...

 

[Guest]

I second the recommendation about FAR. There seems to be a myth going around that FAR makes things so incredibly difficult that only trained aerospace engineers are able to play the game with it on, but it isn't true at all. In fact I find playing with FAR is actually easier and more intuitive than with stock aerodynamics, it's only difficult if you rely on exploiting the idiosyncrasies of stock aero. 

IMO FAR is so good it ought to be stock aero.

[bewing]

8 minutes ago, steve_v said:

While true, this is both stupid and counterintuitive.

It may be counterintuitive, true --  but all engines have shrouds, and there needs to be a reason in career mode for fairings to exist. If any shroud is a fairing, then that breaks career mode, because you get all your fairings for free.

[dresoccer4]

49 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

You can disable the shroud on the engine plate, and build it with a fairing. Put a fairing on top of the lower stage, same diameter. Put a decoupler one step smaller on top of that. Then the engine plate, minus the shroud. Then build the fairing so that it closes around the engine plate. Now everything inside the fairing is shielded.

When you decouple, the fairing will fall away with the lower stage.

(If you don't actually need the engine plate to hold the rover, you can omit it.

this solution worked great! I actually didn't need a decoupler either.

I put down my engine plate, then attached my rover below it (with small docking nodes). Then put a fairing plate on the bottom connection node of the engine plate and built the fairing up. That's it! I also disabled the fairing action and just used the engine node, since it has a built in decoupler. 

[steve_v]

20 minutes ago, bewing said:

If any shroud is a fairing, then that breaks career mode, because you get all your fairings for free.

Not really, the automatic engine shrouds are after all pretty limited in size, shape, and therefore utility.  They're also not defined anywhere in the part config and practically impossible to disable, but that's another gripe altogether.
The new engine plates do present a problem WRT replacing fairings, but if you don't want people using them that way, the answer is to make them limited to mounting engines or place them appropriately in the tech tree.
What we have currently is an automatic and self-reinstating interstage-like part on every engine that doesn't actually do any interstagey things at all - it just looks like an interstage and seemingly exists mainly to confuse and/or irritate people.

Why we even have automatic engine shrouds is beyond me anyway. The interstage fairing should be part of the decoupler rather than the engine, or it should be a separate part... I.e. the fairings we already have.
So far as I can see the whole system is just another legacy thing from way back in alpha that has never been revisited.

 

12 minutes ago, dresoccer4 said:

I put down my engine plate, then attached my rover below it (with small docking nodes). Then put a fairing plate on the bottom connection node of the engine plate and built the fairing up.

At which point you don't actually need the engine plate at all, just turn on interstage nodes on the fairing part and use those to mount the rover...

 

And we've come full-circle, back to "why do these cosmetic-only things even exist".

Edited October 23, 2020 by steve_v

[dresoccer4]

14 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Not really, the automatic engine shrouds are after all pretty limited in size, shape, and therefore utility.  They're also not defined anywhere in the part config and practically impossible to disable, but that's another gripe altogether.
The new engine plates do present a problem WRT replacing fairings, but if you don't want people using them that way, the answer is to make them limited to mounting engines or place them appropriately in the tech tree.
What we have currently is an automatic and self-reinstating interstage-like part on every engine that doesn't actually do any interstagey things at all - it just looks like an interstage and seemingly exists mainly to confuse and/or irritate people.

Why we even have automatic engine shrouds is beyond me anyway. The interstage fairing should be part of the decoupler rather than the engine, or it should be a separate part... I.e. the fairings we already have.
So far as I can see the whole system is just another legacy thing from way back in alpha that has never been revisited.

 

At which point you don't actually need the engine plate at all, just turn on interstage nodes on the fairing part and use those to mount the rover...

 

And we've come full-circle, back to "why do these cosmetic-only things even exist".

ah good to know. so many ways to get the same done

[dresoccer4]

38 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Not really, the automatic engine shrouds are after all pretty limited in size, shape, and therefore utility.  They're also not defined anywhere in the part config and practically impossible to disable, but that's another gripe altogether.
The new engine plates do present a problem WRT replacing fairings, but if you don't want people using them that way, the answer is to make them limited to mounting engines or place them appropriately in the tech tree.
What we have currently is an automatic and self-reinstating interstage-like part on every engine that doesn't actually do any interstagey things at all - it just looks like an interstage and seemingly exists mainly to confuse and/or irritate people.

Why we even have automatic engine shrouds is beyond me anyway. The interstage fairing should be part of the decoupler rather than the engine, or it should be a separate part... I.e. the fairings we already have.
So far as I can see the whole system is just another legacy thing from way back in alpha that has never been revisited.

 

At which point you don't actually need the engine plate at all, just turn on interstage nodes on the fairing part and use those to mount the rover...

 

And we've come full-circle, back to "why do these cosmetic-only things even exist".

hmm, actually still having problems with this without the engine plate. I can't find a way to decouple the fairing while still leaving the rover attached to the ship.

if the decoupler is above the rover, it decouples the rover. if it's below it, the fairing base remains attached.

EDIT: I kind of finagled it by attaching the fairing base to the bottom of the rover instead of the rocket itself. seems to work *shrug*

Thanks everyone for throwing in your 2 cents, it's been a very illuminating discussion 

Edited October 23, 2020 by dresoccer4

[steve_v]

40 minutes ago, dresoccer4 said:

I kind of finagled it by attaching the fairing base to the bottom of the rover instead of the rocket itself.

Either that or turn the fairing upside down, depending on what you want to stay attached to what. The top fairing  node (relative to the part, not the craft) is always the one that decouples.
But yeah, KSP is super sensitive (and super janky) about the order in which you attach parts. It's an old craft file format thing.

Edited October 23, 2020 by steve_v

[dresoccer4]

16 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Either that or turn the fairing upside down, the top node (relative to the part, not the craft) is the one that decouples.

this seems to work well, thanks (shown in screenshot). however it's a little strange that you can eject the fairing, but the bottom part of the rocket is still magically attached to the fairing base until you activate the decoupler. But this seems to be the best and easiest use of all the combinations so far

[steve_v]

13 minutes ago, dresoccer4 said:

it's a little strange that you can eject the fairing, but the bottom part of the rocket is still magically attached to the fairing base until you activate the decoupler.

LOL, nobody ever claimed that KSP's craft structure made any kind of real-world sense.
It is what it is, and that's the lowest part-count solution. Since low part-count == not miserable framerates, that's the one I use, because the game not running like a stuck pig is IMO more important than an invisible attach node.

it would of course be more straightforward to just use the engine plate for this, but then you run smack into the weirdness of the aero model, as you did. So upside-down fairings it is. vOv

Edited October 23, 2020 by steve_v

[dresoccer4]

5 minutes ago, steve_v said:

LOL, nobody ever claimed that KSP's craft structure made any kind of real-world sense.
It is what it is, and that's the lowest part-count solution. Since low part-count == not miserable framerates, that's the one I use, because the game not running like a stuck pig is IMO more important than an invisible attach node.

it would of course be more straightforward to just use the engine plate for this, but then you run smack into the weirdness of the aero model, as you did. So upside-down fairings it is. vOv

LoL and we're back where we started. the circle of KSP life

[steve_v]

Just now, dresoccer4 said:

the circle of KSP life

Honestly the only reason I put up with all the jank in this game is that I've been playing it for so long that I know how to work around most of it. If I had picked the game up for the current going price and run into all this malarkey my patience would have expired rapidly. Catch 22 and all that. And circles.

This is why I complain as much as I do, if I put myself in the shoes of a new player this kind of thing (not to mention the real bugs) would drive me (even more) nuts.
It's one thing to learn about the rocket equation and orbital dynamics as a newbie, but it's quite another to have to figure out the hard way that interstages aren't fairings, hollow parts aren't hollow, stationary craft aren't really stationary, wheels are the devil incarnate, or that certain configurations of parts turn into whirling dervishes, perpetual motion machines, or just instantly explode for no reason whatsoever.

Good luck with the landing BTW. Oh, and be sure you don't drive into the landing legs with the rover, physics doesn't like that at all.

[dresoccer4]

19 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Good luck with the landing BTW. Oh, and be sure you don't drive into the landing legs with the rover, physics doesn't like that at all.

just reporting back all of the hard work has paid off, we have a successful touchdown on the Mun. And it's extra cool because you can re-attach the rover to the dropship t re-fuel it by slowly  retracting the pistons and "sitting" down on the rover.  Fun!

[Mikenike]

1 hour ago, dresoccer4 said:

just reporting back all of the hard work has paid off, we have a successful touchdown on the Mun. And it's extra cool because you can re-attach the rover to the dropship t re-fuel it by slowly  retracting the pistons and "sitting" down on the rover.  Fun!

Good job!!!!!!

[Guest]

Nice work. That's a very cool little rover, and a creative way of delivering it too, I don't think I've seen exactly that solution and by now I've seen (and attempted) a quite a lot of them!

[Spricigo]

5 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

There seems to be a myth going around that FAR makes things so incredibly difficult that only trained aerospace engineers are able to play the game with it on, but it isn't true at all.

Seems to me that is a myth created and spread by the FAR users themselves.  *shrugs* 

In any case the point is that FAR not only solve those issues with stock game but it really brings more complexity too. So, is just fair that some player will find the trade off not worth it. (Personally I don't even find those issue a big deal. Off course, the YMMV mantra applies there.)

[steve_v]

4 hours ago, dresoccer4 said:

you can re-attach the rover to the dropship t re-fuel it by slowly  retracting the pistons

That's actually something I've never tried, using pistons as landing gear, (excuse: I haven't played with the BG parts much at all) it's a pretty cool solution.
 

1 hour ago, Spricigo said:

FAR not only solve those issues with stock game but it really brings more complexity too. So, is just fair that some player will find the trade off not worth it.

It is more complex, but it also gives you the tools and information to deal with the complexity. Once you get a handle on how to read it, I find the SPH analysis tools actually makes it considerably easier to design a good aircraft than stocks "two blobs" trial and error approach.
TBH I suspect much of the trade off not being worth it is just people getting intimidated by all the graphs and engineering terms.

Edited October 23, 2020 by steve_v

[Spricigo]

1 minute ago, steve_v said:

TBH I suspect much of the trade off not being worth it is just people getting intimidated by all the graphs and engineering terms.

Probably is.  But then again, what can be done if people just don't want to use the mod?

Also, given the link provided by @OHara, there is a simpler solution for the issue at hand.