[20.2] KW Rocketry 2.4

[Canopus]

While you're here Winston, is there any way we can change how the fairings attach? I see what you were going for, and it's neat, but I really think it'd be far more sensible for the users if the fairing wall segments attached directly to the base, and then the fairing nose cone segments attached directly to the walls.

I actually prefer the way they currently work.

[Fyrem]

I agree with Canopus, Nose then walls.

[ialdabaoth]

That just seems so utterly counter-intuitive - especially with all the little nodes hovering in midair.

[Gaius]

That just seems so utterly counter-intuitive - especially with all the little nodes hovering in midair.

I suspect if they attached the other way, the top would tend to crack open all the time since the nose cones would be attached to nothing but the (possibly long) string to wall segments beneath them. Having the nose cone segments directly attached, and the wall segments pulled from the top instead of pushed from the bottom is probably what prevents that.

[Taverius]

I actually prefer the way they currently work.

Me too. I remember the old way, and while it might have been more intuitive this works better.

[KhaosCorp]

I agree with Canopus, Nose then walls.

Having them this way also makes them deploy much smoother. I have had issues with other fairings, moreso when dealing with huge (long) payloads needing a lot of fairings. With the KW fairing I've gotten nice clean splits with only 3 debris generated 100% of the time...cant beat them odds =P

[daver4470]

Me too. I remember the old way, and while it might have been more intuitive this works better.

I'll third that. The current fairings are MUCH more predictable and stable with the way they're configured.

[SciMan]

I only have one problem with the current KW fairings.

Even without anything attached to the fairings themselves, any nosecone or fairing wall segments are not pushed out of the way of the rest of the rocket!

To either Kickasskyle or Winston: You're probably thinking something like "Great, THAT problem again..." right?

Before you dismiss it as "just another person who doesn't know how to use the fairings", let me say this. I am CERTAIN that I am using them right!

I know that I'm using them right because they DO get pushed away from the rocket.

The problem is not how "hard" they get pushed away, the problem is that they get pushed FORWARDS, not SIDEWAYS as is required to get them out of the way of the rest of the rocket! I've lost count of how many time's I've ended up having my rocket run right into the just-ejected fairings, tearing off solar panels, antennas, sensors, landing legs, rover wheels, and even entire radially-attached miniature communications satellites on a few occasions!

I can solve it using "The Jebediah Kerman Method" aka More Boosters (in the form of sepratrons attached to the fairing parts), but it would be quite useful to be able to have the fairing parts get pushed away sideways instead of to the front.

EDIT: Had a brainstorm right after I posted. I think I figured out how to fix the issue, and the best part is that it should only require a .cfg edit.

Right now, the fairing nosecone parts work as standard decouplers, and the fairing connection nodes on the fairing bases are oriented so that a stock fuel tank (ex. a FL-T800 long 1.25m tank) connected to one of those fairing nodes will be oriented parallel to a fuel tank attached to the payload nodes or the node to connect the rest of the booster to. That's why they get ejected forwards! All that needs to be done is to change the orientation axis of those nodes to point out to the side instead of forwards, and it should fix the problem.

The easiest fairing base and fairing nosecones to fix this for will be the 1.25m and 2.5m fairing parts, because there's only the 2 clam-shell halves and they line up with one of the coordinate axes.

I'll use a line from the "KW1mExpandedFairingBase" part's config file as an example to explain what I mean.

Here's one of the fairing attach nodes:

node_stack_connect1 = 2.4, 2.051, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

Those numbers stand for "PosX, PosY, PosZ, AngX AngY, AngZ, Size" respectively. The "AngX, AngY, AngZ" values are what are going to need to be tweaked. Since "AngY" is already at 1.0, that's the one that points forward/back. Set it to 0.0, then set either the "AngX" or "AngZ" to 1.0 or to -1.0.

The remaining 4 possible combinations (2 axes * 2 directions) will result in the fairings being ejected in one of 4 remaining directions (left,right,up,or down {in no particular order}).

All you need to find is the one that results in the fairing nosecone sections getting pushed directly away from the center of the fairing base part, and then set the rest of the fairing nodes on that side to that combination.

For the fairing nodes on the opposite side, you already have the answer you need, just invert the sign of the same number you figured out.

For example, if the left nodes ended up "xpos,ypos,zpos,1,0,0,size", the right nodes will be "xpos,ypos,zpos,-1,0,0,size"

That should cover the 1.25m and 2.5m fairing parts. For the 3.75m 3 section fairing parts, you'll need to break out the slide rules and trig function charts.

Edited June 1, 2013 by SciMan

[Fyrem]

Sciman, I have never, ever had this happen to me. Wether i pop the fairings during thrust, or not. They have always 'ejected' with enough force to get out of the way with out ever needed to do anything special.

Can you provide a craft file? I would really like to see what you are talking about. or a youtube/twitch stream.

[KhaosCorp]

Sciman, I have never, ever had this happen to me. Wether i pop the fairings during thrust, or not. They have always 'ejected' with enough force to get out of the way with out ever needed to do anything special.

Can you provide a craft file? I would really like to see what you are talking about. or a youtube/twitch stream.

Same here, never had KW fairing fail to get out of the way when I pop em. I use and enjoy all of this part pack, but the fairings are by far the most vital parts imho. Was missing them an incredible amount right when 0.20 hit

[Gryphorim]

My request would be to replace or suppliment the current interstage fairings with some that split like the payload fairings. Even a set of open ended nosecones, with some having a step down to next smallest diameter, and some maintaining the base's diameter. Also some 1.25-2.5m, and 2.5-3.75m conical fairings that are fixed at the narrow end (in particular the 1.25-2.5, if fixed at narrow end would make a good abort system shroud for the 3-man capsule). Any of this would be awesome.

[Mokmo]

I don't know what's wrong with SpacePort but it put a version that doesn't have the Part{} wrappers on your download page...

[Guest]

Put it in the legacy KSP_win\Parts folder, and it will work just fine. This is not the rocket science part of KSP.

[skepticalzombie]

Sciman, I have never, ever had this happen to me. Wether i pop the fairings during thrust, or not. They have always 'ejected' with enough force to get out of the way with out ever needed to do anything special.

Can you provide a craft file? I would really like to see what you are talking about. or a youtube/twitch stream.

Same - definitely the same. And I'm talking from using the fairings on maybe 150 launches or so. Never has that happened to me.

[Nobody_1707]

My request would be to replace or suppliment the current interstage fairings with some that split like the payload fairings. Even a set of open ended nosecones, with some having a step down to next smallest diameter, and some maintaining the base's diameter. Also some 1.25-2.5m, and 2.5-3.75m conical fairings that are fixed at the narrow end (in particular the 1.25-2.5, if fixed at narrow end would make a good abort system shroud for the 3-man capsule). Any of this would be awesome.

Ooh, yes, those would be lovely for putting my LEM into.

[swifthands]

are there no engine covers when making stages as the stock and other mods have?

when i have a decoupler under an engine, it is not being covered am i doing something wrong or this mod doesn't use the automatically generated engine covers?

[Borklund]

are there no engine covers when making stages as the stock and other mods have?

when i have a decoupler under an engine, it is not being covered am i doing something wrong or this mod doesn't use the automatically generated engine covers?

It does not use those, instead there are separate interstage fairing parts (see the Structural tab).

[MDBenson]

Speaking of the Interstage fairings, the 3.75m one is bugged. It doesn't fall away on separation currently. Is that just me or have others noticed it?

[Creat]

I actually prefer the way they currently work.

And another +1 from me for this, but I'll also add an explanation in case the poster of the original comment (who wants the sides attached first) is wondering why the hell anyone would prefer this...

While attaching the sides first might be more intuitive for a completely new user, the problem comes when you want to attach the nose: The nose is always the most limiting part as it's placement is dictated by the size of the payload. You would attach one side at a time, grab the nose to see if it fits, if not then return it and grab another side and so on. With the nose added first you can place it to the first/best place and then fill in the sides. Since the anchor points are spaced correctly this always works out and makes constructing the noses just a whole lot faster. Might be insignificant for small payloads, but it for larger ones it makes quite the difference...

Also: YAY Winston is BACK! Looking forward to the version using the new directory structure and/or reducing memory usage by incorporating Taverius' advice/tips.

Also, since the old thread is gone now, another big thank you from me for making this pack. I can't even imagine KSP-ing without it, it's just essential! Seriously, THANK YOU!

[Castun]

are there no engine covers when making stages as the stock and other mods have?

when i have a decoupler under an engine, it is not being covered am i doing something wrong or this mod doesn't use the automatically generated engine covers?

I don't think any of the engine fairings are generated, they're actually part of the engine model, and are just hidden until you place something under the engine. I'm not sure if there is a generic engine fairing that can be called on in this case with the right config module settings or not, as I was kind of curious myself.

[Mihara]

I don't think any of the engine fairings are generated, they're actually part of the engine model, and are just hidden until you place something under the engine. I'm not sure if there is a generic engine fairing that can be called on in this case with the right config module settings or not, as I was kind of curious myself.

Yep, that's what these fairings are -- if you turn a stock engine into a different type of part and remove everything related to engine functionality from it's config file, you see fairings always on it.

NovaPunch pack, however, includes decouplers meant to be used as engine fairings, i.e. they are hollow and have the top node deep within to allow the engine to be hidden inside. That could be a quick solution.

[Synthesis]

The master returns! Excellent! Even if this means I need to scrap my 0.20-quickfix models!

[dimovski]

Well, the Vesta 1.25m engine needs a weight nerf I think, 0.6 tons with 120kN and 400s is a bit much, really

[Castun]

Yep, that's what these fairings are -- if you turn a stock engine into a different type of part and remove everything related to engine functionality from it's config file, you see fairings always on it.

NovaPunch pack, however, includes decouplers meant to be used as engine fairings, i.e. they are hollow and have the top node deep within to allow the engine to be hidden inside. That could be a quick solution.

Most of the engines from NP I've tried out have built-in fairings, except for maybe some of the larger ones.

[Guest]

NovaPunch pack, however, includes decouplers meant to be used as engine fairings, i.e. they are hollow and have the top node deep within to allow the engine to be hidden inside. That could be a quick solution.

KW has those fairings. I currently do not have NP installed and the interstage decouplers are present.