[1.2] Procedural Fairings 3.20 (November 8)

[BARCLONE]

e-dog,

I just replaced KJR, Kethane, and ExLP, so I'm up-to-date with those...

The structural fairings are still not releasing. Staging is recorded in the logfile without error notes, and all indications are the stage should have separated. That's what I gather from these logfile entries:

[LOG 09:01:15.825] activating stage 2 - current stage: 3

[LOG 09:01:15.839] [00:02:40]: Separation of stage 3 confirmed

[LOG 09:01:15.839] [KW1mDecoupler]: Activated

[LOG 09:01:15.839] [cl.small.escapeTower]: Activated

[LOG 09:01:15.841] Should have Jettisoned

[LOG 09:01:15.841] [KW1mengineVestaVR1]: Activated

[LOG 09:01:15.855] [KzInterstageAdapter]: Activated

[LOG 09:01:15.855] [NP.sas.25m]: Activated

[LOG 09:01:15.855] [stretchyTankSuper]: Activated

[LOG 09:01:15.855] [KzProcFairingFuselage2]: Activated

[LOG 09:01:15.855] [KzProcFairingFuselage2]: Activated

[LOG 09:01:15.855] [KzProcFairingFuselage2]: Activated

[LOG 09:01:15.855] [KzProcFairingFuselage2]: Activated

IIRC, the new build of KSP was supposed to "improve" joints by making them stronger. These sure are acting like they're "welded" to the upper stage.

Full stack in the VAB of my Columbia-Class crew ship

Cut-away view of the stage separation area

[Starstrider42]

IIRC, the new build of KSP was supposed to "improve" joints by making them stronger. These sure are acting like they're "welded" to the upper stage.

I think I heard that the improvements only apply to stock joint sizes. Mods that use custom sizes, like KW Rocketry, are in trouble. I'm guessing the same goes for procedural nodes?

[BARCLONE]

I think I heard that the improvements only apply to stock joint sizes.

Wouldn't that include 2.5m joints? The rocket in my two screenshots is a 2.5m diameter vehicle.

[e-dog]

e-dog,

Full stack in the VAB of my Columbia-Class crew ship

Cut-away view of the stage separation area

There were issues with that configuration in 0.23 too. Anyway, what you're doing would be done much better with a procedural decoupler with shroud.

Till then I recommend using ejectable fairings for that.

[B787_300]

hey e-dog,

Are you looking into making the fairings have the flag on them?

[e-dog]

Flag is a good idea, I've added it to my list.

[InfinityArch]

Now that the 3.5 m parts are out, could the 3.5 meter fairings be in the tech tree?

[e-dog]

Now that the 3.5 m parts are out, could the 3.5 meter fairings be in the tech tree?

They are already.

[InfinityArch]

Oops, that was a derp, sorry for that.

[Starstrider42]

Wouldn't that include 2.5m joints? The rocket in my two screenshots is a 2.5m diameter vehicle.

I thought you were using the interstage adapter. That one has a tunable size, IIRC.

[Phredward]

Hey e-dog. Thanks for procedural fairings! It makes KSP feel great.

I noticed that with 2.4.4 it seems like the max size for an interstage base fairing is now 8m. Before they would stretch to arbitrarily large sizes. Is that changeable by config, or can the previous behavior be restored (I noticed this is sandbox mode in RSS, where my rockets are up to 14m in diameter)?

For kicks, here's an album showing off a few RSS rockets and the difference between my first experiments and my first decent looking rockets thanks to the interstage base.

[MrWizerd]

Hello all, I am having a hard time with this particular mod today. Before the updates (the game, then the mods) I was able to use procedural fairing easily it always automatically adjusted for the height of this stack and then I would strap it with struts and away I would go. Well today after spending a whole day working on the mods, and setting up modulemanager files for a bunch of stuff, I had previously fixed in the original files, which was before I knew about module manager and exactly what it did, I finally got to sit down and play with the game, on my fresh and new campaign mode, that I hope will not have to be restarted yet again when the next update hits. ANYWAYS... I use three monitors so I had to shrink this down a bit to be able to be seen, but the faring guides are ending at the top of the second satellite. I can manually make the faring wider at the bottom and it will eventually go up over the top of the stack but then the rocket literally looks like a mushroom. Before I had used the inter stage faring adapter between each of the sats, but I thought that that would put a struts at that location and act as a decoupler but I think I was mistaken, so I have removed those in hopes of fixing the problem but to no avail. Does anyone know what the cause of it would be? I saw that the update notes said that it wasn't tracking to the parent parts I don't know if that is the problem, I doubt it because others would be complaining. So I have either done something wrong or there is a mod that is messing with PF but I don't know which one it would be, I know a lot of people use it with a ton of other mods so..... please help, and thanks for the help that is incomming!

[NathanKell]

e-dog, good to see you!

I hate to nag, but I wondered: what is the status of fully-procedural (i.e. like the interstage) payload fairing base rings? With stretchies or PP tanks, tanks can be arbitrary diameter, so it would be very useful indeed if payload fairing bases could be as well! (And you'd mentioned, some time ago, that that would be next on the list.)

[Azimech]

Thanks for the update!

[Guest]

e-dog, good to see you!

I hate to nag, but I wondered: what is the status of fully-procedural (i.e. like the interstage) payload fairing base rings? With stretchies or PP tanks, tanks can be arbitrary diameter, so it would be very useful indeed if payload fairing bases could be as well! (And you'd mentioned, some time ago, that that would be next on the list.)

Yeah, a lot of people are waiting for that. With so many parts going procedural, it'd be nice if it was possible to adjust a regular Procedural Fairing base to match.

[PDCWolf]

Hello there, I've been using this mod since it first came out and it's amazing, there's just no rocket without procedural fairings on my saves. Just now I began to play with the parameters on the configs and realized that I can't change THIS (see image) height. Is there a way (One that doesn't include using the base ring which has a lower "base height") to modify it?

[K3-Chris]

2.4.4 isn't updated properly for .23.5 the nodes don't have proper sized defined, the 3.75m fairing base has a node the same size as the 1.25m parts, this causes really bad problems with now nodes work now, they're very weak when small like that, I had to change them myself to make them usable.

[Spanier]

Hey e-dog, I have a little problem with the fuselage fairing. I want to create a small interstage with the Interstage Fairing adapter for a 0.625m engine on a 1.25m stage and cover it with fuselage parts:

But when I want to decouple the lower stage, the fuselage fairings stick to the upper stage, so I can't get away.

[HoneyFox]

Hey e-dog, I have a little problem with the fuselage fairing. I want to create a small interstage with the Interstage Fairing adapter for a 0.625m engine on a 1.25m stage and cover it with fuselage parts:

http://i.imgur.com/21rhigml.png

But when I want to decouple the lower stage, the fuselage fairings stick to the upper stage, so I can't get away.

You are using fuselages instead of fairings, so they won't be jettisoned from the adapter and the joints between them and the upper stage won't be destroyed as well. That's why you got this issue.

You can:

1) Switch off the auto-struts of the adapter (by mouse-over and click "T"), you might need to manually struts the two stages if it starts to become wobble.

2) Use fairings instead, but that will create more debris when staging.

[Tallinu]

That's odd, I haven't had any trouble decoupling the interstage from the stage above it with fairings still attached - I put them up in stage 1 so they wouldn't separate from the adapter. And I was using your hollow version too, if that makes any difference. But I was sure you had suggested using fuselage pieces in a previous reply to me - and wouldn't that result in this exact situation? Why would it work differently, and what would the struts have to do with it? If the adapter itself decouples, all the struts connecting the rocket to it or any fairings or fuselages attached to it should break, just like when you decouple anything else that's strutted, right?

[HoneyFox]

That's odd, I haven't had any trouble decoupling the interstage from the stage above it with fairings still attached - I put them up in stage 1 so they wouldn't separate from the adapter. And I was using your hollow version too, if that makes any difference. But I was sure you had suggested using fuselage pieces in a previous reply to me - and wouldn't that result in this exact situation? Why would it work differently, and what would the struts have to do with it? If the adapter itself decouples, all the struts connecting the rocket to it or any fairings or fuselages attached to it should break, just like when you decouple anything else that's strutted, right?

You need to know the difference between a "strut" and a "joint".

A strut (which is a part that is provided by stock KSP and some other mods like NP/KW) contains a joint, but a joint can exists without a strut. Additionally, attach nodes (including surf-attach node) are actually holding joints inside as well.

Now, ProcFairing will add *additional* joints (yeah it was named "auto-struts" but they are actually invisible joints) between the fairings and the object attached to the floating attach-node when the "auto-struts" option is on. These joints are not belonging to any strut, and thus will not be destroyed like these struts' joints when the adapter decouples. that's why the top object cannot separate though it's already another vessel.

KJR, as I know, will, at some specified moments, try to destroy any joint whose two endpoints are not on one same vessel. That can explain why you can decouple the payload without jettison the fairings, even if you have "auto-struts" option on.

Edited April 4, 2014 by HoneyFox

[Tallinu]

I see what you mean, that makes a lot more sense now.

Maybe eventually the author can find a way to instruct the fairing/fuselage parts to break those extra connections when the adapter itself has its decoupler triggered. But either way, the name "auto-struts" is indeed extremely misleading, and really should be changed. Maybe "Extra Joints" or something to that effect.

I had thought that option was simply *not working* correctly, since I never saw any actual struts appearing, and I didn't know that Kerbal Joint Reinforcement was the only reason it wasn't getting stuck together.

Thanks for the explanation!

[HoneyFox]

Maybe eventually the author can find a way to instruct the fairing/fuselage parts to break those extra connections when the adapter itself has its decoupler triggered.

That's what i did in my local version of ProcFairing: i added an option "Cut Joints" so that, when the option is enabled, these joints created by "auto-struts" will be destroyed too when the adapter decouples. But, uh... since e-dog hasn't put his codes onto something like GitHub, i cannot send my changes to him easily.

[TheFluffiestThing]

Since the update my rockets seem to be constructed from blancmange, could someone please tell me how to edit the attachment node sizes in the cgf file?

[Crater]

Since the update my rockets seem to be constructed from blancmange, could someone please tell me how to edit the attachment node sizes in the cgf file?

Go to GameData\Kerazmit\ProceduralFairings\ and open each of the adapter, baseNNN, and baseRingNNN configs (for each size, eleven files in total) in a text editor, look for the lines that start with node_stack_top or node_stack_bottom, and make sure that the seventh number on the line is the correct digit for the size (some only have 6, some already have 7, once you finish, all should have 7)

0.625m - size 0

1.25m - size 1

2.5m - size 2

3.75m - size 3

5m - size 3 (there is no size 4 in game.... yet, so these are 3 as well)

Save the files, reload KSP, and you should be good.

Alternatively, the following should be a ModuleManager config that will do it for you, if you use ModuleManager.dll (can't test it at the moment, I'm at work)

@PART[KzInterstageAdapter]
{
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
    @node_stack_top    = 0.0, 0.23, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
    @node_stack_top1   = 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
}
@PART[KzProcFairingBase1_25]
{
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1
    @node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.575, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1
}
@PART[KzProcFairingBase2_5]
{
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
    @node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.15, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
}
@PART[KzProcFairingBase3_75]
{
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
    @node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.725, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
}
@PART[KzProcFairingBase5]
{
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
    @node_stack_top = 0.0, 2.4, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
}
@PART[KzProcFairingBaseRing1_25]
{
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1
    @node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.23, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1
}
@PART[KzProcFairingBaseRing2_5]
{
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
    @node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.46, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
}
@PART[KzProcFairingBaseRing3_75]
{
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
    @node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.69, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
}
@PART[KzProcFairingBaseRing5]
{
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
    @node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.96, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
}

If you do use MM, just stick that with your other MM configs.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Crater
Spelling