[1.2] Procedural Fairings 3.20 (November 8)

[HeadHunter67]

Old vessels in flight and in sandbox should be fine, career just don't allow you to load designs with parts not unlocked in tech tree. You can however copy them to sandbox, replace fairing bases/adapter and copy them back to fix it.

Thanks, that will be helpful as I noticed I now have a couple designs that I can't load in career due to the old fairings.

I'm having another issue and I hope someone can help me out. I made a nice little two-stage lander that works wonderfully, but it requires fuel lines. I can't drop it onto the interstage fairing base unless I use SelectRoot to set the bottom engine (or decoupler) as the lander's root part - which screw up the fuel lines. There's no way to fix them because the decouple shroud is in the way. Can anyone suggest how to get a pre-built lander onto the fairing base?

The normal root part is the top docking port (because who honestly builds rockets from the bottom up?) so when I try and bring it in, it snaps to the command module's bottom node (where the fairing's top node should be). This causes the rocket to spring and bend, which does not happen when the command module is simply anchored to the fairing's top node. I hope this made sense.

[AndreyATGB]

This MM config changes everything to 1m large step and 0.1m small step, for Realism Overhaul.

@PART[KzResizableFairingBase*]:FOR[ProceduralFairings]
{

	@MODULE[KzFairingBaseResizer]
	{
		 size = 1.0
		 diameterStepLarge = 1.0
		 diameterStepSmall = 0.1

	}
}
@PART[KzInterstageAdapter2]:FOR[ProceduralFairings]
{	
	@MODULE[ProceduralFairingAdapter]
	{
		 baseSize = 1.0
		 topSize = 1.0
		 diameterStepLarge = 1.0
		 diameterStepSmall = 0.1

	}
}
@PART[KzThrustPlate]:FOR[ProceduralFairings]
{	
	@MODULE[KzThrustPlateResizer]
	{
		 size = 1.0
		 diameterStepLarge = 1.0
		 diameterStepSmall = 0.1

	}
	@MODULE[KzNodeNumberTweaker]
	{
		 radiusStepLarge = 1.0
		 radiusStepSmall = 0.1

	}

}

Edited May 15, 2014 by AndreyATGB

[e-dog]

The same parameters for ProceduralFairingAdapter module, except baseSize/topSize instead of size. It also has heightStepLarge but it's already 1.0.

KzNodeNumberTweaker module has radiusStepLarge and radiusStepSmall which are 0.625 and 0.125 respectively. That's only relevant for thrust plate though.

[AndreyATGB]

The same parameters for ProceduralFairingAdapter module, except baseSize/topSize instead of size. It also has heightStepLarge but it's already 1.0.

KzNodeNumberTweaker module has radiusStepLarge and radiusStepSmall which are 0.625 and 0.125 respectively. That's only relevant for thrust plate though.

Thanks, added that as well.

[IGNOBIL]

Seem to be having trouble with FAR, for example on laztek spacex falcon 9 fairings works like a charm, when I put PFairings the rocket flips on gravity turn and breaks apart, have to add control surfaces

[KerbMav]

.

Screenshot of the rocket in VAB with active center of mass and lift, please.

[IGNOBIL]

Screenshot of the rocket in VAB with active center of mass and lift, please.

What happens is, the same payload, same rocket, with a FAR gravity turn, Laztek Falcon 9 fairings perform like a charm, while with PF, even with a smaller fairing, it flips once gravity turn begins, what I end up doing is use falcon's fairing when it fits, and PF with control surfaces for bigger payloads.

The gravity center doesn't appear for some reason

It's not a big issue, PF mod is brilliant, I've done rockets with 2 different payloads with the new interstage fairings, it's just that I like doing compact satellites

Thanks

[Starwaster]

What happens is, the same payload, same rocket, with a FAR gravity turn, Laztek Falcon 9 fairings perform like a charm, while with PF, even with a smaller fairing, it flips once gravity turn begins, what I end up doing is use falcon's fairing when it fits, and PF with control surfaces for bigger payloads

If your rocket flips when turning with FAR then you're not initiating your turn early enough or it's too aggressive.

Start your turn early when your velocity is ~100m/s

You can do it later in the flight but it's not a good idea because you're having to make up for the lateral acceleration that you should already have accumulated. And of course, if Q is still high then you're risking losing control. Best to start early.

If you're using MJ2's ascent AP then know in advance what altitude you're reaching ~100m/s and set turn start for that altitude. If using RSS, also set turn end for 122 km for Kerbin and ending turn degree 5-15 degrees. YMMV

Turn shape% .... varies. you want it high so that it turns gradually. such that you're within 5 degrees of prograde marker. (which is not the same as where MJ thinks prograde is that early in the flight but that's not important right now)

[MAKC]

Also note that the actual orientation of the fairing part before you attach them to the base nodes seems to affect the CoP (even after they reshape to fit the base. Also goes for Stretchy Conical Tanks). I'm not sure if it carries over into flight, but it's worth investigating. With PF and recent FAR version I've had to use fins to bring the CoP behind the CoM a lot more than I recall having to do in the past.

@e-dog

Thanks for this. Version 3.0 is a huge improvement, although I'm not sure ditching the key/mouse controls was a good thing.

I have a few suggestions for future versions:

• Allow us to toggle whether a fairing and/or base decouples, or not, instead of having to place different parts
  
• Option to hide the staging icon of the individual fairings to reduce staging clutter
  
• Adjustable interstage fairing base height. I often find it to become excessively thick. Perhaps link thickness to structural strength to prevent abuse?
  

[Prowler_x1]

Ok as of the 3.01 release of proc farings, each mod has its own version of KSPAPIExtensions. Leave them all as they are, no need for deleting anything.

Swamp_ig,

Thanks for the clarification. I was instructed to remove one of the KSPAPIExtensions.dll files to try and solve an issue. Clearly that did not work and made things way, way worse. Can you please check my post on page 164 of this thread to see the original conflict. I am using procedural parts and procedural fairings both on latest versions.

Regards,

[Mipe]

Added new part: Thrust Plate Multi-Adapter.

Curses. Now I can't end the day on a pessimistic note.

[Prowler_x1]

Oh, they're having such a great time!

http://i.imgur.com/dMdjAuz.png

All its missing is a minibar with fruity umbrella drinks and some Hawaiian themed space suits, maybe some straw hats or Mexican Sombreros hanging on the walls, oh and a surf board.... Yes, that and to erase the face of sheer panic from the kerbonauts aboard.

[Starwaster]

All its missing is a minibar with fruity umbrella drinks and some Hawaiian themed space suits, maybe some straw hats or Mexican Sombreros hanging on the walls, oh and a surf board.... Yes, that and to erase the face of sheer panic from the kerbonauts aboard.

I was thinking a thorazine drip myself...

[e-dog]

Also note that the actual orientation of the fairing part before you attach them to the base nodes seems to affect the CoP (even after they reshape to fit the base. Also goes for Stretchy Conical Tanks). I'm not sure if it carries over into flight, but it's worth investigating. With PF and recent FAR version I've had to use fins to bring the CoP behind the CoM a lot more than I recall having to do in the past.

@e-dog

Thanks for this. Version 3.0 is a huge improvement, although I'm not sure ditching the key/mouse controls was a good thing.

I have a few suggestions for future versions:

• Allow us to toggle whether a fairing and/or base decouples, or not, instead of having to place different parts
  
• Option to hide the staging icon of the individual fairings to reduce staging clutter
  
• Adjustable interstage fairing base height. I often find it to become excessively thick. Perhaps link thickness to structural strength to prevent abuse?
  

Adjusting number of nodes is black magic basically, it's a wonder it works. I guess FAR might have issues with it since it uses unattached nodes to model drag. My test didn't show anything suspicious though.

I wanted to decrease interstage adapter height since it's a new part anyway, but then checked it against 3.75m stock decoupler and it was about the same, so I left it as is.

[Prowler_x1]

I was thinking a thorazine drip myself...

Way Cooler Why didn't I think of that.....

[Starwaster]

Adjusting number of nodes is black magic basically, it's a wonder it works. I guess FAR might have issues with it since it uses unattached nodes to model drag. My test didn't show anything suspicious though.

I wanted to decrease interstage adapter height since it's a new part anyway, but then checked it against 3.75m stock decoupler and it was about the same, so I left it as is.

Yes but scale it up to 8-10m (Orion? SLS?) and it looks frightfully thick.

[Mokmo]

So if i delete the KSPAPIExtensions.dll that has alower version number (Procedural Parts' in this case) normally everything should work fin ? i'm geting some issues from PParts right now and i think it might be it (You're on 1.4.1 and they're on 1.4.0.2)

EDIT: And now people on the Procedural Parts are saying that it will only break the other mod... ugh it's confusing.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Mokmo

[NathanKell]

Thank you so much for scaling nodes by dividing by the large diameter step, not by a hardcoded 1.25!

[Orionkermin]

I was coming here to ask about a 1.875m .cfg, but I see that's no longer neccissary. As far as Career goes what tech nodes effect the size of diameter a base can be? Would I need to unlock the node that opens up 2.5m fairing before I can scale up to 1.875?

Really enjoy the mod and now I can't wait to get home and try the new version.

[swamp_ig]

If you install the 3.01 Pfarings plus latest PP, then you shouldn't need to delete any DLLs. In fact if you do it won't work.

That was a temporary problem which is now fixed.

[cheech420now]

If you install the 3.01 Pfarings plus latest PP, then you shouldn't need to delete any DLLs. In fact if you do it won't work.

That was a temporary problem which is now fixed.

I done this and it breaks the texture switcher for Pparts

[Mokmo]

3.01 Fairings, 0.98 PP ?

This is what i get on a clean install of these two. Note the lack of shape and texture options on the second image. Last one is my definition of clean install.

[e-dog]

I guess Procedural Parts need a rebuild with the new KSPAPIExtensions.dll.

[Rioliki]

Still only one possible texture at the same time?

[phoenix_ca]

Procedural Fairings has multiple textures? What is this madness? I sense black magic at work.