[1.2] Procedural Fairings 3.20 (November 8)

[Lexif]

e-dog, Maybe you should change the part of the procedural fuselage to make it visually different from the fairing in the editor window? A different color, or a different shape... I think the time will be well invested, because you're going to see astropapi1's question a lot in the future if you don't do it.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Lexif
typos

[ash73]

Love this mod, thank you so much!

One small request, would it be possible to have a lower jettison strength option, I know you can increase it with a keypress but the default is very powerful and it's nice to see them drifting away to capture screenshots like this:

[e-dog]

One small request, would it be possible to have a lower jettison strength option, I know you can increase it with a keypress but the default is very powerful and it's nice to see them drifting away to capture screenshots like this:

The default is medium, did you try setting it to low?

[MDBenson]

Read the Fine Manual, please (It's in the OP)

[RoboRay]

So, how do you people feel about changing base rings to 2 side nodes, instead of four?

I wouldn't be a fan of that at all, actually. More nodes means safer ejections, since you don't have panel edges moving horizontally past payload parts with the fairings divided into three or four sections. With just two sections, things are more likely to get damaged.

If the only way to make the fuselage sections compatible with FAR is to use two nodes instead of four, I'd much rather see a specific two-node FAR-compatible base ring added, instead of getting rid of the four-node rings.

Or maybe see if FAR can be fixed, because it doesn't seem to me that it should care how many sections the fairings are divided into.

Edited August 1, 2013 by RoboRay

[Guest]

I wouldn't be a fan of that at all, actually. More nodes means safer ejections, since you don't have panel edges moving horizontally past payload parts with the fairings divided into three or four sections. With just two sections, things are more likely to get damaged.

If the only way to make the fuselage sections compatible with FAR is to use two nodes instead of four, I'd much rather see a specific two-node FAR-compatible base ring added, instead of getting rid of the four-node rings.

Or maybe see if FAR can be fixed, because it doesn't seem to me that it should care how many sections the fairings are divided into.

This. I'm not a FAR user, so I'm more concerned with proper overall functionality. Including FAR-compatible alternative parts would be a better solution in the long run.

[e-dog]

Actually, that was my rationale behind making four sections.

I'd rather fix FAR then. Again

[Gaius]

I wouldn't be a fan of that at all, actually. More nodes means safer ejections, since you don't have panel edges moving horizontally past payload parts with the fairings divided into three or four sections. With just two sections, things are more likely to get damaged.

Yeah I wasn't a fan of the four sections instead of two until I started using the new bases. After a few flights with the four-section fairings, I never want to go back. It's much better this way.

[astropapi1]

I just checked, and it works for me.

What mod version are you using?

Could you post a minimal .craft file (just stock parts and fairings)?

Don't mind my stupidity. I was placing 2 panels instead of four.

When did that change? I liked the 2 nodes better.

[KerbMav]

Edit: Id prefer four nodes also - two are nice for variety or certain designs, but four is the number you shall node!

Edited August 1, 2013 by KerbMav

[katateochi]

So, I'm a little late to this party, only just installed this mod and man I wish I'd done it sooner. These fairings are awesome. I've been using KW fairings mostly (which are still very nice) but they take up over 120MB, or I can just have this which is about 5MB. Very nice reduction in mem usage and part count AND they look nice.

Question, can I make the base parts act as decouplers like the KW ones by adding the ModuleDecouple module to the .cfg for the base parts?

Thanks for making this mod, awesome stuff!

[Guest]

Question, can I make the base parts act as decouplers like the KW ones by adding the ModuleDecouple module to the .cfg for the base parts?

Page 41, post #409

[ash73]

The default is medium, did you try setting it to low?

That sorted it, thanks!

[katateochi]

Page 41, post #409

Thanks man! Gonna make that change now.

[mizo]

Is it just me that thinks that the low profile bases are still too heavy and thick?

[Payload]

The issue is that the quad sections are bugged and don't work properly when you load saved ships and when you revert a ship to the VAB. The part with two sections works just fine even as inter-stage. I have seen no tendency for the double sided one to hang up on anything that is a lame excuse to have four sides. Certainly since it doesn't work properly.

[Starwaster]

Thanks man! Gonna make that change now.

Note though that I did not actually change the existing parts. Rather I copied the cfg files (name them anything; I gave them *_decoupler.cfg names so that I know which is which) then added my desired change to my new part. If you do the approach that you're adding these as new parts then it's vital that you change the line that says 'name =' or it will look like it works in the VAB but then on the launch pad it will mysteriously not decouple because it ends up loading the originally named part..

Also beware of staging issues. The fairing mounts weren't meant to be decouplers so they weren't ever going to end up in the staging list. Apparently I neglected to add lines that tell KSP *HOW* to stage these parts. So they WILL end up in the wrong stages and you have to manually move them. I think they need the following lines but I have yet to try this on my end:

stageOffset = 1
childStageOffset = 1

Other than that they work great. Not having to add separate decoupler rings makes these more stable. In fact they end up more stable than the equivalent KW Rocketry fairing/interstage parts. (especially the interstages)

[e-dog]

The issue is that the quad sections are bugged and don't work properly when you load saved ships and when you revert a ship to the VAB. The part with two sections works just fine even as inter-stage. I have seen no tendency for the double sided one to hang up on anything that is a lame excuse to have four sides. Certainly since it doesn't work properly.

That was fixed in 2.2, did you update the mod? You might need to reattach side fairings if you have saved ships.

[ANWRocketMan]

Would it be possible to add a setting that locks the shape of a fuselage part? With the intent that you can add things into it without it re-adjusting its shape.

[e-dog]

Would it be possible to add a setting that locks the shape of a fuselage part? With the intent that you can add things into it without it re-adjusting its shape.

Yeah, that's possible. It's more useful for attaching things to it though.

[colmo]

Yeah, that's possible. It's more useful for attaching things to it though.

I've been trying to sculpt parts by moulding fuselage sections around parts, then remove the parts they surrounded to save mass. e.g. a tail boom and passenger section for a helicopter, and an open-topped biplane cockpit. This would help.

[jrandom]

So what's the word on fairing base rings and regular ejectable fairing sides? Are they safe to use or will breaking changes happen in the next version?

[e-dog]

They are safe to use - I'll keep four side nodes. I'll reduce node size on the smallest ones to make them a bit easier to place, but it won't affect existing ships.

I'll fix how FAR calculates fairing bounds (it just doesn't expect inline fairings), and send that code to Ferram.

[jrandom]

Yay! Thanks for the response. Now I can get back to my mission!

[JuggernautOfWar]

Still have trouble with larger rocket fairings causing the payload to wobble around. Cannot use struts since when I do, the fairings do not jettison away properly.