jrandom Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 (edited) Don't worry, I'll make a ÃŽâ€V calculator plugin for you! If it does everything Kerbal Engineer does, I'll take it!Edit: I think, though, that I'd prefer for the interstage to just work as a regular decoupler. That maximizes compatibility, both now and for the future. Edited August 21, 2013 by jrandom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kingtiger Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I know it's another button which you're trying to avoid, but how about having a toggle to include a decoupler in each part. Not only would it help with ÃŽâ€V calculations but it would also allow for payload separation without an additional part.You'd have to play around with the ejection force though to make sure the fairings pinged off faster than the payload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 Yeah, right now, it requires decoupling fairings, which means that you can't make a decoupler that sticks to the lower stage. Also, I've got a few suggestions.1. Procedural fairing base radius. That'd declutter the part list and allow for procedural fairings for unusual rocket sizes (BobCat's Soyuz and Proton come to mind).2. Add decoupler to trussed fairing bases. The truss structure looks mostly fit for attaching decoupling payloads, while non-decoupling ones would mostly be using the slim base. That would simplify construction a bit.3. Make the interstage care about the shape of things under it. The current way is fine for engines, but if you're trying to shield a payload with it, TKS-style, it's not a good thing. This would be really useful for manned missions with a LES on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-dog Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 Yeah, right now, it requires decoupling fairings, which means that you can't make a decoupler that sticks to the lower stage. Also, I've got a few suggestions.1. Procedural fairing base radius. That'd declutter the part list and allow for procedural fairings for unusual rocket sizes (BobCat's Soyuz and Proton come to mind).2. Add decoupler to trussed fairing bases. The truss structure looks mostly fit for attaching decoupling payloads, while non-decoupling ones would mostly be using the slim base. That would simplify construction a bit.3. Make the interstage care about the shape of things under it. The current way is fine for engines, but if you're trying to shield a payload with it, TKS-style, it's not a good thing. This would be really useful for manned missions with a LES on top.1. That would either break existing crafts (and saves) or add another part to the clutter.2. Nope, see OP. You are free to do it yourself though.3. I don't really get this one. You can adjust top radius and extra height. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kingtiger Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 So I tried adding the decouple module to a part (in this case the 2.5m base ring). It doesn't fix the issue with Engineer or Mechjeb. I've also noticed than once the DeltaV calculator breaks, it stays broken even when you remove the part. I had to exit the VAB and go back in to reset everything.So I'm at a loss as to how Engineer picks up that a part is a decoupler (I'll cross post on the Engineer thread and see what they come up with).The good news is that the vertical decouple stages separately from the fairing decouple so you can set up staging to eject the fairing in one stage then decouple the payload on the next stage. So half way there! Once we get engineer working properly I'll write up a mod manage .cfg file to add decoupling to the fairings.Regarding Dragon01's request to make the fairing bases size procedurally to reduce part clutter, I totally understand not wanting to break existing craft. But maybe this could be reviewed next time a new KSP version breaks previous saves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-dog Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 Well, I tested it and decoupler at the top of the adapter is possible.Engineer breaks when you add the adapter though.I guess it might be an issue with hiding stock engine fairings which might crash Engineer's calculation thread silently.I'll look into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 1. That would either break existing crafts (and saves) or add another part to the clutter.2. Nope, see OP. You are free to do it yourself though.3. I don't really get this one. You can adjust top radius and extra height.I don't see a point of keeping two sets of bases with exactly the same functionality. You could add something to justify the extra bulk. Also, with KSP breaking saves anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about backwards compatibility. You're only limiting yourself that way, and KSP constantly breaks it anyway. As for 3, the interstage fairing doesn't actually account for radius of the payload. For example, set the top at 2m, the bottom at 3m and put a 3m part under the fairing. It'll clip, the fairing won't adjust itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-dog Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 As for 3, the interstage fairing doesn't actually account for radius of the payload. For example, set the top at 2m, the bottom at 3m and put a 3m part under the fairing. It'll clip, the fairing won't adjust itself.Are you attaching that 3m part to the topmost node, or the one above the ring?It only scans "payload" from above the ring, ignoring anything attached to the topmost node. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I've tried both. If I attach to the topmost node, it works as described. If I attach to the bottom one (above the ring), then it results in a fairing with a slightly recessed top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-dog Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 I tried it with stock parts and it seems to work: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santi Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 This has been suggested before, but dunno what your reply was.What about the ability to adjust radius, height and widths (base and top) separately, just like in adapters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-dog Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 This has been suggested before, but dunno what your reply was.What about the ability to adjust radius, height and widths (base and top) separately, just like in adapters?Is that about side fairings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I tried it with stock parts and it seems to work:Except you have something on the top node. I don't. My payload is a single assembly, a TKS spacecraft with the VA on top. VA needs to "peek out" of the top of the fairing, but after separation, it needs to stay on the TKS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I don't see a point of keeping two sets of bases with exactly the same functionality. You could add something to justify the extra bulk. Also, with KSP breaking saves anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about backwards compatibility..KSP breaking saves? I know that there is always that possibility with a version change but when is the last time that actually happened? You do know that your old saves will still load in .21 right? I'm using the one I started two saves back.Re: adding decouple functionality to bases. i've done this since PF came out with no problem whatsoever. If DV aclculations dont work for you make sure that crossfeed is enabled on bases where it needs to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fett2oo5 Posted August 21, 2013 Share Posted August 21, 2013 I love this add-on. The fairings look awesome, I love the way you can adjust them, and they look great. I can't express just how much I enjoy having this add-on in my game.Excellent work e-dog! Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-dog Posted August 21, 2013 Author Share Posted August 21, 2013 It looks like I've figured out the issue with Engineer - it's fuel crossfeed.Since the adapter is a weird bi-coupler, Engineer gets confused how the fuel flows through it and dies painfully.Disabling fuel crossfeed fixes the issue. It must be disabled in two places: part parameter and fairing base module parameter.I'll check other issues and release an update, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimberly Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Also, if you're using RemoteTech, it happens with all decouplers for some reason, including stock ones.Oh, that'll be it! Hadn't noticed the issue with regular decouplers...probably because those don't really need to fall away, just detach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kingtiger Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 e-dog, you are a legend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-dog Posted August 22, 2013 Author Share Posted August 22, 2013 Updated to 2.4.1:Disabled fuel crossfeed on the interstage adapter - enable at your own risk, it confuses Engineer Redux to death.Added stock decoupler module to the interstage adapter topmost node to help with delta-v calculations.Improved fairing shape for interstage adapter when fairing top is inside payload. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
google123 Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 what's the difference between custom fairing base and faring base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrandom Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 Hooray! I'm right in the middle on a new mission design, so 2.4.1 will have to wait until after that's done, but I'm really looking forward to the new version.(I'm not even sure why we'd want fuel-crossfeed on an interstage. The flat fairing bases, sure, since those can be used to build fuselage parts, but interstages? I think we're good. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santi Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 (edited) Is that about side fairings?Yeah, the standard top fairings (not the inline ones). Edited August 22, 2013 by Santi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-dog Posted August 22, 2013 Author Share Posted August 22, 2013 Yeah, the standard top fairings (not the inline ones).You can adjust radius already, and I'm going to add base cone adjustment too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santi Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 You can adjust radius already, and I'm going to add base cone adjustment too.Yeah, I know, but I meant adjusting width and height individually, like on the interstage adapter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrandom Posted August 22, 2013 Share Posted August 22, 2013 KSP just wouldn't be the same without this mod. Keep up the good work, regardless of what us yammering throngs shout at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts