[1.2] Procedural Fairings 3.20 (November 8)

[NathanKell]

Elan: Regarding 2.

Here's how you use an interstage adapter.

1. Grab proc interstage adapter

2. Place the floating node on the bottom node of the thing you want to decouple from / adapt to (i.e. the bottom of your engine, or, if multiple engines, the bottom of the tank on which the engines are mounted)

3. Hold down H and mouse over the adapter to move it down as far as you want

4. Hold down N and mouseover to make it as wide as you want (you may have to place the thing you want below the adapter first, in order to see what width is desired).

5. Place ONE side fairing on the ring, so you can see the shape

6. Use J and Y to adjust shape

7. Remove that side fairing and re-add in symmetry.

8. Readjust using H,Y,J,N until everything is as you like it.

9. Adjust staging so that when you want it to decouple, you have both the fairings and the adapter's own decoupler in that stage.

NOTE: The decoupler in the adapter itself does NOTHING, it is only there for compatibility with KER and MJ. What _actually_ decouples the floating node is when you decouple those side fairings (the stuff above the adapter is hanging in space supported only by the fairings...)

[Elan]

Elan: Regarding 2.

...

NOTE: The decoupler in the adapter itself does NOTHING, it is only there for compatibility with KER and MJ. What _actually_ decouples the floating node is when you decouple those side fairings (the stuff above the adapter is hanging in space supported only by the fairings...)

Ok, I see what I did wrong - I was just testing it on the launchpad and I made a lander-can, on top of it I put the adapter, then fairings and then empty tank or something. So when I used either of those decouplers, it did what I described in the previous post, because the adapter remained on my active vessel instead of being ejected as it does when used properly.

[Mystique]

- What is the difference between "fairing base" and "custom fairing base" ? The only differences I can see is mass (one has 2 times mass of the other) and number of fairings (4 vs 2, but doesn't everyone use all of them to cover up the insides anyway ?). So, the heavier one seems quite useless to me. Unless I am missing something, hence the original question.

You can place stuff inside of custom base (pretty place for contraband). Otherwise I see no difference

I have autostrut problem - struts don't appear visually and heavy stuff keeps falling out of the fairing (through, actually) when pre-start wobble Kraken emerges. How it's supposed to work normally anyway?

Update: I tried manually adding struts inside fairings (from the middle of each petal to payload) and it stabilized inside wobbling nicely, which kinda proves that autostruts weren't working (if they did - they should've done the same thing, I guess). Also had to add external struts to hold "egg" in place, because it was, well, quite large.

I'm gonna test it again on lauchpad with various builds, but perhaps problem may be because I added petals one by one instead of symmetry (I was making a heavy hovercraft and made a mistake by placing control module as in usual dropship, pointing its crown up in the sky while landed; so when I turned it all 90 degrees to attach some of the parts and lifiting rocket, symmetry mode gone nuts and instead of hugging target part with parts I want to place it started to arrange them in circles in midair near targeted location).

Edited December 24, 2013 by Mystique

[John FX]

I`m trying to make a proper Apollo interstage which will separate from the first stage, activate some small engines that thrust for abut three seconds then decouple the second stage. Currently I have to have the Ullage engines in the second stage which separates from the interstage as the only action.

I know you have no plans to include a decoupler in the fairing base but could one be put in the interstage base to make it a proper interstage as opposed to a fixed stage 1 fairing?

(completely agree about no decoupler in the fairing base)

Then it can be dropped as its own part leading to cool stuff like this. (I know your interstage would have the base still attached but that`s OK, I attach stuff to it like lights and batteries and ullage motors)

[boberro]

During separation in space, my ship has 80% chance of blowing up. When tested on the launchpad, everything goes ok. It doesn't matter what force I set for jettison.

If I use cheats to reduce crash damage, I can see that fairing stops in place the moment it's jettisoned, so in many cases it hits my ship with speed of 2500m/s. Same thing goes to stack separator mounted to base of the fairing.

Sometimes it's just the fairing that explodes, leaving ship intact. Then I get this:

Edited December 26, 2013 by boberro

[jrandom]

Are you running FAR? If so, grab the latest version because the prior one had a bad interaction with KSP .23 where upon separating a part, any part, it would have an altitude of '0' for the very first physics iteration and FAR would see that and apply sea-level drag for just that once instant in time. At orbital speeds, this results in badness.

The issue has been resolved in the latest version of FAR.

[Motokid600]

I've been looking everywhere and I cannot find the alternate texture pack for PF here. I know I saw one awhile back. If so is there a mod that can add alternate textures and/or decals?

Also.. what's the point of the fuelselage fairing? It seems to do the same thing as the others..

[AbeS]

fuselage fairings don't decouple, they don't work properly with the interstage adapter though. The textures are integrated in the Realism Overhaul Mod

[Reddragon]

e-dog

Thank you for taking car about the problem I mentioned! I have good use of proc. fairings that way too.

[HoneyFox]

I`m trying to make a proper Apollo interstage which will separate from the first stage, activate some small engines that thrust for abut three seconds then decouple the second stage. Currently I have to have the Ullage engines in the second stage which separates from the interstage as the only action.

I know you have no plans to include a decoupler in the fairing base but could one be put in the interstage base to make it a proper interstage as opposed to a fixed stage 1 fairing?

(completely agree about no decoupler in the fairing base)

Then it can be dropped as its own part leading to cool stuff like this. (I know your interstage would have the base still attached but that`s OK, I attach stuff to it like lights and batteries and ullage motors)

I guess if i have time i can make a modified/forked version for this, by providing a function "Jettison" for fuselage to remove one of its joints which is connected with the part attached to the fairing base's top node while maintaining connection to the base, thus allowing you to decouple the fuselage together with the fairing base from the upper stage, which makes it just work as one decoupler but with customized size/shape.

[drtedastro]

Is it still planned that the fairings will sometime be able to use the textures the same as in StretchyTanks / SRB's?

Thanks..

[Nereid]

Great mod. One of the best if not the best implementation for fairings so far.

[Starwaster]

I guess if i have time i can make a modified/forked version for this, by providing a function "Jettison" for fuselage to remove one of its joints which is connected with the part attached to the fairing base's top node while maintaining connection to the base, thus allowing you to decouple the fuselage together with the fairing base from the upper stage, which makes it just work as one decoupler but with customized size/shape.

Does that really require a new version of PF?

All my Interstage Adapters have dual decoupling ability. It only requires adding a second decoupler module with explosiveNodeID set to top instead of top1. Alternatively the pre-existing decoupler module's explosiveNodeID can be changed to top.

This may alter staging behavior for the stack and will require additional stage planning. It also alters how MechJeb or KE view the stack's staging.

I use the first method (second decoupler) and do not find either of the consequences listed above to be showstoppers..

@PART[KzInterstageAdapter]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDecouple
		ejectionForce = 0
		explosiveNodeID = top
	}	
}
@PART[KzInterstageAdapter2]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDecouple
		ejectionForce = 0
		explosiveNodeID = top
	}	
}

[HoneyFox]

Does that really require a new version of PF?

All my Interstage Adapters have dual decoupling ability. It only requires adding a second decoupler module with explosiveNodeID set to top instead of top1. Alternatively the pre-existing decoupler module's explosiveNodeID can be changed to top.

This may alter staging behavior for the stack and will require additional stage planning. It also alters how MechJeb or KE view the stack's staging.

I use the first method (second decoupler) and do not find either of the consequences listed above to be showstoppers..

@PART[KzInterstageAdapter]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDecouple
		ejectionForce = 0
		explosiveNodeID = top
	}	
}
@PART[KzInterstageAdapter2]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDecouple
		ejectionForce = 0
		explosiveNodeID = top
	}	
}

I wonder... because i remember clearly that at least in some version of PF, the part that is attached to the interstage adapter's floating top node ("top1") won't get released if we use fuselages instead of fairings. And it seems like (by checking the code) it's because the base plate established some joints from these fuselages to that upper part, which are not destroyed when the base plate decouples, leading to the result that the rocket does decoupled into two vessels but they are still bound together due to these joints.

[softweir]

Everything you have mentioned is deliberate design. The Interstage Adapter was designed from the start to decouple the floating node only when the last Payload Fairing is jettisoned. The "decoupler" on the Interstage Adapter is a dummy that was added later to help mods such as MechJeb and Engineer cope with delta-v calculations. Being a dummy, it can't be operated whether by staging or part-menu!

One simply should not use Fuselage Fairings with Interstage Adapters - they aren't designed to work together. This is why Fuselage Fairings were moved to the Structural tab: to reduce the chances of users confusing them with Payload Fairings, which remain in the aerodynamic tab. Fuselage Fairings are inactive, non-jettisonable parts to make neat, aerodynamic containers for non-payload parts such as batteries, RCS tanks etc etc. They can be used, for instance, for creating completely customised Service Modules, rather than depending on various less-flexible SM mod parts.

As I remember it the order of development was:

• Payload fairings and fairing bases. These were intended to replicate the top-of-stack payload fairings used in, for instance, satellite launchers. You couldn't pair them up, they always enclosed the entire top of the rocket, though they could be nested.
  
• The code was extended to allow fairing bases to be paired up, to allow payload fairings to cover mid-stack payloads.
  
• Fuselage Fairings were added, to prevent accidents when fairings were being used for permanent fuselage structures.
  
• Finally, interstage adaptors were added to make Apollo-style enclosures possible: they simulated the effect that the fairings were connecting the two parts of the stack fore and aft of a "payload" such as a Lunar Lander.
  
• Finally, a dummy decoupler was added to interstage adaptors so other mods could calculate the delta-v of stages without going mad. This wasn't necessary for payload fairing bases, as users would add their own decoupler at appropriate points.

[Draft]

Using opposed fairing bases for a service module requires a continuous stack connection between them. If the interstage adapter worked properly with fuselage fairings then we could make bays that are structurally supported by the fuselage while allowing us to stow stack-ending parts inside, like kethane scanners or nosecone sensors or stayputnicks or what have you.

[HoneyFox]

Everything you have mentioned is deliberate design. The Interstage Adapter was designed from the start to decouple the floating node only when the last Payload Fairing is jettisoned. The "decoupler" on the Interstage Adapter is a dummy that was added later to help mods such as MechJeb and Engineer cope with delta-v calculations. Being a dummy, it can't be operated whether by staging or part-menu!

One simply should not use Fuselage Fairings with Interstage Adapters - they aren't designed to work together. This is why Fuselage Fairings were moved to the Structural tab: to reduce the chances of users confusing them with Payload Fairings, which remain in the aerodynamic tab. Fuselage Fairings are inactive, non-jettisonable parts to make neat, aerodynamic containers for non-payload parts such as batteries, RCS tanks etc etc. They can be used, for instance, for creating completely customised Service Modules, rather than depending on various less-flexible SM mod parts.

As I remember it the order of development was:

• Payload fairings and fairing bases. These were intended to replicate the top-of-stack payload fairings used in, for instance, satellite launchers. You couldn't pair them up, they always enclosed the entire top of the rocket, though they could be nested.
  
• The code was extended to allow fairing bases to be paired up, to allow payload fairings to cover mid-stack payloads.
  
• Fuselage Fairings were added, to prevent accidents when fairings were being used for permanent fuselage structures.
  
• Finally, interstage adaptors were added to make Apollo-style enclosures possible: they simulated the effect that the fairings were connecting the two parts of the stack fore and aft of a "payload" such as a Lunar Lander.
  
• Finally, a dummy decoupler was added to interstage adaptors so other mods could calculate the delta-v of stages without going mad. This wasn't necessary for payload fairing bases, as users would add their own decoupler at appropriate points.

You probably should try it again.

Some time ago, in 0.22 I did find that fuselage will disallow the payload to go away although they actually are two vessels after the adapter decouples. But now in 0.23, and I'm using the latest version of PF (2.4.3), I'm absolutely sure that the payload still got decoupled (i've done that just yesterday night) when i was using an interstage adapter with fuselage (not fairings) installed, the payload was connected to the floating top node, not the fixed node on the interstage adapter.

I was feeling strange at that moment, but later I became pretty satisfied with such result. Because i can control whether the payload will go or not by adapter's decoupler control, while these fuselages won't split and fly away like fairings (less debris yeah...). That's pretty good for it to work as a customizable-shape&size decoupler.

BTW i'm using KJR, don't know if that has anything done to it.

Edited December 29, 2013 by HoneyFox

[AbeS]

Really? I have really tried doing that and it refuses to work. I wish it worked like that.

If I use the fuselages it doesn't decouple. Using fairings (without decoupling the fairings, just the "dummy" decoupler) it decouples! I don't get it

[jrandom]

If my understanding is correct, the fuselage parts auto-strut to whatever is connected to the floating node. If you put an actual decoupler there (which the fuselage parts will auto-strut to), the upper stage can separate cleanly while the fuselage sides stay with the ejected lower stage.

[HoneyFox]

Really? I have really tried doing that and it refuses to work. I wish it worked like that.

If I use the fuselages it doesn't decouple. Using fairings (without decoupling the fairings, just the "dummy" decoupler) it decouples! I don't get it

I don't know why. In previous version 0.22, it won't decouple (actually it decouples, but the joints between fuselage and the payload still remain), the payload will stick to it. However in 0.23, it works well. All joints are removed (or perhaps they never exist?) and the payload is free to go with its own propulsion system. Just don't know what has changed...

Edited December 29, 2013 by HoneyFox

[HoneyFox]

If my understanding is correct, the fuselage parts auto-strut to whatever is connected to the floating node. If you put an actual decoupler there (which the fuselage parts will auto-strut to), the upper stage can separate cleanly while the fuselage sides stay with the ejected lower stage.

I know, that was the old way i used it. But decoupler might not be small enough and if the satellite has a 4-engine cluster (like AIES' micro engines) at its bottom, normal decoupler won't get a chance to connect to the bottom node (clipping issue). PF however, has no such limitation, but fuselages were stopping payload from moving away from the adapter in my local 0.22 version while fairings will generate too many debris...

[jrandom]

I know, that was the old way i used it. But decoupler might not be small enough and if the satellite has a 4-engine cluster (like AIES' micro engines) at its bottom, normal decoupler won't get a chance to connect to the bottom node (clipping issue). PF however, has no such limitation, but fuselages were stopping payload from moving away from the adapter in my local 0.22 version while fairings will generate too many debris...

Hrm... okay, as a Very Kerbal Workaround, go (from bottom to top): interstage + fuselage sides -> smaller interstage w/ no sides (this will be the actual decoupler) -> engine.

Struts will most likely be necessary.

[HoneyFox]

Hrm... okay, as a Very Kerbal Workaround, go (from bottom to top): interstage + fuselage sides -> smaller interstage w/ no sides (this will be the actual decoupler) -> engine.

Struts will most likely be necessary.

With no sides? won't that cause it to decouple the payload immediately? I remember there is such a logic that if all fairings are missing, the part attached to the floating top node will be decoupled automatically.

[Starwaster]

Really? I have really tried doing that and it refuses to work. I wish it worked like that.

If I use the fuselages it doesn't decouple. Using fairings (without decoupling the fairings, just the "dummy" decoupler) it decouples! I don't get it

That's how it's supposed to work.

The fairing's have decouplers (ProceduralFairingDecoupler) in them; they decouple from the base, ring or the adapter.

If you attached something to the floating node on the interstage adapter then anything that is attached to that node is decoupled when the last fairing decouples.

[Draft]

In my experience using fuselages with the interstage, the 'dummy' decoupler works just fine. Maybe it's because I'm using KJR, but I don't think so