[1.2] Procedural Fairings 3.20 (November 8)

[softweir]

Is it the weight, or is it the drag on the fairings? Generally, if a rocket tips over in flight then it's because there is too much drag at the front and too much mass at the back.

[CalculusWarrior]

Either EdTools with alt+R (surAttach), or that mod that adds surface attach attribute to all the engines

I actually used neither of those; I just attached four cubic octagonal struts then put engines underneath.

[Ratzap]

You can adjust sideThickness for smaller bases to make fairing thinner and thus weighting less.

If you just want to make them lighter, adjust density in side/fuselage configs.

I didn't really tune it much, so it might need adjustments. What fairing bases are you using? What sizes?

1.25m base size and just dragging the decoupler side parts onto it. I set the base down to 0.05 and the side density to 0.01, the weight impact drastically reduced but it now does an even odder thing. When it starts the gravity turn, it dips down as if it would flip, the fairing flies off and the rocket recovers. Kind of like auto decouple but less funny Maybe it weighing so little makes it just blow off?

[e-dog]

1.25m base size and just dragging the decoupler side parts onto it. I set the base down to 0.05 and the side density to 0.01, the weight impact drastically reduced but it now does an even odder thing. When it starts the gravity turn, it dips down as if it would flip, the fairing flies off and the rocket recovers. Kind of like auto decouple but less funny Maybe it weighing so little makes it just blow off?

Breaking force is based on fairing mass, so it was reduced when you reduced its mass, you can adjust it in side cfg.

Also, do you just turn 45 degrees for gravity turn at some altitude?

It won't work any good with FAR. You'd better start turning low, at 500m or so, and do a slow continuous turn keeping within about 5-10 degrees of prograde to avoid excessive drag/lift forces.

[Ratzap]

Breaking force is based on fairing mass, so it was reduced when you reduced its mass, you can adjust it in side cfg.

Also, do you just turn 45 degrees for gravity turn at some altitude?

It won't work any good with FAR. You'd better start turning low, at 500m or so, and do a slow continuous turn keeping within about 5-10 degrees of prograde to avoid excessive drag/lift forces.

That was it, I changed the ascent path to 80% from 40% with a 6km gravity turn start and it went up no problem. I don't want to be running custom config files so I'll revert to the standard ones. Though the small stuff could probably do with being a touch lighter than the stock config files.

Thanks again

[jrandom]

I love the flat ballistic trajectories you can get with FAR and Procedural Fairings. This particular launch need only a 7-second burn to circularize to orbit:

Not even at 40km and I'm flying nearly horizontal:

[e-dog]

I love the flat ballistic trajectories you can get with FAR and Procedural Fairings. This particular launch need only a 7-second burn to circularize to orbit:

Yeah, I got 30km periapsis when launching to 80km orbit once. The circularization burn was very low thrust

[ouion]

The Interstage is awesome Now I can Make Delta IVs with the titan Engine and 3.75 Meter Orange Tanks from Kw and Procedural Interstage or shroud to cover up the titan engine and tada ! Delta IV !

oh download link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0ipxtseycve8bf/Delta%20IV%20Heavy.zip

[Fred9001]

The Interstages are way too wobbly for my taste. But I guess without 50 struts you wont get anything bigger then 2,5m in diameter into Orbit :/

[Starwaster]

The Interstage is awesome Now I can Make Delta IVs with the titan Engine and 3.75 Meter Orange Tanks from Kw and Procedural Interstage or shroud to cover up the titan engine and tada ! Delta IV !

oh download link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0ipxtseycve8bf/Delta%20IV%20Heavy.zip

pics or it didnt happen.

no pics no clicks!

[NoMrBond]

I actually used neither of those; I just attached four cubic octagonal struts then put engines underneath.

Hrm, I was thinking about using clamp-o-trons since they're have native fuel flow, it would save having to run fuel lines with the cubics

[Edit] That said, last time I used the flipped cubics to make an aerospike cluster they didn't need fuel lines, they did have a tendency to engage breakdance at the slightest provocation though...

Edited August 26, 2013 by NoMrBond

[Cuel]

Is it possible to remove the minimum radius on mouse over? Sometimes there is still tons of space between.

[e-dog]

Is it possible to remove the minimum radius on mouse over? Sometimes there is still tons of space between.

Which radius? What key are you using to adjust it?

[Cuel]

Holding R on the fairing base.

Hmm it worked (had no limit) now, weird.

[e-dog]

Holding R on the fairing base.

Hmm it worked (had no limit) now, weird.

It might be mouse over not working, blocked by some other part or something like that.

The minimum limit for that is -1 meter, by the way.

[jrandom]

Would it be possible to add a control to alter the thickness of the interstage and fairing ring bases? When trying to build fuselages for landers, vertical space is at a premium and it would be handy to be able to make the parts thinner, vertically.

[e-dog]

Would it be possible to add a control to alter the thickness of the interstage and fairing ring bases? When trying to build fuselages for landers, vertical space is at a premium and it would be handy to be able to make the parts thinner, vertically.

Possible. I think I'll add it to the adapter and make a new resize-able ring base, with adjustable radius and height.

[HoneyFox]

Possible. I think I'll add it to the adapter and make a new resize-able ring base, with adjustable radius and height.

Terrific. This is gonna be better and better!

[PieGoesHere]

I could be missing something here, but is there any way to adjust the angle of the top of the fairing to have more of a conical shape ?

because, currently, this happens:

http://i.imgur.com/uIAMepO.jpg

thanks in advance.

[e-dog]

Make sure you have PF 2.4.1 (some related bugs were fixed).

Adjust top radius and fairing height. Probably reduce extra payload radius (with R) too.

If your payload is cylindrical at the top, you might want to move top node higher as well.

[Deltac]

Firstly, yes I have 2.4.1.

Just picked this mod up today, and I have to say it's pretty neat. However, I have found some possible bugs/feature requests (dunno what was intended for the interstage). Firstly, before you view the video, I did try using the normal adapters, but they did not produce an acceptable result, and would have lengthened the vessel by too much. Secondly, the reason that top interstage is where it is is so that I can carry those fueselage pieces as a blast shield for the capsule to protect it from the escape tower (I'm pretending there is realism ). I also want it there so that it won't add length and weight to the vessel (vessel meaning not the rocket that carried it to orbit and minus the escape tower).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51CLhT07t9A

(if you can't view video, let me know here, and I'll get to it when I can)

If you know of an alternative solution to this problem, then by all means post pics, but don't add the fairings with symmetry mode on. Just use one fairing to show a cross section view sort of. (I'm looking at you, Camelotking524)

[Railgunner2160]

Might be the Editor Extension mod.....

[e-dog]

Hm... looks like reply with quote is broken...

@Deltac:

The adapter considers anything attached to the node above the ring (NOT the topmost node) the payload. So, fairings will try to adapt to it.

It's not entirely clear to me how your two adapters are attached (which nodes), but it looks like it considers some of the fairings as payload and adjusts accordingly as you change their shape.

Basically, the top of your fairing is inside payload which causes those steep cones. It can be improved a bit by reducing extra payload radius (making it negative, actually) with R.

I have some ideas on how to improve it, but they need testing.

Please, make a mock-up of your vessel with stock and PF parts only, and send me the .craft file, so I could use it as a test case.

[Deltac]

@E-dog

Oops, I forgot to talk about the nodes. The top interstage adapter is upside down and attaches to that docking port via the "top" node (the one that moves with H), and the bottom interstage adapter is attached rightside up via the "second" top node.

Here's a .craft file with stock and PF stuff in the configuration that I'm trying to deal with.

[egreSS]

Maybe I'm missing something but can't you just lock the bottom fairing?

Also, thanks for the video, was looking for ways to build on top of shielded dock ports.