[1.2] Procedural Fairings 3.20 (November 8)

[KvickFlygarn87]

Why no 5m fairings in the tech tree?

[Tallinu]

Probably because stock only comes with parts up to 2.5m in size. Would be nice if it still added them anyway, though. KW Rocketry is pretty common, at least, with 3.75m parts, and I know there are other mods out there with 5m.

You can easily add tech nodes to the .cfg files, or even use a Module Manager .cfg to do it. For example,

@PART[KzProcFairingBaseRing3_75]:HAS[!TechRequired]
{
TechRequired = specializedConstruction
}
@PART[KzProcFairingBaseRing5]:HAS[!TechRequired]
{
TechRequired = specializedConstruction
}
@PART[KzProcFairingBase3_75]:HAS[!TechRequired]
{
TechRequired = specializedConstruction
}
@PART[KzProcFairingBase5]:HAS[!TechRequired]
{
TechRequired = specializedConstruction
}

Just put that in a text file with the .cfg extension in your GameData folder, assuming you already have Module Manager there. Lots of things come with it, or you can grab it at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55219-Module-Manager-1-5-6-(Jan-6) and next time you start KSP those should appear in the Specialized Construction node (that's where I chose to put them, you can edit that if you wish).

[John FX]

Myself I always prefer less parts but more `proceduralness` (is that a word?)

I would prefer to just have one super stretchy base that `notches` at the preset sizes like 1.25m,2.5m,3.75m,5m etc and have the sizes unlocked by the tech tree instead of parts (is this even possible?)

Then our parts list ends up less cluttered.

[blackheart612]

Yep, is possible.

[Castun]

So I recently started to use Deadly Reentry Continued in addition to FAR and this mod. Is it just me or do the fairings not protect against heat? On a new career game, I launched a probe on a suborbital trajectory with sensor instruments that was protected by the nosecone fairings, and all the sensors and parachutes burned up on reentry even though it still had the nosecone fairings.

[Tidus Klein]

ODD it works for me.

[Ravenchant]

Okay, first off I would just like to say how this mod is all sorts of awesome and really useful, but you already know that

Now, a simple question: the interstage fairing adapter has fairing nodes in 4x symmetry, meaning 90° per shroud "part". Can the configs be edited, one way or another, to change this? Let's say... to 8x, with 45° per "part", or to 6x, with 60°?

As for why- the reason would be that I have a design in my mind which would require every second part to fold out (which isn't a problem), but would require at least three of those "petals". Similar to Nibb31's design here. Of course it's possible to do with structural plates, but they are not exactly a pleasure to look at

[HoneyFox]

Okay, first off I would just like to say how this mod is all sorts of awesome and really useful, but you already know that

Now, a simple question: the interstage fairing adapter has fairing nodes in 4x symmetry, meaning 90° per shroud "part". Can the configs be edited, one way or another, to change this? Let's say... to 8x, with 45° per "part", or to 6x, with 60°?

As for why- the reason would be that I have a design in my mind which would require every second part to fold out (which isn't a problem), but would require at least three of those "petals". Similar to Nibb31's design here. Of course it's possible to do with structural plates, but they are not exactly a pleasure to look at

should be possible by editing the stackSymmetry value to: num_of_fairings-1, but you need to add these attach nodes manually as well.

[Ravenchant]

Thanks! There should be workarounds for attachment nodes, though - involving cubic struts, for example. I just need one part, then the fairing shape can be locked and duplicated.

Er...if you don't mind me asking... why does the -1 comes into play? And wouldn't this just multiply the fairing number without making them span a lesser part of the circle?

[Castun]

ODD it works for me.

If this was in response to me, well I'm also trying out BTSM...I think it actually lowers maxTemp for all parts across the board. Problem is, the sensors all have the same maxTemp as the probe core, which survived, as well as the fairings which have a slightly higher maxTemp. Chutes have a significantly lower maxTemp and were the first to burn up. If both the probe core and fairings survived, I doubt they burned up from heat transfer, which would imply they weren't being shielded from the heat. FAR also makes things worse because reentering doesn't slow you down nearly as much as with the stock atmospheric modeling.

I don't know how exactly DR calculates reentry heat, but if it's purely based off of speed at a particular altitude, not slowing down nearly as fast makes for explosions everywhere regardless of how shallow or steep your reentry, even on suborbital flights. I actually launched a rocket straight up until it was barely in space, let it fall back down to Kerbin, and it still burned up (which is not realistic at all.) I've since toned down the heat multiplier a bit as recommended by some, which seemed to have helped a lot.

[HoneyFox]

Thanks! There should be workarounds for attachment nodes, though - involving cubic struts, for example. I just need one part, then the fairing shape can be locked and duplicated.

Er...if you don't mind me asking... why does the -1 comes into play? And wouldn't this just multiply the fairing number without making them span a lesser part of the circle?

It's designed as is in stock KSP, perhaps for automatically setup the symmetry count when in VAB/SPH.

The plugin doesn't consider this value though, it judges the number of fairings by counting how many attach nodes are named "connect". (there might be some numbers after it)

[Ravenchant]

It's designed as is in stock KSP, perhaps for automatically setup the symmetry count when in VAB/SPH.

The plugin doesn't consider this value though, it judges the number of fairings by counting how many attach nodes are named "connect". (there might be some numbers after it)

Wow, that simplifies the matter immensely! It still seems to revert to the default "shape" upon loading in the editor, but otherwise? Everything's shiny

I owe you one!

[e-dog]

Updated to 2.4.4:

• Added tweakables.
  
• Rearranged tech tree, added 3.75m and 5m parts.
  
• Interstage adapter is available earlier now, but its radius is limited by aerodynamics tech.
  
• Launch clamps are ignored in payload scanning now.
  
• Payload scanning doesn't follow surface attachment to the parent part anymore.
  
• Improved interstage fairing shape when its top is inside payload.
  
• Added base cone angle limit to make fairings look better.
  
• Part descriptions and readme text copy edited by Duxwing.
  

[DasBananenbrot]

Updated to 2.4.4:

• Added tweakables.
  
• Rearranged tech tree, added 3.75m and 5m parts.
  
• Interstage adapter is available earlier now, but its radius is limited by aerodynamics tech.
  
• Launch clamps are ignored in payload scanning now.
  
• Payload scanning doesn't follow surface attachment to the parent part anymore.
  
• Improved interstage fairing shape when its top is inside payload.
  
• Added base cone angle limit to make fairings look better.
  
• Part descriptions and readme text copy edited by Duxwing.
  

And suddenly more or less out of nowhere an update thanks e-dog. I think including HoneyFox' new hollow interstage adapter into this would be nice

Anyway off to download and play KSP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMg6hES_hyQ

[federally]

Awesome an update to one if the best things to happen to by ksp install.

On another note, I have a question. What's the best way to use the interstage adapter? (The one you can mouse over while holding a key to change its size etc). Every time I use it in the middle of a rocket I wind up with a wobbly rocket, even when making sure to press the button for auto struts, and when I get it to work "right" I wind up with a fairing that looks like a cylinder with a wide flat out aerodynamic edge on the top. So I've always just resorted to using two of the regular adapters, one below pointed up and one above pointed down, which has mostly worked as long as I can get the upside down adapter to mount directly.

It just seems like I'm doing something wrong due to a lack of understanding of how it should work. Can you clear it up for me?

[duckhunt]

you need to hold r and mouse over to adjust extra readius which is the wide flat you are talking about

[smunisto]

I updated 2-3 mods today, so I will post this in each of their respective threads, but I can't figure out what went wrong.

Each time I launch a new craft the PhysX time slows down(the MET becomes yellow) and the game starts being super laggy(as in FPS constantly low laggy).

Now..you'll say "Ok, you are launching a craft with many parts, so it's normal". Yes, but! BUT!

The moment I go to the Map view and back it disappears!

I checked the Alt+F2 log. This is spammed several hundred times:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/znq6lxw5q42qr85/Screenshot%202014-04-01%2019.16.26.png

EDIT: Added output_log - https://www.dropbox.com/s/g78bn2vshyixs6t/output_log.txt

List of mods updated prior to the bug:

1. Visual enhancements TEST 8.1;

2. Procedural Fairings 2.4.4;

3. Science Alert Beta 1.1a;

[BARCLONE]

e-dog,

Version 2.4.4

The structural (conic) fairing has an issue with 0.23.5 (ARM). I had two launch failures back-to-back where the fairings would not release at the top. The stages would not separate, and remained firmly attached even as the next stage's engine was blasting away.

The aerodynamic shroud sections appear to work fine.

ADDENDUM: Hundreds of instances of this line appear in the logfile:

[EXC 20:37:24.738] MissingFieldException: Field '.Part.attachJoint' not found.

Edited April 2, 2014 by BARCLONE

[Mołot]

Hello.

Thank you for your great add-on. Is there any chance for something like "Centaur Forward Load Reactor"? I know it sounds strange, but really it's just a ring that holds cargo inside fairings. Like inner struts, pretty much. It would make it way easier to prevent payload swinging, in a way that is used IRL - so no cheat.

Source article about real life implementation here.

To give the fairing structural support during the ascent, the "Centaur Forward Load Reactor" deck has been designed by Contraves. This aluminum ring extends from the Centaur to the fairing's inner wall. It separates in two halves moments after the fairing is jettisoned during launch.

[e-dog]

e-dog,

Version 2.4.4

The structural (conic) fairing has an issue with 0.23.5 (ARM). I had two launch failures back-to-back where the fairings would not release at the top. The stages would not separate, and remained firmly attached even as the next stage's engine was blasting away.

The aerodynamic shroud sections appear to work fine.

Are you using the non-ejectable fairings with the interstage adapter?

If yes, can I get a picture of what you're trying to achieve with that?

I'm asking because I'm going to add decouplers with shrouds next, like in KW rocketry but procedural.

ADDENDUM: Hundreds of instances of this line appear in the logfile:

That's not PF since it doesn't use Part.attachJoint at all. Check other mods. KJR maybe?

[e-dog]

Hello.

Thank you for your great add-on. Is there any chance for something like "Centaur Forward Load Reactor"? I know it sounds strange, but really it's just a ring that holds cargo inside fairings. Like inner struts, pretty much. It would make it way easier to prevent payload swinging, in a way that is used IRL - so no cheat.

http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av003/images/030715atlas5500art.jpg

Source article about real life implementation here.

That's interesting, but not easy to do, so I guess I'll consider it later.

[BARCLONE]

Are you using the non-ejectable fairings with the interstage adapter?

If yes, can I get a picture of what you're trying to achieve with that?

I'm asking because I'm going to add decouplers with shrouds next, like in KW rocketry but procedural.

Yes, that's what I was trying to use. I'll try to set up some screenshots.

That's not PF since it doesn't use Part.attachJoint at all. Check other mods. KJR maybe?

I am using KJR, so I'll go check for an update. Thanks!

[Mołot]

That's interesting, but not easy to do, so I guess I'll consider it later.

The way I would approach it, if I knew enough of Kerbal development:

1. Add nodes to fairings, one at the point where cylinder turns to cone, other in half of the cylinder's height (again, that's pretty much from real life)
   
2. Create a part that would take a shape of 1/n of a flat ring with a round hole at the center - going as close to payload as possible. If there are 8 fairing parts, the ring should be divided into 8 pieces, too.
   
3. Made that part to work as a strut connected from fairing to payload, or automagically add "invisible struts" from that part to cargo (to prevent part from disappearing on decouple if it was treated totally as a strut)
   

Well, I don't think I will be able to do this... Time to start learning, I'm afraid I can code, just have no idea about C# or Kerbal's API.

[e-dog]

Well, there are issues, as always.

There might be no payload where the ring is placed (a gap or it just ends below the ring).

The payload might be not round, so the round hole at the center won't work.

Connecting fairing to some payload part might make both the fairing and the payload to wobble more, not less. It can also create issues with fairing ejection.

[Mołot]

Well, there are issues, as always.

There might be no payload where the ring is placed (a gap or it just ends below the ring).

The payload might be not round, so the round hole at the center won't work.

Connecting fairing to some payload part might make both the fairing and the payload to wobble more, not less. It can also create issues with fairing ejection.

Well I don't claim I know it all But, you know, these issues correspond very well with real life issues of this design, too! So as long as the game does not crash, I think it would be OK to leave them be. No payload? So ring should have no hole. Why anyone would want it? Not our problem. Cargo not round? So hole should be a smallest circle that can hold cargo. More wobbly instead of less? Well, one more Kerbal killed on duty. As long as it only happens for weird cargo, well, it happens. Issues with fairing ejection? Sure IRL there was some, too, it's only fair if they will happen in KSP if cargo will obstruct ring separation, just as they happen in life.

I'm not arguing it will be easy in code. It might be hard to get it "good enough" in code, I don't know. If you say "hard", I believe. But if it will recreate real life problems in game arguably accurate, I'm all for it.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Mołot