The one thing KSP needs in .24 or .23.5.1

[Prof. Endwalker]

Fairings. Sure, I adore the Nasa parts, and the common early career parts, but fairings wouldn't give actual protection, as re-entry is just a visual thing in KSP, but ASTHETICS. I am OCD so I really need such an implementation. If you agree or disagree, feel free to discuss below. I will see you when I see you!

Edited April 2, 2014 by Vanamonde

[r4pt0r]

inb4 someone says mods

this kind of stuff should be stock. but we would need better stock aerodynamics at the same time.

[Spartwo]

Or a bearing part(You can't say you aren't able to do it any more,the grabber is a more awkward bearing).I would love to see fairings but they would seem to take up multiple pages unless they are made procedural.Even though they are part/mass heavy and chunky panels and decouplers are enough to keep me happy though.

[chaos_forge]

I agree. This would also be useful for those of us who want to use FAR but don't want to install parts packs. Wouldn't this post he more fitting in the development subforum, though?

[KerbMav]

Worse, without updated aerodynamics fairings have a negative impact on TWR, drag, d/v etc.

I agree. This would also be useful for those of us who want to use FAR but don't want to install parts packs.

What is wrong with part packs? ProcFairings does not add much memory usage - and even stock parts would use up memory?

[Moar Boosters]

Now that we have larger part sizes I think they could make stock fairing without them being procedural. You'd only need a few parts. Semi-circle shell piece of each size except probe size, and top parts as well. All our payloads would have to be less than 3.75m in diameter to use them, but I don't think that would be a problem. That's still enough room for an orange tank + bits stuck to the side.

[wasmic]

Some people are opposed to using addons by principle. I don't know why. Anyway, the result is that those who use addons eiter a: ridicule those who have chosen not to, saying that they're missing out on most of the fun, or b: just don't care. Those who don't use addons either a: think they are better at the game than those who use addons or b: just don't care what other people do.

But yes, I think fairings should be added to the stock game, and they probably will be at some point, but not in 0.24. I think they'll probably add fairings when they make a more realistic aerodynamics model.

[chaos_forge]

What is wrong with part packs? ProcFairings does not add much memory usage - and even stock parts would use up memory?

Stock parts are the only ones guaranteed to be compatible with the latest version of KSP, stock parts let you share your ships with anyone, mods require effort to install and introduce the possibility for bugs . . . there are many reasons to want to go stock-only

[cantab]

Once we have more realistic aerodynamics, we probably will need fairings. But before then, I'll say we're better off without them. No fairings means you can look at a picture of a stock rocket and typically see everything, tell what parts are used and how it works. A rocket with fairings becomes in many ways a "black box", it looks pretty but you can't so easily appreciate the full workings.

[Vanamonde]

Moved to suggestions.

[MKI]

But yes, I think fairings should be added to the stock game, and they probably will be at some point, but not in 0.24. I think they'll probably add fairings when they make a more realistic aerodynamics model.

This, the Devs have no reason to put feedings in .24

When they update the aerodynamics then they will put in ferrings until then, there are plenty of mods that add ferrings that can make your rocket look good.

[rizay]

It would be nice if you actually had use to your pilots. I had 3 suggestion that get influenced by experience.

1. More stability while escalating time.

2. Them doing like maneuvers the more experience the more precise (this will make it easier to control multiple rockets at the same time).

3. In stressful situations you lose a bit of control of your rocket(Kerbal).