Stock fairings: Procedural or not?

[m4v]

i wouldnt be so sure...

And? have you *ever* seen a rocket launch with a fairing that was custom build for a specific payload? even if it did happen I would bet it's the exception and not the norm, I very much doubt that people behind the launcher would go through all the engineering process that requires making a new fairing design just because one of their clients couldn't be bothered to fit their payload to their existing ones.

[Alshain]

Im also curious about how the blow-away animation will look.. its so good with KW.

KW doesn't have a "blow away animation". KW has decoupling force and Unity handles the rest. There is no reason to believe any other fairings would look worse.

If they do it like ProcFairings, you can control the number of "nodes" so that trifold symmetry ejection that KW has can be simulated. So even though some of the pictures in this thread show two giant halves, that's not the only option.

And? have you *ever* seen a rocket launch with a fixed size fairing that was custom build for a specific payload? even if it did happen I would bet it's the exception and not the norm, I very much doubt that people behind the launcher would go through all the engineering process that requires making a new fairing design just because one of their clients couldn't be bothered to fit their payload to their existing ones.

The problem with that thinking is your are assuming we can make our payloads fit a fairing. KSP isn't the real world, we have limited engineering abilities while they can do nearly anything they want in real life. We have to conform to the part set in KSP, which don't fold, they don't come in many different sizes, we don't truly build them from scratch we build them from components. It's apples and oranges.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Alshain

[NoMrBond]

I think procedural with a fair amount of leeway as to length and a little leeway as to width (maybe up to +1/3rd of base diameter or so?)

They should be able to cover a reasonable payload (including various protrusions such as legs, solar panels, antennae, RCS ports etc) without getting too far into silliness territory (in career mode)

Possibly have the system be initially fixed/locked (i.e. have very tight bounds on what can be modified about them to start)

Then have them become more procedural/unlocked as R&D/VAB/Research levels increase (whilst being unlocked in Sandbox, more so than even max/tech/research in career)

As procedural you could have as few as two extra parts, at its simplest, base (which sizes to the node it's attached to) plus the fairings, my concern with discrete part sets is that the player is going to be buried in a profusion of 1.25/2.5/3.75/oversize options, side walls, long walls, caps, slopes and adaptors to enable them.

Edited January 26, 2015 by NoMrBond

[Tuareg]

And? have you *ever* seen a rocket launch with a fairing that was custom build for a specific payload? even if it did happen I would bet it's the exception and not the norm, I very much doubt that people behind the launcher would go through all the engineering process that requires making a new fairing design just because one of their clients couldn't be bothered to fit their payload to their existing ones.

o.O... how many times nasa sent up rockets with other's payloads and how many times did they shoot up their own rockets with their own payloads and their own fairings... you can be sure its far easier to design a cover than design any craft (probe satellite or whatever) to fit into a given space. you live in a dream. weak up, ksp isnt real, its a game. (actually in most times even the rockets are designed for the payload not just the fairings)

[tater]

And? have you *ever* seen a rocket launch with a fairing that was custom build for a specific payload? even if it did happen I would bet it's the exception and not the norm, I very much doubt that people behind the launcher would go through all the engineering process that requires making a new fairing design just because one of their clients couldn't be bothered to fit their payload to their existing ones.

Every single player in KSP is a different space program. Have you ever seen a rocket launch where a payload from one space program was brought to another program's launch facility? If in MY space program, landers are 3.1m across, and in your space program they are 2.9, I'd expect we'd have come up with different standard sizes, would we not?

[Brotoro]

I like procedural fairings to give players the most options.

If you want the challenge of squeezing your payload into a certain size...then go right ahead a do that. Pick a size and build to it. More power to you. You can still put a procedural fairing around it.

If you want to make your payload quite a bit wider than the attached stage...then procedural fairings are the only way to go. But you are going to have to pay the penalty for the large mass and drag of the larger fairing, and design your rocket so it will be stable. Different challenges, but more power to you.

Fixed-size fairings would limit some people's game play, but procedural fairings can be used by either group.

The other reason I would not want to force people to use fixed size fairings is that we don't have folding parts in KSP that engineers have available in rear life to fit their payloads into fixed-size fairings.

The simulation Physics should be the determining factor in what people can fly. If they are up to the challenge of flying mushroom rockets and can get it past the new, more stringent aerodynamics model, then have fun. I'll have fun watching, even if I don't want to fly mushrooms myself.

If Squad wants to impose limitations on procedural fairing sizes in certain levels of Career mode...that's fine by me. As long as maximum latitude is allowed in sandbox (where the Physics of Kerbal Reality should be the limiting factor).

[Pthigrivi]

I'm not personally concerned with anything but gameplay. I like the challenge of constraining to a module. I also think it fits the lego-like spirit of the game. So if there's a way to start with just a few bases and snap to module diameters after that Im pretty cool.

[cpast]

o.O... how many times nasa sent up rockets with other's payloads and how many times did they shoot up their own rockets with their own payloads and their own fairings... you can be sure its far easier to design a cover than design any craft (probe satellite or whatever) to fit into a given space. you live in a dream. weak up, ksp isnt real, its a game. (actually in most times even the rockets are designed for the payload not just the fairings)

Rockets are almost *never* custom-designed for one payload, because designing a rocket is really, really, really expensive and building a one-off rocket is also really, really, really expensive. Rockets are fairly standardized. They have actual catalogs which show you basic launch options and platforms; while there's more to it than just that (e.g. what orbit you want, insurance, if other peoples' stuff is on the same rocket, that sort of thing), you don't custom-design the rocket for the payload.

Every single player in KSP is a different space program. Have you ever seen a rocket launch where a payload from one space program was brought to another program's launch facility? If in MY space program, landers are 3.1m across, and in your space program they are 2.9, I'd expect we'd have come up with different standard sizes, would we not?

Yes. It happens all the time; NASA has launched *commercial* satellites, let alone other space agencies' stuff. Russia launches other countries' astronauts. NASA has launched ESA stuff, often for payment in kind (i.e. ESA didn't even pay for the launch, they instead did something for NASA in exchange for NASA launching their stuff).

That said, while I like the idea of restricted space, I do think people pointing out that we don't have the necessary space-saving parts (e.g. hinges) have a good point. Mushroom fairings definitely shouldn't just be linearly scaled in cost and mass; the wider the fairing, the harder it is to build, so some sort of nonlinear cost/mass scaling with width would make sense. But a proper aero system should make mushroom fairings give limited benefit in terms of reducing drag; they'd keep stuff from falling apart, but it'd be hard to launch them.

[tater]

I'm well aware of NASA/ESA launching other entities payloads. What about brought with no notice?

Can you take any, RANDOM payload constructed by any space program, ever, bring it to a launch facility, also chosen at random, and fit it in a stock fairing they had lying around 100% of the time? If the answer is "no," then stock fairing are not a thing globally. Of course most will fit in the US or Russia, because we've probably lifted bigger payloads than some random payload that shows up unannounced on Tuesday. What if the HST showed up in India tomorrow, would it fit in a fairing they already have?

Looks like a better solution might be to limit the fairing diameter to some multiple of the rocket diameter. The problem as stated in other answers thoughts that we lack the ability to make things as small as can be done in RL. We are also saddled with fixed tank diameters, etc. I'd say one or the other needs to be procedural, either the fairings, or the tanks. I'm certainly no fan of some posted above. I'd just hate to find it impossible to make a lander fit inside an interstage because 3 tanks around a central tank plus decouplers does't fit (I refuse to clip parts).

I tend to think rockets look sorta ugly if the fairing is much more than about half again the diameter of the stage it attaches to.

Does anyone against procedural fairings ever clip parts? I'm curious, as I consider that far worse than PF (it's easy to get 3 fuel tanks if you make them only take up 1.5 the volume of 1, for example).

Look at the crazy fairing ideas a group here in ABQ worked on (simulated).

Less than attractive, I like the 5.4m

Edited January 26, 2015 by tater

[Bill Phil]

Payloads are DESIGNED to fit a specific rocket, which in turn has it's own classification.

If you chose a random payload and went to a random launch facility of course it isn't likely there. First off, this situation is unlikely, second off, you would choose a facility and a rocket with the proper capacity, and third off, payloads are designed, from the very beginning, to fit a specific volume, which is capable of being launched on specific rockets.

[tater]

I know, I was intentionally setting up an example where we could agree. My point was that standards do not exist in a vacuum. In KSP, the player sets the standards. I'd prefer that if physics makes oddball fairings terrible, THAT is the limit.

This goes to the very nature of "realism" vs made up. Let;s assume real fairings are limited by aerodynamics, and the shots from KSP posted above (of PF) would not work in RL. I'd prefer to have them not work in KSP because they don't work given the physics model, not because we are only given 3 sizes that happen to work in RL. If that makes sense. The limit should be aerodynamic, not arbitrary.

[Tuareg]

I know, I was intentionally setting up an example where we could agree. My point was that standards do not exist in a vacuum. In KSP, the player sets the standards. I'd prefer that if physics makes oddball fairings terrible, THAT is the limit.

This goes to the very nature of "realism" vs made up. Let;s assume real fairings are limited by aerodynamics, and the shots from KSP posted above (of PF) would not work in RL. I'd prefer to have them not work in KSP because they don't work given the physics model, not because we are only given 3 sizes that happen to work in RL. If that makes sense. The limit should be aerodynamic, not arbitrary.

this^^this^^this^^

[cpast]

I'm well aware of NASA/ESA launching other entities payloads. What about brought with no notice?

Can you take any, RANDOM payload constructed by any space program, ever, bring it to a launch facility, also chosen at random, and fit it in a stock fairing they had lying around 100% of the time? If the answer is "no," then stock fairing are not a thing globally. Of course most will fit in the US or Russia, because we've probably lifted bigger payloads than some random payload that shows up unannounced on Tuesday. What if the HST showed up in India tomorrow, would it fit in a fairing they already have?

Ah. No, you don't show up *unannounced*. For many missions, it still might not be a problem fitting in the fairing (AFAIK, many missions aren't built out to the width of the fairing), but there would be plenty of planning and integration work to do, and any fairing issues would also be addressed at that time. However, there's a big, big difference between KSP and real national programs: In real life, different programs have free reign to do whatever they like. In KSP, we all have parts of the same width. A Russian capsule might be a different width than an American one, but every KSP program has the same stock capsule widths, and mod capsules generally stick to those widths.

(as a side note: while looking up real fairing widths, it turns out that real fairings absolutely *aren't* custom-made; they have standard prefab fairings whose specifications are something you design to when building a payload)

Edit: To address "player sets the standards:" Not quite. Standard widths are largely a consequence of part size; the player does *not* set how wide their parts are.

[Tuareg]

Standard widths are largely a consequence of part size; the player does *not* set how wide their parts are.

but they set how wide their crafts are.... anyway, i dont understand ppl who want to force others to live their ways. you dont like it, dont use it. proc fairings is an advanced version of fairings. if you dont want to use its advantages you can always build standard sized loads with standard size fairings let others to do it different. it would look far better to have limits set by realism than rules set by cpast. and its not even much bigger work, its done by modders so can be done by squad...

[Nemrav]

but they set how wide their crafts are.... anyway, i dont understand ppl who want to force others to live their ways. you dont like it, dont use it. proc fairings is an advanced version of fairings. if you dont want to use its advantages you can always build standard sized loads with standard size fairings let others to do it different. it would look far better to have limits set by realism than rules set by cpast. and its not even much bigger work, its done by modders so can be done by squad...

to add challenge....

(as a side note: while looking up real fairing widths, it turns out that real fairings absolutely *aren't* custom-made; they have standard prefab fairings whose specifications are something you design to when building a payload)

but but but... What about all the world firsts ships.... the big ones, and the early ones before space had some commercial aspects to it, what if, in alternate history apollo had a fairing ? would it have been made to fit the non-existant commercial fairings ? no...

[tater]

Again, nothing now is in a vacuum, anyone making a spacecraft looking to hire a launch knows what fits. I'd wager they'd make any fairing you like if your checkbook is big enough.

[Superfluous J]

One important thing to remember is that in the real world it takes a lot more fuel to get to ORBIT than it takes us to get to JOOL, so real world rockets are (much) bigger for any given payload. It's not surprising that in KSP the fairings tend to be bulbous or the rockets made bigger simply to make them look "correct."

[Bill Phil]

Again, nothing now is in a vacuum, anyone making a spacecraft looking to hire a launch knows what fits. I'd wager they'd make any fairing you like if your checkbook is big enough.

Here's the thing: Most people don't have a budget big enough for that.

[Northstar1989]

Fairings ABSOLUTELY need to be procedural. Nothing makes me sicker than players trying to get useful features excluded simply because it doesn't fit their playstyle. You can always standardize YOUR fairings if you want, but procedural fairings gives everyone else a lot of flexibility...

As for realism, consider this: in real life there aren't just 3 major sizes of rocket. Rockets come in a variety of sizes and shapes, from the enormous 10 meter Saturn V and 8.4 meter SLS, to the tiny 1.7 meter Falcon 1. Different rockets need different size fairings. The fact is, it just doesn't make sense to have a standard size fairing, just like it doesn't make sense to have a standard size fuel tank (if it were up to me, I would toss ALL the standard fuel tanks and replace them with procedural fuel tanks with various different possible textures available. It would save memory/RAM while improving player options at the same time...) You build a rocket to the size you want, and then fit a fairing on top of it. Frankly, beyond engines, I see no use for standard-size parts... At the VERY least, fuel tanks and fairings should be stretchable to any length, even if they only come in certain fixed diameters. Too bad SQUAD isn't making the fuel tanks procedural as well...

Regards,

Northstar

[Bill Phil]

But proc tanks kind of go against the lego-style of KSP...

[Tuareg]

But proc tanks kind of go against the lego-style of KSP...

why would? it would just mean you dont have to put 5 of the same size and looking tanks on top of each other (which would be good for physx load) and that they can be any diameter. you still have to give separate tanks for payloads and stages and the crafts would still be built legolike...

[Bill Phil]

Referring to the proc tanks

[cpast]

why would? it would just mean you dont have to put 5 of the same size and looking tanks on top of each other (which would be good for physx load) and that they can be any diameter. you still have to give separate tanks for payloads and stages and the crafts would still be built legolike...

Because Lego is about snapping together multiple fixed-size parts; you have a fixed group of blocks, at fixed dimensions and fixed shapes, and do not get to do things like make a tall 2x4 of just the right height because you don't want to stack short 2x4s. If you consider making custom parts to be legolike, you and I played with very different Lego sets growing up.

[Northstar1989]

Referring to the proc tanks

So is he. Even with procedural tanks, you still get a LEGO-like effect (trust me, I play with Procedural Parts mod as a matter of course). You just do it with a lower part count and less RAM usage. It's not just a matter of creating one tank for the rocket and being done, factors you have to account for include:

(1) Diameter changes in the rocket. If conical fuel tanks can be built (which should be allowed) then you are going to want at a bare minimum one cylindrical fuel tank and one conical tank for every stage with a smaller-diameter stage built on top of it. You also have to decide how gradual or sharp of a diameter transition you want (sharper transitions allow for shorter rockets, but more gradual ones are more aerodynamic in shape- which will actually matter in stock with the drag overhaul)

(2) Fuel allocation within the rocket. It's strongly advisable with a realistic aerodynamics model (where drag depends on shape rather than mass) to place and keep your mass as high up on the rocket as possible. Thus, even with the stock LF/O (and *especially* with the RealFuels mod) it is often advisable to separate your fuel and oxidizer into separate tanks to influence how the Center of Mass shifts as you burn fuel. This is even more important in planes (you don't want CoM to shift too far backwards). In stock, where Liquidfuel and Oxidizer are the same density, you want to place your Oxidizer towards the bottom/rear of your plane/rocket as the Center of Mass will then shift away from it (Oxidizer is consumed in greater quantities of mass than Liquidfuel, even in KSP- although this tendency is much stronger in real life...) With realistic fuels (which I really think should be a part of the stock game, as they make the game more believable than LF/O and give players more options for fuel-density vs. ISP), you want to place your Liquid Oxygen higher up on the rocket, as it is denser than Liquid Hydrogen or Kerosene...

(3) Drop-tanks and staging. It is generally advisable from a Delta-V perspective to stage and/or use drop tanks. This inherently requires you to design several different sizes of fuel tank if the tanks are procedural...

Anyways, I'm glad the devs are moving towards procedural fairings. I just wish they would give fuel tanks the same treatment...

- - - Updated - - -

Because Lego is about snapping together multiple fixed-size parts; you have a fixed group of blocks, at fixed dimensions and fixed shapes, and do not get to do things like make a tall 2x4 of just the right height because you don't want to stack short 2x4s. If you consider making custom parts to be legolike, you and I played with very different Lego sets growing up.

Lego's don't slow time or cause spontaneous explosions when you have too many of them in one place.

Regards,

Northstar

[tater]

I'd add that the stock 1.25m tanks, arranged in height, are 1, 2, 4, and 8 units high or so.. Once you unlock the 800, why not let the player slide between them in height?

As the diameters relate to fairings, it sucks if you can almost get a lander in, but you cannot since you could have shaved the tanks down to make it fit (impossible if 1.25m is the smallest), or could have had a 0.1m larger fairing.