Stock fairings: Procedural or not?

[Guest]

These statements are certainly true for launch vehicles pre-SpaceX, but the era of the bespoke rocket as the norm is slowly coming to a close.

It may be, and when someone finally creates a space elevator carrier rockets will be a thing of the past, but, for now, and for KSP, carrier rockets are very diverse.

Because part count is the most significant design constraint in the game, and because I enjoy pushing the limits, launching large payloads should require rockets with high part counts.

Why not, you know, just create hundreds of little procedural tank parts to satisfy this? It's actually a reasonable strategy in early career mode using Procedural Parts. I see where you're coming from but I, for one, am quite happy that the extremely frustrating days of rubbery rockets, stitch-strutting, and putting 1/8 tanks over mainsails are long gone.

Not really. Sure, they're hardly "mass produced", but my understanding is most real rockets are built for a general "x kg to LEO, y kg to GTO" kind of thing.

I like how you cut out the part of my quote where I wrote that, makes me feel like it's pointless talking to you because you're not reading what I'm writing.

Right now if I design a satellite that's 8 metres wide, no launcher can put that in orbit.

And yet, if you were to pay enough money, someone would design and build a rocket to have an 8m fairing that carries your payload to space. We have studied, designed, and created such a wide variety of carrier rockets that I can't imagine there is any reason to constrain the player in that manner beyond simply being sadistic.

(Quotes out of order, sorry...)

Edited February 16, 2015 by Master Tao
adult description removed

[FishInferno]

Here's a thought that just came to me: Why are procedural tanks a big subject of debate anyway? Those who want them can use the appropriate mods, and those who prefer Lego-like construction can play without procedural mods.

[Guest]

Here's a thought that just came to me: Why are procedural tanks a big subject of debate anyway? Those who want them can use the appropriate mods, and those who prefer Lego-like construction can play without procedural mods.

Why not just have procedural tanks, fairings, and wings in the game and people want to play with LEGO-like construction just create a bunch of fiddly little bits? Sorry but, to me at least, the argument makes as much sense turned on its head.

[FishInferno]

Why not just have procedural tanks, fairings, and wings in the game and people want to play with LEGO-like construction just create a bunch of fiddly little bits? Sorry but, to me at least, the argument makes as much sense turned on its head.

Why not just have a bunch of Lego-like parts and people who want to play with procedural parts can install mods for free and at no penalty whatsoever.

(I think we're going in circles:P)

[Guest]

Right, and what I'm saying is there is no reason to exclude the possibility of procedural-style parts, which is pretty much what this thread was about.

[FishInferno]

Right, and what I'm saying is there is no reason to exclude the possibility of procedural-style parts, which is pretty much what this thread was about.

This thread was originally about peoples opinions on how fairings should be implemented in stock, not on the morality of using procedural parts.

[Guest]

This thread was originally about peoples opinions on how fairings should be implemented in stock, not on the morality of using procedural parts.

No thread subject survives discussion. However, we are back at that original point, what do I think? It think it makes perfect sense to have procedural fairings in the stock game. In fact, we should make more parts procedural because it makes sense.

[FishInferno]

By all means, we can continue debating the morality of procedural parts:P

[Daze]

"There's a mod for it" it's not a good answer sometimes

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Why not just have a bunch of Lego-like parts and people who want to play with procedural parts can install mods for free and at no penalty whatsoever.

(I think we're going in circles:P)

Alright, if you want to play with lego tanks, you could create a bunch of tiny procedural tanks, and stack them all together, lowering your performance in the process. Your choice.

[Superfluous J]

Not really. Sure, they're hardly "mass produced", but my understanding is most real rockets are built for a general "x kg to LEO, y kg to GTO" kind of thing. Payloads have to be built to fit the mass limits of the rocket, and yes to fit inside the fairing. Right now if I design a satellite that's 8 metres wide, no launcher can put that in orbit.

Using that logic, you could argue that the freedom we have with rockets right now is WAY too great. Really we should just design the payload, and then the game will tell us if we've collected enough surface samples and temperature readings to launch it into orbit based on its weight and dimensions.

And hey, why not skip all that and just put it in orbit if we met the criteria?

[cantab]

Using that logic, you could argue that the freedom we have with rockets right now is WAY too great. Really we should just design the payload, and then the game will tell us if we've collected enough surface samples and temperature readings to launch it into orbit based on its weight and dimensions.

And hey, why not skip all that and just put it in orbit if we met the criteria?

That would actually make a fun game But it wouldn't be KSP. More along the lines of Take On Mars I think.

[basic.syntax]

Why all this messing around with warp drives and hyperspace, when we could simply exist in all points simultaneously? **

(referencing the Infinite Improbability drive, found in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.)

**If anyone needs me, just leave a message. I'll be hiding under this very expensive towel for the next hour, where any tomatoes and cabages hurled in my direction, can't hurt me.

[Brotoro]

Yeah...I don't understand this argument that procedural fairings are unrealistic because we don't make fairings-on-demand in real life. We also don't slap one-shot rockets together in real life, but we do that all the time in KSP. And there HAVE been one-shot fairings in real life...the Skylab fairing on the Saturn V was only ever used once. The LM fairing used to test the Lunar Module on top of a Saturn IB had a unique top. And they were going to make a fairing for a one-shot test of the Lunar Module on top of the Little Joe II (until wind tunnel tests showed that the rocket would be unstable with that fairing and only the lightweight LM on top). The ATDA target used during the Gemini 9 mission had a unique fairing set-up. These are examples that I know of off the top of my head. The reason we don't use more customized fairings in real life is simply ECONOMICS, a limitation that does not apply in the same way as it does in KSP.

Also, a procedural shroud in KSP doesn't have to be a one-shot deal. I have rockets that I debug and use over and over again for many missions...and I'm currently making a set of payloads to explore Duna that will be built to the same diameter -- and if we already had procedural fairings in KSP, I'd be slapping nearly the same fairing (with different length cylindrical sections) around all of these payloads. So you can STILL standardize when offered procedural fairings.

[Bill Phil]

Ah. I see. You think I want Squad to put this in the game in spite of it being against the core spirit of the game.

This is not what I want. I want procedural-everything-that-can-be-procedural to BE the core spirit of the game.

Regarding specially produced vs mass produced, the MILLISECOND that a second launch of the same rocket is cheaper than the first, I'll rethink my stance that every single rocket is specially built.

I don't understand why you assume I'm talking about rockets. A car that is mass produced is cheaper than a car that is specially built. By specially built I mean for one occasion/use/person. The Saturn 1 first stage was cheaper than an equal volume specially built stage. OTRAG was based on this.

[Superfluous J]

I don't understand why you assume I'm talking about rockets.

I assumed you were talking about rockets because we're on the Kerbal Space Program forum, discussing alternative ways to build... well... rockets in that game.

But I see no reason we shouldn't have procedural parts for rovers either.

[Bill Phil]

I said generally in my comment about specially built things compared to mass produced things.

[FishInferno]

Alright, if you want to play with lego tanks, you could create a bunch of tiny procedural tanks, and stack them all together, lowering your performance in the process. Your choice.

Those arguments pretty much cancel each other out, so there is no point in repeating them over and over again.

[Kegereneku]

Some newish opinions about procedural tank :

As far as we know Lego-tank is what made KSP popular. Thus it have precedence over what a vocal minority claim to be the best for KSP.

The lego-ish TANK gameplay serve very important purposes.

- It is FUN. Many people are just NOT interested in custom making thing, they want the challenge of making what they want out of non-ideal parts.

- It's easy as hell, you don't go remembering the internal volume to fit enough fuel for your moon rocket. You just count the lego parts you need. (a deltaV reader would "solve" that but mostly for veterans players who know their stuff since a while)

- It's an anti-frustration measure, it give you either too much or way too little fuel, but you don't feel the frustration of having been too cheap. (Especially more likely to happen if we had a stock dV reader)

- It allow to recognize size easily on screenshot in the space environment mostly devoid of visual landmark. Without it you would have an hard time guessing the exact size of a rocket.

Now, to link it back to the topic :

Procedural fairing =/= Procedural tank.

The way I'm seeing it procedural fairing is inconsequential, a facilitator to the rest of the gameplay. We've played for YEARS without them and since the goal of any rocket is to get out of the thick atmosphere as fast as possible they aren't used for long.

Fairing mostly serve to "make things look right" as part of the ambiance. They weight little to nothing and are void so changing their size within reason wont play a big roles even with a better aerodynamic model.

That's why they HAVE to be custom made, the bulk of the gameplay is on designing vehicle for a purpose, the fairing is just a mean to that.

Fuel tank however are the core of the gameplay. They act upon the very fundamental of rocket science : structural mass, fuel mass and shape. With engines they make for 80% of the game balance. They are the opposite of inconsequential and why it is best reserved to MODS.

So the error would be to think that procedural fairing "justify" procedural tank

Finally on the question on "Procedural fairing or not ?" :

As I said, it is just a mean to an end and isn't the most important part of the grand gameplay compared to the rest.

To me it's only really for the visual, hence why the fairing should have to adapt "as much as reasonable" to what I really play for.

END of opinion.

[SorryDave]

Looks like they will be procedural per Devnote Tuesday, additionally they may work as heat shields giving us options for crafts designed for aerobraking as well as launches.

[maxrijpkema]

I think it's better to put procedural in the game, for the people who like it. If you don't like them, just don't use them.

[Azimech]

Indeed ... if you don't like them, don't use them.

For me, I even made cylinders for my piston engines out of those procedural fairings. And you can create a lot more out of them, for example tubes and air inlets.

And for those questioning what does piston engines have to do with a space program: they're even building one for use in space. I'm not kidding.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Azimech

[John FX]

So the procedural fairings we are going to get will shield against reentry heat?

That means we are getting reentry heat too! sweet.

I'm in favour of procedural wings, tanks, stack batteries, parachutes and of course fairings. Maybe other stuff but that is off the top of my head.

Getting them would not necessarily mean the removal of all the parts that it is claimed make the game 'fun' for some posters (a particularly individual concept anyway) but would add 'fun' for others.

Why would people not want the game to be 'fun' for the largest range of people possible?

To those who want 'lego gameplay', I assume you don't use tweakables as that is very similar in concept to procedural and would ruin the 'fun'?

[Jouni]

Why would people not want the game to be 'fun' for the largest range of people possible?

Because there is no such option available.

If I have the right tools to build something that I want, I don't want to build it anymore, because it's no longer fun. If I know that something is possible, building it is just boring and tedious work. What I find fun is exploring new ideas and trying to do things that could well be impossible. Procedural parts just make it harder to find new interesting ideas that could turn out to be impossible.

Essentially, limits are restrictions make a game fun, while having too much freedom makes it boring.

[John FX]

Because there is no such option available.

If I have the right tools to build something that I want, I don't want to build it anymore, because it's no longer fun. If I know that something is possible, building it is just boring and tedious work. What I find fun is exploring new ideas and trying to do things that could well be impossible. Procedural parts just make it harder to find new interesting ideas that could turn out to be impossible.

Essentially, limits are restrictions make a game fun, while having too much freedom makes it boring.

So limit yourself and you will find the game more fun. I find the game more fun when I can build what I like and it looks good. I want to build rockets like I have seen on the TV and have them function in a similar way.

We all like different things, as you have said in your post, that's no reason to argue against others getting the tools they would like.

KSP itself is a tool to allow you to build what you want, is it less fun if you did not code it yourself?