Stock fairings: Procedural or not?

[cpast]

Proof that Yoda has a forum account.

Er, the phrase "X does not a Y make" is idiomatic English. It's equivalent to "X does not make a Y," but adds a bit of a flourish. It predates George Lucas by at least hundreds of years.

I repeat, if people in a sandbox game, can't made self-restrictions it's their fault, it's not a fact of balancing

You do realize that in general, what makes a game a game is the restrictions, right? It's the fact that you're given some set of things and told to have fun within those rules; if you have lots of self-control, you can self-impose restrictions (e.g. I'm in no danger of launching ridiculous rockets, because I have a rule that my rockets must *look* like rockets), but let's not pretend that "no restrictions" has anything to do with a game.

[Nemrav]

so... what would happen if we had KW fairings and added a part that expands the base of the fairing to make it as mushroom as possible ?

would it then be "unbalanced/too unrestrictive" because it wasn't procedural, but has the exact same effect as procedural.. ?

[Daze]

Er, the phrase "X does not a Y make" is idiomatic English. It's equivalent to "X does not make a Y," but adds a bit of a flourish. It predates George Lucas by at least hundreds of years.

You do realize that in general, what makes a game a game is the restrictions, right? It's the fact that you're given some set of things and told to have fun within those rules; if you have lots of self-control, you can self-impose restrictions (e.g. I'm in no danger of launching ridiculous rockets, because I have a rule that my rockets must *look* like rockets), but let's not pretend that "no restrictions" has anything to do with a game.

It's a nonsense because a fairings won't "unbalance" the game in the way that people are talking about

[klesh]

I use procedural fairings (not just for fairings, mind you, they have structural versions as well), and I am glad they're going that route with the stock fairings. I too, would like better textures on them, particularly the inside, but I see how that could be difficult. I hope that they allow you as much flexibility as the ones in the Procedural Fairings mod does.

[Alshain]

Er, the phrase "X does not a Y make" is idiomatic English. It's equivalent to "X does not make a Y," but adds a bit of a flourish. It predates George Lucas by at least hundreds of years.

Yoda would be "Y make X does not" anyway.

You do realize that in general, what makes a game a game is the restrictions, right? It's the fact that you're given some set of things and told to have fun within those rules; if you have lots of self-control, you can self-impose restrictions (e.g. I'm in no danger of launching ridiculous rockets, because I have a rule that my rockets must *look* like rockets), but let's not pretend that "no restrictions" has anything to do with a game.

But what advantage to the game does restricting the payload size get you? Restricting the fairing shape is an arbitrary restriction, the aerodynamics should determine what you can and can't build, not the GUI. Keep in mind ProcFairings still limits the base size based on tech level and that results in terribly un-aerodynamic rockets if you trying to put a huge payload on a 1.25m rocket (assuming, NEAR/FAR because stock doesn't have aerodynamics of course). There still are restriction, just not arbitrary ones based on "appearance". The difference is one restriction is entertaining to work with and the other is tedious and irritating. I don't personally find it fun trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, do you? I do find it fun trying to balance my rocket so it will fly.

Edited January 27, 2015 by Alshain

[Jouni]

I don't personally find it fun trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, do you? I do find it fun trying to balance my rocket so it will fly.

Some people find it fun to try to fit their payloads in predetermined dimensions, as is evident from the popularity of stock cargo bays. Others enjoy the freedom and the trade-offs with procedural fairings and cargo bays more. People are different, and it's impossible to please everyone.

[Northstar1989]

If you think there are only 10 legos… you don't have a small child

When I was a kid, yeah. My son's legos are way better, no caveats.

Yeah, there are HUNDREDS of different Lego sizes/shapes now, like I said, and often the challenge for a kid is finding the right part for the job rather than making the wrong part do the job... LEGO was never meant to be a game about making the wrong part work- just the opposite, it was a game about unleashing a child's creativity AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE (which is why they've kept expanding the variety of possible parts over the years...) So saying that Standard Parts would make KSP more like LEGO is a terrible/false argument.

Standard-sized fairings just doesn't make any sense. It would create EVEN MORE lag in KSP (which in addition to procedural fuel tanks, BADLY needs an optimization update), and clutter the part catalog even more. Oh, and did I mention that it's not realistic (there are a LOT more than 3 diameters of rocket in real life, and thus a lot more than 3 diameters of fairing...)

In the end, it comes down to what I said before, though: having too many legos in one place does NOT slow down or stop time, or cause spontaneous explosions! (LEGO would have been MUCH more interesting if it did...)

Regards,

Northstar

- - - Updated - - -

If hammer/mushroom rockets should not be a thing (because of physics), then the new aero model should make sure they are not a thing in game. Period.

The limit on fairings should be physics, not some arbitrary notion of what a fairing should look like, or some arbitrary sizes determined by… committee. I personally don't care as long as I can fit reasonable KSP landers inside a fairing.

This.

KSP is NOT a game without restrictions. It *NEVER* will be, no matter how many parts are made procedural (*cough* I still want stock procedural fuel tanks for memory-usage and historical-recreation reasons...) or how many shiny new futuristic techs (like the RAPIER, or someday maybe ISRU?) are added. The fact is, as a partial simulation game (HarvestR described KSP as "part simulation, and part sandbox" back when he was first describing the game to some other forum communities), you will ALWAYS be subject to real-world physics. How much so is determined by how far the devs lean towards realism (please NEVER use the phrase "realism vs. gameplay" with me- I STRONGLY believe realism ENHANCES gameplay 95% of the time...), but the limits of the Rocket Equation, gravity, orbital mechanics and such are always present...

If the devs make the new aerodynamics system even a touch realistic, you guys will be BEGGING for procedural fairings. They allow you to do a LOT more than just have precisely the "right" fairing for the payload- they also allow you to easily do things like create an extra-long fairing with a more gradual taper (that is, more like a needle than a shallow cone) to reduce aerodynamic drag, determining for yourself *precisely* how sharp the nose of your rocket ought to be. For that matter, that's also PRECISELY one of the reasons why I want to see procedural fuel tanks, or procedural nosecones at the very least- so that for rockets WITHOUT fairings on the top, I can still determine how sharp vs. lightweight I want my rocket's nose to be (sharper noses are longer/heavier, but they GREATLY reduce aerodynamic drag...)

Regards,

Northstar

Edited January 27, 2015 by Northstar1989

[Tuareg]

im getting fed up with these guys thinking they have a right to restrict others because they have more right to have fun then others on their failed self-restrictive way... is this going to anywhere? if ppl would enjoy restrictive gameplay minecraft wouldnt be so successful. it is because you can do generally anything in it. also the big mods for ksp wouldnt have hundreds of thousands of downloads. proc fairing, if they will happen are the first ever really good choice of squad

Edited January 27, 2015 by Tuareg

[Daze]

"Let's gonna remove 2.5 and 3.75 mt parts! You can basically explore everything in Kerbol system with only the 1.25 mt, so removing parts = more restriction = more fun!"

An example on the post i'm reading...

[Alshain]

im getting fed up with these guys thinking they have a right to restrict others because they have more right to have fun then others on their failed self-restrictive way... is this going to anywhere?

I was just thinking the same thing. No one here is convincing anyone on the other side so I think the thread is over. It's pretty much dwindled down to "uh huh!".... "uh unh."

[cpast]

im getting fed up with these guys thinking they have a right to restrict others because they have more right to have fun then others on their failed self-restrictive way... is this going to anywhere?

Who in this thread is restricting anyone? None of us have the slightest bit of control over what Squad does; the point of this thread is to discuss what would be better. The only people who *could* restrict anyone are Squad, who can only restrict stock KSP players, which they absolutely have the right to do (and which they do do, routinely). If people can approach this without trying to assume that their own preferred playstyle is the only legitimate one to be encouraged by stock KSP, and that anyone who prefers a different playstyle should have to deal with it themselves, this thread would be much nicer. As it is, some people are acting as if "yes, restrictions can make a game more fun" is somehow an illegitimate viewpoint. No one in this thread is going to restrict your gameplay. Saying things like "oh, I guess we should all play the way cpast thinks is good" or "people think they have a right to restrict others" is not useful, because no one here is saying anything other than "Here's ways why procedural fairings can be better" or "here's ways fixed-size fairings can be better."

As a side note, I actually *do* think procedural fairings make a lot of sense, and are probably, on balance, a better solution. But many of you guys are making really bad arguments for them.

[Daze]

As a side note, I actually *do* think procedural fairings make a lot of sense, and are probably, on balance, a better solution. But many of you guys are making really bad arguments for them.

Actually i've seen more bad arguments from the people who want fixed fairing, all summarized in:

"Hey p-fairings aren't realistic"-> Why the problem of "realistic" didn't came out with FAR/Stock aero discussion?

"Hey it's more fun to have restriction" -> Well, it will be more fun if you have folding parts, but we don't have one. Anyway nobody is forcing you to make *crazypayloadof34mt*, you can simply make realistic payload which fit in a "realistic" fairing (as i do using p-fairings).

[cpast]

Actually i've seen more bad arguments from the people who want fixed fairing, all summarized in:

"Hey p-fairings aren't realistic"-> Why the problem of "realistic" didn't came out with FAR/Stock aero discussion?

"Hey it's more fun to have restriction" -> Well, it will be more fun if you have folding parts, but we don't have one. Anyway nobody is forcing you to make *crazypayloadof34mt*, you can simply make realistic payload which fit in a "realistic" fairing (as i do using p-fairings).

The realism thing I readily concede - I think p-fairings should scale cost/mass with diameter in a nonlinear way (it's hard to *build* stable fairings that are mushroom-shaped), but making it not work is the job of the aero system. For restriction, the point is that a *fixed* size imposes different constraints than "be realistic". Being realistic doesn't require you to redesign to get that extra .1 (or, for that matter, .5) meters off the width. That could easily be solved by showing fairing width if you right click, which *would* let you say "3 m, no more" (for instance).

[Tuareg]

Who in this thread is restricting anyone? None of us have the slightest bit of control over what Squad does; the point of this thread is to discuss what would be better. The only people who *could* restrict anyone are Squad, who can only restrict stock KSP players, which they absolutely have the right to do (and which they do do, routinely). If people can approach this without trying to assume that their own preferred playstyle is the only legitimate one to be encouraged by stock KSP, and that anyone who prefers a different playstyle should have to deal with it themselves, this thread would be much nicer. As it is, some people are acting as if "yes, restrictions can make a game more fun" is somehow an illegitimate viewpoint. No one in this thread is going to restrict your gameplay. Saying things like "oh, I guess we should all play the way cpast thinks is good" or "people think they have a right to restrict others" is not useful, because no one here is saying anything other than "Here's ways why procedural fairings can be better" or "here's ways fixed-size fairings can be better."

As a side note, I actually *do* think procedural fairings make a lot of sense, and are probably, on balance, a better solution. But many of you guys are making really bad arguments for them.

well, that kind of discussion was over after about the 6th post. all the way since there is just, fixed fairings is more realistic (which isn't) and most ppl like restrictions because they cant restrict themselves (which is first of all not true, ppl like creative things, second of all non of my concern if somebody fails to restrict himself if there are no forced restrictions). If ppl could come up with some realistic reasons or, as you try to say, would just post things as "it fits MY gamestyle more", it would be ok, but you try to sell it as global truth and, sry for that, but it makes me annoyed... and i guess, as long as i dont start to give you names i have every right to give voice to this. would you disagree?

[Jouni]

If the devs make the new aerodynamics system even a touch realistic, you guys will be BEGGING for procedural fairings. They allow you to do a LOT more than just have precisely the "right" fairing for the payload- they also allow you to easily do things like create an extra-long fairing with a more gradual taper (that is, more like a needle than a shallow cone) to reduce aerodynamic drag, determining for yourself *precisely* how sharp the nose of your rocket ought to be.

I've been playing with FAR for a while, but I'm still not sure whether fairings are useful at all, or am I just using them as a questionable aesthetic choice. There's so much variation in the delta-v requirements of reaching orbit that, even after hundreds of launches, I have no real idea how much delta-v the fairings save.

Then there's the question about how the changes in delta-v requirements affect rocket size and cost. The fairings are quite heavy, so I'll need a bigger rocket with them for the same payload. In many cases, unless I want to use gigantic fairings, the fairing base must be located within the payload, forcing me to carry it along for another 5-6 km/s. I'm not sure whether that's really worth it.

I also have the impression that real payload fairings exist mainly to protect the payload, while reduced drag is just a nice bonus.

[Daze]

The realism thing I readily concede - I think p-fairings should scale cost/mass with diameter in a nonlinear way (it's hard to *build* stable fairings that are mushroom-shaped), but making it not work is the job of the aero system. For restriction, the point is that a *fixed* size imposes different constraints than "be realistic". Being realistic doesn't require you to redesign to get that extra .1 (or, for that matter, .5) meters off the width. That could easily be solved by showing fairing width if you right click, which *would* let you say "3 m, no more" (for instance).

You have proposed a good solution indeed, it's different from "real rocket use fixed fairings!11 (maybe told by the same people who "FAR is too realistic, KSP is not simulation")

[sal_vager]

Hmm, on the subject of realism of fixed fairings, it seems that rocket payload fairings are indeed manufactured to a small number of standard sizes per vehicle, and not made to order.

Either your payload fits or you use a bigger rocket

Atlas V has 4 and 5 metre standard fairing sizes.

RUAG Space makes a 5 metre fairing for the Ariane.

SpaceX use a 13.1 by 5.2 metre fairing.

And the Proton offers two lengths as standard, 13305 mm and 15255 mm.

[Tuareg]

Hmm, on the subject of realism of fixed fairings, it seems that rocket payload fairings are indeed manufactured to a small number of standard sizes per vehicle, and not made to order.

Either your payload fits or you use a bigger rocket

Atlas V has 4 and 5 metre standard fairing sizes.

RUAG Space makes a 5 metre fairing for the Ariane.

SpaceX use a 13.1 by 5.2 metre fairing.

And the Proton offers two lengths as standard, 13305 mm and 15255 mm.

while nasa's delta family has at least 11 members in use with at least 7 different sized or shape fairings and payload...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_%28rocket_family%29#mediaviewer/File:Delta_EELV_family.svg

i guess they didnt just make standardised size rockets randomly, they have designed them for different requirements and payloads, they simply just dont design one every week... but they also dont launch 10 rockets in 5 minutes.

[sal_vager]

They still don't make them to order though, they have standard sizes, if your payload is too big, pay for a bigger rocket

[FishInferno]

And If your payload is too big to fit in the fairing, it is probably too heavy for the rocket anyway.

[Daze]

So if i want to launch a mega candy donut of 9mt in diameter i have to use a Saturn V? :D

[Tuareg]

They still don't make them to order though, they have standard sizes, if your payload is too big, pay for a bigger rocket

i can hardly imagine that if nasa would have a multibillion equipment to launch just dont fit the delta II 7925 fairings they would scrap it instead of designing a 7925-H10L with a different fairing just for a few dollars. i think thats how those new versions were born... i dont have a hot line to nasa but i think they dont just launch a double sized rocket so they dont have to design a 10cm bigger fairing.

[sal_vager]

Well, imagination is a wonderful thing, but if your payload won't fit it's not going to space

As FishInferno says, if your payload is too big the rocket may not be able to manage it anyway, P-fairings allow for payloads wider than the rocket is tall, that's hardly realistic.

But we know Squad doesn't like to restrict players game style so it'll be P-fairings, so this entire thread really doesn't serve much of a purpose

Edited January 27, 2015 by sal_vager

[Tuareg]

Well, imagination is a wonderful thing, but if your payload won't fit it's not going to space

so why they designed the h10l when the only difference is the fairing? omg man...

[Jouni]

i can hardly imagine that if nasa would have a multibillion equipment to launch just dont fit the delta II 7925 fairings they would scrap it instead of designing a 7925-H10L with a different fairing just for a few dollars. i think thats how those new versions were born... i dont have a hot line to nasa but i think they dont just launch a double sized rocket so they dont have to design a 10cm bigger fairing.

My impression is that the development cost of a new payload fairing is roughly equivalent to a single launch of the rocket it's going to be used with. After all, rockets are quite cheap compared to development costs and payloads.