Stock fairings: Procedural or not?

[regex]

Procedural fairings is the only thing that makes sense. NASA didn't pull the Saturn V interstage from a shelf nor did Progress buy a standard fairing from Home Depot for the Soyuz, nor do they use the same fairing for cargo. The Delta II has three sizes of fairings to handle the widest variety of customer needs and those fairings were designed for the rocket. You can't honestly think that the fairing for Sputnik was ... found lying on the side of the road?

This being Squad what we're likely to see is three fairing bases with a tweakable fairing size within certain bounds based on the base. It's the easiest way to accommodate the widest variety of players. Let's just hope they make interstages...

[sal_vager]

No one thinks fairings were found by the side of the road Regex, that would be silly

But you say it yourself, the Delta II has three sizes of fairing available, all three are tested, rated and certified for space use on the Delta II, when a new fairing is needed the companies involved make another to the specifications of those three sizes.

The same is currently true for Soyuz, and while the rules were a bit more lax in the Apollo days they still built to plan for each rocket design.

But fixed fairing sizes limits the player in an unfair way, so procedural fairings are necessary, we will however see players who build their fairings in what they deem a realistic way, and those who make stuff like this.

We currently see threads discussing the appropriateness of part clipping, in 1.0 and beyond I fully expect threads discussing the appropriateness of fairing abuse

[klgraham1013]

Procedural fairings is the only thing that makes sense. NASA didn't pull the Saturn V interstage from a shelf nor did Progress buy a standard fairing from Home Depot for the Soyuz, nor do they use the same fairing for cargo. The Delta II has three sizes of fairings to handle the widest variety of customer needs and those fairings were designed for the rocket. You can't honestly think that the fairing for Sputnik was ... found lying on the side of the road?

This being Squad what we're likely to see is three fairing bases with a tweakable fairing size within certain bounds based on the base. It's the easiest way to accommodate the widest variety of players. Let's just hope they make interstages...

You just said the Delta II had three sizes. Procedural would be creating the fairing per launch. ...but I'm just nitpicking.

[regex]

You just said the Delta II had three sizes. Procedural would be creating the fairing per launch. ...but I'm just nitpicking.

Even with procedural fairings I can limit my payload size to fit inside the diameter of the upper stage, thus retaining the illusion of a standard fairing size and playing within the limits I like. Meanwhile, Billy Bob Jeb's Space Program can have a massively different fairing for every launch, thus playing within the limits they like. Realism is maintained by allowing each space program/launcher family to have a fairing that fits the launcher or payload as necessary, paying the drag (and fuel) penalties thereof as appropriate. Since there are no development costs for rockets in KSP there should be no penalty for fairings of varying size per launch. Those who want limits will respect them, those who don't, don't have to care.

[Tuareg]

...fairing abuse

i would understand this if it would be an MMO and we would talk about gaining unfair advantage but this is a singleplayer game... why anybody want to restrict me how do i play my game?

[sal_vager]

Talk about out of context quote...

We'll see threads on whether it's right to use procedural fairings in non-realistic ways, just as we already see threads on part clipping.

There are people who will want others to play their way, it helps them justify their play style

[Pthigrivi]

So apparently re-entry heat is in. About time to start thinking about heat-shields? Its going to be a big factor on lander sizes. I'm thinking they should come somewhat wider than 1.25, 2.5, and 3.75 with an inflatable shield at at least 5m. Balance wise its tricky though... how heavy should they be?

Eve is going to get really, really tricky.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Pthigrivi

[Arugela]

The advantage of having more options is more people can do what they want. If other people do not want to do something they can always limit themselves. What can be done is the limit to the game. That is different than what you want to do. Unless the limits of the game do not let you do what you want to do... So the more the merrier. People wanting limits either can't control themselves and be happy they already can do what they wish and control others. Or want to have a limited play for a game mode which as discussed usually comes to a cash thing or something for easiest balance(if needed). One of those is legitimate one of those is not. 8p Why limit others when you can already limit yourself. There is no need to force others as well.

[Jouni]

Why limit others when you can already limit yourself. There is no need to force others as well.

This is a common fallacy. It's based on the assumption that a game is only an abstract mechanism, and it doesn't matter how the player experiences it. From the same assumption, we can determine that fancy graphics are complete waste of time and effort, because they don't affect the gameplay, only the player experience.

If I play a game that restricts how I play it, it feels different than if I play a more flexible game exactly in the same way. Some people prefer games that challenge them, while others like to find the challenges themselves. You can't please both groups at the same time.

[Brotoro]

Feels the same to me. Or, maybe it feels a little better if I manage to do something under a self-imposed restriction that the game isn't forcing on me. I have certain self-imposed restrictions I use all the time in my missions.

[Bioman222]

I still think that there should be both fixed and procedural; procedural fairings would be more expensive then the standard fairings.

[regex]

I still think that there should be both fixed and procedural; procedural fairings would be more expensive then the standard fairings.

Why? If I use the same sized procedural fairing every time what is the difference?

[Tomski]

Now that the KSP development team has announced that the next release of KSP (1.0) will have improved aerodynamics, does anyone know if there are plans to implement stock fairings as well? From what I've read about the aerodynamics model that's being developed, it sounds like they will be necessary. The Procedural Fairings mod is great and all, don't get me wrong, but I think as a general rule, the less extra mods that are needed to fill some of the gaps in the game the better (I always end up modding the game until it's on the very edge of stability).

On a side note, has anyone come across any mention of possible environmental enhancements to the stock game at some point down the line, such as clouds? I know it's a cosmetic thing and there are other aspects of the game that are a higher priority, but I'm just wondering if there's been any mention of this from the devs.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Stock fairings are confirmed and they'll likely be procedural out of necessity, last I heard. They'll also shield stuff inside them from drag and lift and stuff - basically, they'll act like fairings should.

Don't know about environmental enhancements (I presume you mean clouds and stuff) - no word from the devs about them.

[SubzeroSpartan7]

Yes there will be fairings and they will also be procedural. I believe clouds are planned after 1.0 but there is no way to tell unless you are part of SQUAD.

[klgraham1013]

Stock fairings are confirmed and they'll likely be procedural out of necessity...

The necessity of procedural is up for debate. Though, I have recently dabbled in the procedural dark side.

[Daze]

I'm hoping for a good texture and the possibility to apply flags on the side

[Yukon0009]

Maybe they'll act like the engine shrouds to the physics engine-in other words, they reduce drag, but only have the weight of a base plate, or maybe they would dissapear during timewarp.

[cantab]

Fairings don't need to be procedural. Zero Point Fairings are fixed size and they work excellently. Select a fairing base from the various widths available, each with either a short or long variant, and put that under your payload, then attach a nosecone or other part to one of the two floating upper nodes and your fairing appears. Simpler than KW Rocketry, simpler even than Procedural Fairings.

They even use the function that's already in the game for the LV-N's infamous fairings too, so they are literally models and configs with no new programming code required!

And you even get your flag on them

[TeddyDD]

Fairings don't need to be procedural. Zero Point Fairings are fixed size and they work excellently. Select a fairing base from the various widths available, each with either a short or long variant, and put that under your payload, then attach a nosecone or other part to one of the two floating upper nodes and your fairing appears. Simpler than KW Rocketry, simpler even than Procedural Fairings.

They even use the function that's already in the game for the LV-N's infamous fairings too, so they are literally models and configs with no new programming code required!

And you even get your flag on them

And any non-procedural fairing is big clutter in your parts list <yay>

I'm +1 for procedural everything

[Gerandar]

I would assume if they are adding a new aerodynamic model to the game stock fairings(procedural or not) is kind of a must.

[cantab]

And any non-procedural fairing is big clutter in your parts list <yay>

I'm +1 for procedural everything

Sure, it adds a bunch of parts, but it's no worse than the myriad fuel tanks or wing segments the game already has.

The various procedural parts mods are excellent, but I'd say they're not "the KSP way". They're at odds with the lego-bricks style system the game has used to date. And since I don't see Squad moving everything over to a procedural system, I'd rather the fairings worked like the other stock parts instead of just them being different and "weird".

[CaptRobau]

I'm a big fan of procedural fairings. Yes you can do crazy things with them, but I really do feel that it would limit creations too much if you didn't have the leeway of procedural fairings. People always bring up that launcher X and launcher Y always have the same size fairings, forgetting that KSP is not a single rocket family but an entire space agency. NASA has had a hundred different fairings over its lifetime.

Plus the really crazy contraptions will be punished by aerodynamics too an extent, no matter the way Squad implements it. Good luck getting that massive ball shaped fairing into space.

[Jouni]

Plus the really crazy contraptions will be punished by aerodynamics too an extent, no matter the way Squad implements it. Good luck getting that massive ball shaped fairing into space.

Launching giant payloads is easy in FAR. Just make it symmetric, hide it under fairings, and don't let the angle of attack grow too high. Maybe start the gravity turn a bit later than usual. It's no worse than balancing on a ball.

[panzer1b]

Im almost positive the fairings are at the minimum intended for 1.0 release. While its possible they dont make it in (like some features that havent made it in time for update, such as barns for .90), it seems like the aero update makes them much more necessary then before.

As for clouds, i highly doubt its going to get in (without a mod) anytime soon. Its also a way to cut down performance for those that can barely handle the game as is. While these mods are great, and personally id love some stock improvements in visuals, i dont believe squad should FORCE it upon people, + how hard is installing a purely cosmetic mod that doesnt interfere with anything, doesnt touch gameplay, change parts, ect. Mods i use myself are planetshine, primarily for the darker vaccum backlighting, and EVE, with some of my own modifications to clouds, ect, and some alternative textures sourced from other games/mods.

And any non-procedural fairing is big clutter in your parts list <yay>

I'm +1 for procedural everything

I am so in that league, i personally would make almost anything that remotely makes sense to be procedural, into a procedural part. How nice would removal of the 10-20 different wings be, if we could change that into 1-4 procedural wings with maybe different end styles, rounded corners, vs sharp corners, ect ect. I also would love procedural fuel tanks, and procedural structural panels/girders ect to be stock. This would let us create so many different shapes, create replicas of most craft, create 100% custom craft, and nolonger be forced to abuse part clipping to maintain a specific appearance of whatever we are making.

Although i dont have high hopes as squad doesnt seem very much in support of procedural parts, focusing instead on adding features that just increase lag and load times. Now i really like this game, but i feel procedural parts would be beneficial both in creating more options, variety of designs, and most of all cut down the issue with massive part counts (why have wings made of 30-50 smaller ones when you can make it from 1-3 procedural wings. Same with fuel tanks, why not let us make a single fuel tank at any size (within a reasonable limit) to cut down the wobliness and lag.

Edited February 15, 2015 by panzer1b