M_Ouellette

Avoid part clipping(sticking one part through another), especially in areas near an animation point like a cargo door or ramp, these parts really don't react well to it, and wherever possible use struts to re-enforce your connections.

The K parts are just way too different in 1.8 now so even if you just wanted just the tail it wouldn't look right even if you could get it to work. Well I tried to build a Valkyrie with the 1.8 parts, it just doesn't look as good IMHO, the old cockpit and it's adapter had lines that flowed together, the new one just going to a J interface doesn't work as good. The new K cockpit is much better than the duck billed platypus version but I still maintain that that kind of cockpit needs to be much longer for the girth. This begs the question, is there an arbitrary length limitation on cockpits?

I'd have to agree on that some, it does look a bit too chubby for an SSTO, Using J cockpits and adapters to streamline the shape kind of overcomes that. The K cockpit I see credible for a conventional Transport or a booster launched orbiter lander lifting body, where the design is intended to lose speed, like the Space shuttles. I do know that aircraft designers use cylinders for a reason, a pressurized cylinder is easier to reinforce and therefore lighter than any other shape, as well it is less prone to metal fatigue from constant expansion and contraction, so there is some sense to the curved shapes. As for the behavior of the collision meshes, ideally what you say should be true, however these are custom parts that have been known to have odd behavior specific to collisions, so who can say? It would be a worthy experiment and I certainly hope that whoever tries makes a video of the attempt.

I think that the original K cockpit with it's matched adapter was by far the best looking and I regret his moving away from that design rather than expanding on it, so I will be doing whatever I can to keep it. I kind of think the new K hull with the hump is a bit more credible. I'm no physicist, but I would think that the upper curve would perhaps give the shape more aerodynamic stability. I like the idea of a nose ramp as well, ie C-5 Galaxy style where the flight deck sits well above the centerline of a fuselage with a nose cone which can tilt up, Clamshell opening would look impressive but it would probably create collision issues with wing and engine implementations. As for flying through the plane, those same hidden collision boxes would probably make something like that impossible, but it would look cool if it were possible.

K.Yeon has clearly stated that 1.8 is not complete, what he released is "Test version" to allow people an early look at what will be in the finished product that's going to be delayed due to real life issues. I'm going to run 1.8 off on a copy of my main install, but I am seriously thinking of renaming parts to allow me to keep my older builds rather having to scrap everything I've made, I'm not a fan of mod revisions that invalidate everything made with each new version.

First I would ask what version you were using? Second as I think I've said before, watch out for parts clipping when building with these parts, some of them behave really strangely once you get them out on the tarmac.

I guess K.Yeon is really busy right now. I know I'm dying to get my hands on these new parts, but we just have to wait.

I suddenly have this image of a pen floating in Zero G next to a Kerbal sleeping in one of these hutches while another kerbal is slowing walking up the aisle in velcro slippers all while the Blue Danube is playing in the background.

Good lord the level of Awesome never ends. Will you be including RPM support at some point? One could envisage those seats opening out into a full bed, there certainly seems to be room for it. In fact on looking closer at it, K. Yeon's little hutch idea, while too extravagant for airline flights, might be ideal for something more extended. You don't need a bed when you're not sleeping, so having a bed that folds away or is part of another type of furniture makes sense, and you would need something more than just a bag tied to the ceiling if you want to sleep somewhere that has more than microgravity.

Is there a way to make the game do that? Because it seems right now you either have to have to have enough seats or no seats to get IVA/EVA buttons to work for the entire crew. That's why I'm suggesting putting any extra required seats in a box behind or below the cockpit IVA wherever it will fit, rather than messing with an IVA that's already complete. If there is room in the IVA for those seats, in the K model shown there doesn't look like there would be space unless that rear bulkhead was further back. Well Classy to the point of space wasting opulence, so I'm not thinking First class as much as Executive Class or something that would be catering to the disgustingly rich.

I'm inclined to agree, but what I'm thinking of is the additional problems that come with having no actual seats for a ship that lists having a crew of more than 2. For some reason the way the game is set up if you have no IVA for a cockpit, all crewmen are given a default black box that allows you to access them with all of the games functions, but if an internal is created with not enough seats then only those seats show up, the rest of the crew is invisible and the only way to get at them is click on a hatch, which can be really inconvenient. That being the case, if for instance, a ship is going to be listed as having a crew capacity of seven, give the ship seven seats, even if five of those a just sitting in an unfinished box, that or just don't give the ship a higher seating number than what you are actually going to provide.

The IVAs do look cool but I'm seeing a potential problem in that there are only 2 seats in the cockpit, unless you plan on having an additional area for other crew.

At this it's my fervent hope that K.Yeon doesn't get talked into adding anything more into the mod until he has released what he has completed so far. The more people ask for the longer things are going to take. I don't know about you guys but I would really like to get my hands on what he already shown us.

In the mean time be careful about part clipping, OPT reacts badly to parts sticking into other parts in some areas, I've noticed this with the K cargo and fuel modules, anything sticking into it too far is guaranteed to come apart on the runway, moving parts out to where they just merge helps and a liberal use of struts is also very helpful.

Kind of hard to tell from that image, it looks like the parts are still airborne, but in any case, was it fun doing it? If so, then the mission was a success!!

I like option 2 and I would suggest more windows, maybe an upper pair affording a view of cargo bay operations (perhaps straddling an integral docking port?) as well as a few windows along the side. Given the size of the cockpit I would assume it could accommodate a fairly large crew compartment as well as the flight deck.

Regarding the poll, I prefer the Valkyrie K over the short fat Duckbilled one, but as has been shown here, people have been finding uses for the "DB" so I hope some version of it will be available for use with the taller configured K modules, that said, I like the cockpits in this mod and other than completing the IVAs in some or changing others so that there are actual seats for the number of Kerbals that are crew, I would quote the old adage: "Don't throw the Baby out with the Bath water."

Oh Baby, I'm loving that, I would love to see what this would look like with your wings. Now I'm really looking forward to your next release.

Oh now that is sweet. As for the less panel lines, you might consider adding a few more maintenance access panels etc., since it is a machine and ground crews wouldn't be cutting holes in those smooth panels to get at the equipment underneath nor is it realistic that they would be unshipping entire hull segments to get at a single testpoint or fitting.

I think that would be K-Tallboy since it already is widebody. To have both would require 2 full sets of all of the K matched components. You'll need two versions of everything that the K cargo bays connect with if you want to have the lines of the taller bay flow aerodynamically, otherwise you'll end up with something looking like a barn roof stuck in the middle of your plane. It would be cool to have those options, but I was under the impression that K.Yeon was a bit pressed for time.As an afterthought: You could go with just two different cargo bays and a filler piece that surface mounts to the top of an existing K part to blend its lines up to the taller bay, it could even be functional, ie; with a docking port or intakes or both.

I think the later would be preferable for a space saving aspect maybe with narrow peak efficiency ranges in the operating envelopes of the dual modes, that would give advantages and disadvantages to using a hybrid engine. If that's doable of coarse.

Fair in comparison to what? We aren't competing here, we are playing a game based in an unrealistically small solar system against no-one but ourselves, so the accusation of "cheating" sounds at the least, absurd. In any event each to his own. I agree with you though, simply for the sake of a seamless fit with the existing game, that values should be proportioned accordingly.

I couldn't have said it better myself. But if "Balance" changes are made I am not adverse to going into the config files and changing things to my liking.

The K cockpit and adapter and a few of the older parts are in the Legacy Pack linked on the first page.

Some of the OPT parts really do not like clipping, especially the K sections, I've had a few designs that looked great in the SPH but would literally fly apart the minute they hit the runway, so I'd go back and move parts out to just surface contact and it usually takes care of the problem, that and using struts, I try to hide them under surfaces or between parts where they'd be less obvious.