Mk3 Suggestions!

[BriXman]

This has probably been made before, and if it has I apologize, but I couldn't find anything using "search", so bear with me.

Some suggestions I have for the Mk3 system, as I think it needs to be expanded on:

Mk3 Cargo Bay Tail: Pretty straight forward, a tail boom with an openable hatch, so you could roll in rovers and other vehicles in a storage space like that.

Mk3 "Unopenable" Cargo Bay: If we are to have these tail/nose ramps, a hollow fuselage without the function to be opened at the top/bottom, would give this ramp more use.

Mk3.5 "Widebody" Cargo Bay: Suggested by Grumman, this is something I really want. Basically a wider Mk3 Cargo bay as it's very s,all.

Mk3.5-Mk3 Cargo Bay Adapter: Also suggested by Grumman, this is basically an adapter from a "Widebody" Mk3 fuselage to a normal Mk3 fuselage (or cargo bay).

Mk3.5-Mk2 Cargo Bay Adapter w/loading ramp: Again, suggested by Grumman, same thing as above but from Mk3.5 to Mk2 and with a loading ramp.

Mk3 (or bigger) "Guppy" parts: Suggested by pandaman, it's basically a very large cargo bay (maybe with nose loading?) to fit very large payloads, basically being much wider and slightly taller to carry for example bigger rovers, space station parts or even 3.75m parts.

Modular Mk3 (FAT) Wings: Suggested by Kweller, more modular FAT wings (the big cargo plane wings), to make better and more interesting designs, rather than having a very thin wing at a desired shape.

Kerbodyne Mk3 KS-25x3 Spaceplane Engine Cluster: Suggested by GregroxMun, 3 uprated (more efficient) KS-25s on a Mk3 fuselage to act as space shuttle engines. They would have a high gimbal range and a configurable default gimbal angle.

Mk3 Compatible Jet Engines: Suggested by Columbia, a jet engine that's between the size of 1.25 and 2.5m engines. The Mk3 fuselages need a lot of engines to take off, so bigger and more powerful jet engines made to lift these heavy payloads (maybe shaped like airliner jet engines?) would be neat.

That's all I have right now, but you're welcome to post your own and I'll add them to this OP.

Thanks for reading!

-Brix

Edited May 31, 2015 by BriXman

[Grumman]

The loading ramp is definitely the big one, apart from strengthening the joints so that they don't fall to pieces every time you land. Beyond that...

Mk3.5 "Widebody" Cargo Bay

Mk3.5-Mk3 Cargo Bay Adapter

Mk3.5-Mk2 Cargo Bay Adapter w/loading ramp

The Mk3 parts are nice, but they don't play very well with rovers - they're good for transporting 2.5m parts but even a girder with wheels is too wide to fit in without riding up the sides. Making a few cargo bay parts that are designed to give a bit of extra width so we can transport more than the bare minimum size of rover would be good.

[pandaman]

The loading ramp is definitely the big one, apart from strengthening the joints so that they don't fall to pieces every time you land. Beyond that...

Mk3.5 "Widebody" Cargo Bay

Mk3.5-Mk3 Cargo Bay Adapter

Mk3.5-Mk2 Cargo Bay Adapter w/loading ramp

The Mk3 parts are nice, but they don't play very well with rovers - they're good for transporting 2.5m parts but even a girder with wheels is too wide to fit in without riding up the sides. Making a few cargo bay parts that are designed to give a bit of extra width so we can transport more than the bare minimum size of rover would be good.

This gets my vote.

How about Mk3 'guppy' parts? Cargo bays big enough to take 3.75m parts, with 'wiggle room' (maybe 4.5m internal diameter) for a few radially attached bits, and size adapters to fit onto Mk3.

This allows bigger loads without creating a whole new Mk(x) series. May only need 1 in line bay, 1 tailgate bay and 2 adapters, one symmetrical that expands the diameter evenly (handy for rockets too), and one offset that bulges on one side keeping the other side in line with the existing fuselage.

Edited May 31, 2015 by pandaman

[Grumman]

How about Mk3 'guppy' parts? Cargo bays big enough to take 3.75m parts, with 'wiggle room' (maybe 4.5m internal diameter) for a few radially attached bits, and size adapters to fit onto Mk3.

I feel that making it wider and not taller would make more sense than both tall and wide. Something has to be the largest diameter part, after all. If you add a new diameter to hold the 3.75m parts, is there any particular argument for why that is the perfect stopping point and not a new Mk4 size that can hold your 'guppy' parts, or a diameter one larger than that? On the other hand, wider parts do serve a specific role in allowing unaerodynamic rovers to fly by encasing them in a more aerodynamic fuselage.

[pandaman]

Actually I agree with you here.

Making the 'guppy' parts as I suggested just a shade higher so a 3.75m or Mk3 will just fit with a bit if clearance (4m internal height?), but make them maybe up to 6m wide, either with a symmetrical profile (like Mk2 but more rounded) and/or more flat bottomed (Thunderbird 2 style) would be a better solution. They would also look cooler too

Thanks.

[Feradose]

... Modular Mk3 wings please, the new ones dont fit with the old fins, making all of my Mk3 crafts have the same style wings or incredibly thin silly wings

[Whirligig Girl]

A Kerbodyne Mk3 KS-25x3 Spaceplane Engine Cluster

3 uprated (more efficient) KS-25s on a Mk3 fuselage to act as space shuttle engines. THey would have a high gimbal range and a configurable default gimbal angle.

[Wjolcz]

Mk3 Cargo Bay Tail: Pretty straight forward, a tail boom with an openable hatch, so you could roll in rovers and other vehicles in a storage space like that.

This is all I need for MK3

[Columbia]

A jet engine that's between the size of 1.25 and 2.5m engines. Seriously, I can't describe how many times I've scratched my head to their extreme size gap, especially with the extremely heavy Mk3s which literally need 6-12 jet engines at most to lift off.

Oh, and yes, I love that cargo ramp idea - We'd be able to fit rovers and all that stuff!

[BriXman]

Thanks for all the posts, guys, updated the OP to contain all of them, and added another suggestion by me.

EDIT: Also added a poll for what parts of these you'd like to see most.

Edited May 31, 2015 by BriXman

[pandaman]

The problem with an unopenable cargo bay (I.e. a tube) is that if you attach to the node at the inner end you lose the option to right click and decouple because you can't get in to click on it.

[BriXman]

The problem with an unopenable cargo bay (I.e. a tube) is that if you attach to the node at the inner end you lose the option to right click and decouple because you can't get in to click on it.

You can of course rotate the camera to place it inside the craft, either in flight or in the SPH/VAB using action groups/staging.

[pandaman]

I hadn't realised about the camera trick. Thanks.

Staging wouldn't be viable for stuff you dock to it after launch (like picking up a rover), but yes action groups should work.

[Armchair Rocket Scientist]

Mk3 Cargo Bay Tail: Pretty straight forward, a tail boom with an openable hatch, so you could roll in rovers and other vehicles in a storage space like that.

Mk3 "Unopenable" Cargo Bay: If we are to have these tail/nose ramps, a hollow fuselage without the function to be opened at the top/bottom, would give this ramp more use.

Mk3.5 "Widebody" Cargo Bay: Suggested by Grumman, this is something I really want. Basically a wider Mk3 Cargo bay as it's very s,all.

Mk3.5-Mk3 Cargo Bay Adapter: Also suggested by Grumman, this is basically an adapter from a "Widebody" Mk3 fuselage to a normal Mk3 fuselage (or cargo bay).

Mk3.5-Mk2 Cargo Bay Adapter w/loading ramp: Again, suggested by Grumman, same thing as above but from Mk3.5 to Mk2 and with a loading ramp.

Mk3 (or bigger) "Guppy" parts: Suggested by pandaman, it's basically a very large cargo bay (maybe with nose loading?) to fit very large payloads, basically being much wider and slightly taller to carry for example bigger rovers, space station parts or even 3.75m parts.

Modular Mk3 (FAT) Wings: Suggested by Kweller, more modular FAT wings (the big cargo plane wings), to make better and more interesting designs, rather than having a very thin wing at a desired shape.

Kerbodyne Mk3 KS-25x3 Spaceplane Engine Cluster: Suggested by GregroxMun, 3 uprated (more efficient) KS-25s on a Mk3 fuselage to act as space shuttle engines. They would have a high gimbal range and a configurable default gimbal angle.

Mk3 Compatible Jet Engines: Suggested by Columbia, a jet engine that's between the size of 1.25 and 2.5m engines. The Mk3 fuselages need a lot of engines to take off, so bigger and more powerful jet engines made to lift these heavy payloads (maybe shaped like airliner jet engines?) would be neat.

-Brix

Cargo bay tail: My god, yes. This is vital IMO for loading/unloading cargo horizontally.

"Unopenable" cargo bay: No. This is just an unnecessary extra part: if you don't want the cargo bays to open, then don't open them. Besides, having the cargo bay open in the editor is very useful for placing parts inside even if you never open it in operation.

MK3.5 widebody: Might be useful for large rovers, but overall I think extremely large spaceplane parts might be better left to mods like B9, SXT, and MK4.

"Guppy" parts. This is definitely best left to mods, possibly even Procedural Parts if it ever supports cargo bays.

More big wing parts: Yes. We absolutely need this.

Shuttle Engines: Meh, people seem to manage fine with Skipper clusters or even Mainsails. And what if someone wants a longer shuttle with 4 or 5 KS-25s? An individual KS-25 might be nice though.

Bigger jet engines: Yes, yes, yes. It's ridiculous that we keep seeing SSTOS with clusters of 10+ RAPIERs. Even a 2.5m jet engines aren't unreasonable: IIRC the engine bodies for the real-life SABREs are somewhere around 4 meters, and we have a couple turbofans that are over 3m. Scale down around 0.64x to Kerbal scale and you get somewhere around 2.5 meters.

[Wjolcz]

I see a poll got added. Voted for MK3 Cargo Ramp only (aka the first one). The rest isn't really needed right now, IMO. Its fairly easy to make engine clusters and jet engines in stock.

[Unfawkable]

The game already has more plane parts than rocket parts. I'd sooner see something done about that first.

[mattinoz]

A Firefly class style Loading ramp and airlock to fit on the front or back of a of a Mk3 cargo bay would be good but i figured that was the Guppy parts.

[TothAval]

voted for cargo bay trails and the guppy, but i wouldn't reject the rest either.

The game already has more plane parts than rocket parts. I'd sooner see something done about that first.

Is this relevant in any way? Don't get me wrong, i like rockets more, mostly because it takes too long for me to get a plane anywhere, i am inpatient in this regard.

but squad has a player base for ksp and a lot of people like planes. so if there is a need for more or better plane parts, let's go with it. same with rockets.

Besides, there is no reason not using planeparts for rockets and a cargo tail or bigger cargo bays could really be useful, at least for me

Edited June 1, 2015 by TothAval

[Wjolcz]

The game already has more plane parts than rocket parts. I'd sooner see something done about that first.

It's because planes are more complicated than rockets and need more specialized parts.

[BriXman]

Thanks for the support, guys, keep the suggestions flowing!

[pandaman]

Any symmetrical cross section parts will work with rockets, albeit with an adapter in several cases (as do the Mk2 and Mk3 cargo bays and fuselage sections). So where practical I would like symmetry to increase versatility and reduce the amount of extra parts needed.

[Starwhip]

Oh, the fun to be had with bigger jet engines... Airboat, anyone?

[BriXman]

Oh, the fun to be had with bigger jet engines... Airboat, anyone?

That gave me another idea! Airboat parts!

[Alshain]

We need a suitable nose cone in stock. The Mk3 Mini Expansion mod is a beautiful fit IMO, but the rocket nose cone (or worse, that hideous docking port) is just ugly on that cockpit.

We also need modular wings. The ones from 1.0 are good looking but basically make every plane identical in appearance.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Alshain

[BriXman]

We need a suitable nose cone in stock. The Mk3 Mini Expansion mod is a beautiful fit IMO, but the rocket nose cone (or worse, that hideous docking port) is just ugly on that cockpit.

We also need modular wings. The ones from 1.0 are good looking but basically make every plane identical in appearance.

Exactly. A new nose cone made for planes with short nose cones really is needed.