Sign in to follow this  
Dr Farnsworth

Can we talk about the new MK I cockpit

Should we have the old MK I and the new one too choose from?  

166 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we have the old MK I and the new one too choose from?

    • Yes
      83
    • No
      70


Recommended Posts

[quote name='JTpopcorn']Is it possible to have a button to toggle textures/colliders of the part. I know mods have had that feature to switch between part varients, B9 had/has it.
-JT[/QUOTE]

Not in stock (currently). Both Firespitter and InterstellarFuelSwitch provide that capability, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The one thing I really really [B]HATE[/B] about the new cockpit is the new hatch placement, making it almost impossible to properly place a ladder or to place wings around in a reasonable manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I tried copying and renaming the old Mk1 cockpit from my 1.0.4 folder, but it seems the new Mk1 cockpit became associated with the old one which resulted in all MkI cockpits looking like the old one, irrespective of which one I actually used. I also tried renaming the config file in the old Mk1 cockpit folder, and whilst it cured the above problem, it meant the old Mk1 cockpit lost all it's textures, and just appeared white.

I've run out of ideas now. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Scarecrow88']Well I tried copying and renaming the old Mk1 cockpit from my 1.0.4 folder, but it seems the new Mk1 cockpit became associated with the old one which resulted in all MkI cockpits looking like the old one, irrespective of which one I actually used. I also tried renaming the config file in the old Mk1 cockpit folder, and whilst it cured the above problem, it meant the old Mk1 cockpit lost all it's textures, and just appeared white.

I've run out of ideas now. :([/QUOTE]

Each part has to have a unique internal ID, so it's just a matter of giving it a new one to make it work simultaneously to the new version. It should find its texture as long as the texture is in the same folder as the model, and has the [I]original[/I] name. So for instance, if I wanted to rename the old cockpit as "Mk0 Cockpit", I'd take the old one's "mk1Cockpit" folder and rename that as "mk0Cockpit", and then edit the "mk1Cockpit.cfg" file within and change the "name = Mark1Cockpit" line to something else, like "name = Mark0Cockpit". Don't edit the filenames of the files within the folder (really, only the texture is the one that must keep its name, unless you add additional code in the CFG to re-assign it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the new cockpit makes much more sense for the types of aircraft you're "supposed" to build in KSP - that is, spaceplanes. Smaller windows make more sense from an engineering standpoint (do you really think a glass canopy would survive the kind of flames you put it through on reentry?) and the upper window for docking mode is a great touch which really emphasizes how much the pod is intended for use in space. Don't get me wrong, I loved the high visibility fighter-jet style cockpit of previous versions, but I did feel like it seemed a bit out of place on a space vehicle.
Personally, I'll probably be adding the old pod back into my game for the sake of classy-looking fighter jets, but since those are not really the "point" of vanilla KSP, I think it's fair for the main MK1 cockpit not to look like it was intended for such. With the inline pod's fighter-jet bubble canopy to complement the smaller-windowed, space-optimized nose pod, I think it works. Edited by GreeningGalaxy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Levelord']The one thing I really really [B]HATE[/B] about the new cockpit is the new hatch placement, making it almost impossible to properly place a ladder or to place wings around in a reasonable manner.[/QUOTE]

this, a thousand times this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A thousand more times that. It gave me all kinds of grief trying to redesign my Laythe Plane after the 1.0.5 update broke the old design by reshaping the cockpit so stuff got buried inside.

And I suppose we don't need the old cockpit back specifically, but a new version of it that keeps the same basic theme - "fighter" looking, and with the hatch on the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='parameciumkid']

And I suppose we don't need the old cockpit back specifically, but a new version of it that keeps the same basic theme - "fighter" looking, and with the hatch on the top.[/QUOTE]

This.

It looks great on planes, but somehow it looks "bigger" than the old one. For small jets, fighters and spaceplanes, it does not look right. Maybe because of the large windows and because the tip is offset from the center axis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Red Iron Crown']This. No need to have two parts that are functionally identical in the game, IMO.[/QUOTE]

I agree with RIC, but infact the new model doesnt suit the most Fighter-Planes anymore. They now look like overly agressive learjets. :)

Dont get me wrong, i like the design of the new Model but i would like to have the old one just for the esthetics of some crafts.
And It would be a waste to simply discard it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The new hatch placement pretty much renders the mk1 useless as a cockpit for a high speed seaplane...when my mk1 cockpite SSTO are at rest in water(it lifts up with hydrofoils for takeoff), the hatch is underwater... on the few occassions I've managed to get a kerbal to usea ladder to get underwater and enter the hatch, the kraken would promptly attack after entering a hatch from underwater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Octa']This.

It looks great on planes, but somehow it looks "bigger" than the old one. For small jets, fighters and spaceplanes, it does not look right. Maybe because of the large windows and because the tip is offset from the center axis.[/QUOTE]

It is bigger than the old one. I have had them side by side in the SPH, and the new one is quite a bit longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Rune'] The old Mk1 was much more... open ended? Short of like the shuttle parts: it is very difficult to use them in a modular fashion like the old aero parts, constricting the kind of designs that you can use and look right, at least in my eyes.

but some of them are just too... constrained would be the word, I guess. They seem to look right only on a certain use, and put together in a particular order and fashion.

this game is, at its glorious green heart, a sandbox universe to toy with. Keep it as open as you can, please!

[/QUOTE]

One more agreeing here.
This is what I've been saying for a while. While each part is beautiful, it's just doesn't seem right for KSP.
There's a fair amount of variety between the looks of other parts in KSP. They don't all perfectly blend into each other, but that's ok. There's an overall unity in having differences.

There have always been groups of parts with similar styles.
But the recent parts have become a big group with one dominant style. They start to make a clear gap between what fits together, and what doesn't.

Sure, career mode is trying to make you be some sort of commercial space transport service, but that shouldn't undermine the open creativity of the sandbox mode, where you can do anything you like.

[SIZE=1]There's no question that the parts have been well modelled. But some of the design choices of a few, were not that great. In a computer game like this, surely it makes sense to maximise a player's options, rather than eliminate them.[/SIZE] Edited by Tw1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Veeltch'][URL="http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k297/monsterzero_jr/blitz.jpg"]I'd rather have a high visibility full-glass cockpit than that ugly thing back.[/URL][/QUOTE]

Goess im not the only one who still plays il2 1946 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I decided to go ahead and make some of the old parts available in a pack, in case anyone's interested:

[URL="https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/1277/Discontinued%20Parts"]https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/1277/Discontinued%20Parts[/URL]

[IMG]http://ksp.necrobones.com/screenshots/2015-11/KSP%202015-11-18%2011-03-01-97.jpg[/IMG]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='VenomousRequiem']Was... was that a Yogscast reference?[/QUOTE]

This is a phrase I was aware of well before I was aware of the Yogscast.
So... no, it wasn't intentioned as a Yogscast reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rune's statement sums things up well, and I'm glad he tossed in some good words about Porkjet's work as I've loved most of it so far (other than the lack of hatch on the passenger compartment).

The old Mk1 just had a more suitable look for the whole 'faster, farther, higher' type experimental aircraft that I feel inspire a lot of people's creations. I'd really love having it back in stock...or a new, similarly-designed one. Don't get rid of the new one, mind; it's very well done, just not really what I wanna put on something intended for space.

Special note: While I dislike using the new Mk 1 for spacecraft, I can't say enough about the IVA. It's, IMO, the best one in the game. I'm not sure how Jeb sees out the Mk. 2 cockpit's windows...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm only a plane builder and i repeat ONLY, i think of myself to be a plane builder expert on ksp, so here it is my 2 cent.
The new mk1 cockpit isn't at all so good, like said it fits only planes, and inside plane category only private jets and just 1 or 2 fighters properly (B-58 is really the only one that fits); this new mk1 is a totally mess when building replicas.
Plus the mk1 inline cockpit is the only one suitable for fighters and it looks too much like a toy when combined with a NCS adapter, and don't even try to use an advance cone, because it looks rubbish and a stupid small cone with a stupid angle not sleek at all.

Believe me i don't lack of creativity when building planes (who knows me can agree i think), but these parts are making all so hard!

So my question is, why can't we have more cockpits that fits different style of planes? A lot of peoples are downloading mods, but why don't give us more stock choice?
A nice set would be:

COCKPITS:

-normal mk 1
-normal inline mk1
-old mk 1
-double seats tandem inline mk1 (just image a longer cockpit how much good will look)
-normal mk 2
-normal inline mk2
-fighter like mk2 (just like B9, bahamuto and all the others mod)

NOSECONES

-normal ncs adapter
-longer and sleeker NCS
-a better advanced nosecone please, the normal is rubbish (without offence to the creator)

Sorry for my bad english.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='eorin']I'm only a plane builder and i repeat ONLY, i think of myself to be a plane builder expert on ksp, so here it is my 2 cent.
The new mk1 cockpit isn't at all so good, like said it fits only planes, and inside plane category only private jets and just 1 or 2 fighters properly (B-58 is really the only one that fits); this new mk1 is a totally mess when building replicas.
Plus the mk1 inline cockpit is the only one suitable for fighters and it looks too much like a toy when combined with a NCS adapter, and don't even try to use an advance cone, because it looks rubbish and a stupid small cone with a stupid angle not sleek at all.

Believe me i don't lack of creativity when building planes (who knows me can agree i think), but these parts are making all so hard!

So my question is, why can't we have more cockpits that fits different style of planes? A lot of peoples are downloading mods, but why don't give us more stock choice?
A nice set would be:

COCKPITS:

-normal mk 1
-normal inline mk1
-old mk 1
-double seats tandem inline mk1 (just image a longer cockpit how much good will look)
-normal mk 2
-normal inline mk2
-fighter like mk2 (just like B9, bahamuto and all the others mod)

NOSECONES

-normal ncs adapter
-longer and sleeker NCS
-a better advanced nosecone please, the normal is rubbish (without offence to the creator)

Sorry for my bad english.[/QUOTE]
In fairness a lot of the things you want are best left as mods/add-ons IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='I_Killed_Jeb']In fairness a lot of the things you want are best left as mods/add-ons IMO.[/QUOTE]

I totally disagree, imho i think stock would be better, even for loading time. Plus if a lot of peoples are installing mods just for having different cockpits, this should make squad thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='I_Killed_Jeb']In fairness a lot of the things you want are best left as mods/add-ons IMO.[/QUOTE]

Disagree. A greater stock cockpit collection would be most welcome to me, as while I'm not completely mod averse, the base game really should include a variety of aesthetic choices. Especially if some were, as he suggested, capable of holding a two-kerbal team. Mods are good, but for such a basic building block for manned aircraft, the stock game really does need more choice. And it needs them for rockets, too...where's our Gemini or Russian-style capsules?;)

Also, the stock nose cone doesn't really fit the overall look of anything else in the game, so that suggestion would be very welcome as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='eorin']I totally disagree, imho i think stock would be better, even for loading time. [B]Plus if a lot of peoples are installing mods just for having different cockpits[/B], this should make squad thinking.[/QUOTE]

My contention is that this is not a lot of people, only a select few. This is from someone who preferred the old part, mind you. I agree with others in this thread who don't believe that redundant parts should be added just for their own sake. Perhaps in the future, when KSP is super optimized and complete. But until then, I say no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='I_Killed_Jeb']I agree with others in this thread who don't believe that redundant parts should be added just for their own sake..[/QUOTE]

The problem with this statement is that the parts being suggested aren't redundant. They are aesthetically quite different, and while I know you're speaking from an entirely practical standpoint (ie: what the part can 'do')...such a standpoint is unworkable given that aesthetics play a part in most people's designs. And that this is partially a game based on creating said designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='eorin']I totally disagree, imho i think stock would be better, even for loading time. Plus if a lot of peoples are installing mods just for having different cockpits, this should make squad thinking.[/QUOTE]

Seems like I'm not one of those. I'm 100% cool with what we have in stock, but would go nuts if there was a high visibility, full-glass cockpit like in Arado 234.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE][COLOR=#333333]the new Mk1 is a plane cockpit, period. Gorgeous, but it only looks right when flying in an atmosphere, and plain ridiculous on top of a rocket. The old Mk1 was much more... open ended? Short of like the shuttle parts: it is very difficult to use them in a modular fashion like the old aero parts, constricting the kind of designs that you can use and look right, at least in my eyes.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

That is all complete crap. Sorry.

Firstly: [url]http://www.space.com/24902-european-space-plane-eads-images.html[/url]
New MK1 is totally viable for space.

Secondly: Did you actually *see* the old MK3 parts? How were those better then the new ones? Modular? I mean there was a tank and a cockpit ... wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this