Give us 2.5m plane parts

[322997am]

So since we have all da plane parts, I want to request some. I just want all the 2.5m plane parts.

Edited October 3, 2016 by 322997am

[Wjolcz]

Don't think it's needed. I like to build planes, but IMO the game has enough of them and could use some surface base parts instead.

[322997am]

2 minutes ago, Veeltch said:

Don't think it's needed. I like to build planes, but IMO the game has enough of them and could use some surface base parts instead.

Yeah, but this is really missing as we have the rest of the form factors (mk3 is really close to 3.5m) except 2.5m

i really want this size parts:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airliner#/media/File%3ADouglas_C-47A_Skytrain_(DC-3)%2C_KLM_-_Royal_Dutch_Airlines_(DDA_Classic_Airlines)_AN2107554.jpg

[Van Disaster]

Mk3 *is* 3.5, with a couple of slices.

Perhaps use one of the aircraft mods with 2.5m parts ( like SXT, I think ) and see how much you use them?

[Snark]

We already have tons of plane parts, and if you want to have 2.5m parts, you can use the 2.5m rocket parts.  There's already a 2.5m crew cabin.  It's called the Hitchhiker.

Yes, those don't have very "airplaney" textures.  So perhaps you're just asking for more airplane-like appearance so your planes "look nicer"?

If that's the case:  I would strongly vote "no".  We have enough parts in the game as it is, we don't need to drown in parts that are added for purely cosmetic reasons.

Certainly before anybody adds cosmetic, engineering-unnecessary parts to the game, I'd like to see new rocket parts.  Right now, for example, there's a giant gaping hole in that rockets don't have any decent LF-only tanks.  There's the 2-ton, 1.25m liquid tank, and that's it.  All the other LF tanks are shaped wrong for rockets and are not just ugly but physically awkward to fit on rockets.  It's not a cosmetic problem, it's an engineering one, and IMHO engineering gaps should take precedence over cosmetic gaps.

I'd love to see LF-only variants of the FL-T800 four-ton tank, or of the 16-ton and 32-ton LFO tanks.  It would be good for rockets, plus airplane people could use them for 2.5m fuel tanks as well.

[zolotiyeruki]

The 2.5m LF tanks are sorely missing, yes.  A 2.5m crew cabin would be nice, but I don't feel a huge need for it.  Also, since it would be cylindrical, I'd be annoyed if all that extra cross-section were wasted.

[Pthigrivi]

I'd especially like to see LF tanks as they could do double-duty as LV-N tanks. A 2.5m cockpit and passenger cabin would be fun too. 

[ZooNamedGames]

*AHEM*

I think we need not.

[Scientia1423]

There's a mod called MK IV Spaceplane System that already has plane parts. Or you could use the Tweakscale mod to make the MK I parts as large as the 2.5m parts.

We really aren't in need of any more plane parts until more rocket engines are added/redone and career mode revised down more.

[Pthigrivi]

Why do people think this is mutually exclusive? Presumably they could finish the rocket parts and then fill in some of these gaps? Like I really want low-profile adapters for MK3 and 3.75m, but that doesn't mean I tell people because of that we shouldn't have a gemini capsule. 

[Red Iron Crown]

2.5m crew compartment could be handled by revamping the Hitchhiker. I don't care about planes much, but if a 2.5m airplane cockpit comes with 2.5m LF tanks I would be a very happy nuclear rocket builder.

[Rath]

I want 2.5m airplane parts.  With the huge size of mk3 parts, the hypersonic wing blending design of the mk2 and the tiny size of the 1.25ms, this would fill a gap.

I would rather have a 2.5m rocket part revamp first.

[Firemetal]

Fuel tanks would be nice for nuclear propulsion.

However, do you ever see a cylinder shaped plane? No. The reason? Because it is not aerodynamic.

"But Firemetal!" I hear you say: "Mk1 parts are also cylinder shaped!" Yes they are, random forumer! But they are much smaller and less noticeable whereas 2.5m planes would look very stupid unless you made it like the mk2 parts.

Still to have a 2.5m LF only tank would be very good for nuclear propulsion as well as a 3.75m one. I am tired of building interplanetary cruisers with plane parts!

Firemetal

Edited October 6, 2016 by Firemetal

[StahnAileron]

On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 11:55 AM, Snark said:

We already have tons of plane parts, and if you want to have 2.5m parts, you can use the 2.5m rocket parts.  There's already a 2.5m crew cabin.  It's called the Hitchhiker.

Yes, those don't have very "airplaney" textures.  So perhaps you're just asking for more airplane-like appearance so your planes "look nicer"?

If that's the case:  I would strongly vote "no".  We have enough parts in the game as it is, we don't need to drown in parts that are added for purely cosmetic reasons.

Certainly before anybody adds cosmetic, engineering-unnecessary parts to the game, I'd like to see new rocket parts.  Right now, for example, there's a giant gaping hole in that rockets don't have any decent LF-only tanks.  There's the 2-ton, 1.25m liquid tank, and that's it.  All the other LF tanks are shaped wrong for rockets and are not just ugly but physically awkward to fit on rockets.  It's not a cosmetic problem, it's an engineering one, and IMHO engineering gaps should take precedence over cosmetic gaps.

I'd love to see LF-only variants of the FL-T800 four-ton tank, or of the 16-ton and 32-ton LFO tanks.  It would be good for rockets, plus airplane people could use them for 2.5m fuel tanks as well.

If that's the case, I'd rather they overhaul the fuel/resource system so we don't require dedicated tank definitions just give us flexible fuel tanks. It would work for both aesthetics and practicality because a design isn't confine by the resources (namely fuels) a part can hold.

I once asked in the IFS thread if it would be possible to do a "volume-defined" fuel-switching method. Basically you'd only define the max volume of a tank and the fuel types it can hold. How much of what it get filled with is up to you. (I hated using rocket tanks for planes but having horrible mass factions because I can't use the oxidizer volume for more LF.) Ideally, you'd incur dry mass (or usable volume?) penalties for having more fuel types in a single tank (to account for the extra tank and plumping). I think I got a reply to my post, but nothing came of it *shrug*. Oddly enough, the B9 mod developed a partswitch plugin that had most of my original idea (fuel switching by defining usable total volume and fuel ratios) rather than IFS's and FS's methods (which required explicit amount for every fuel definition unless you were good with MM math ops, like Nertea.)

Anyway... Long story short: Fuel-switching/flex-fuel tank should be made stock at some point. I think it'd solve a lot of issues regarding craft design and convenience.

As for Size 2 parts: I'm more a fan of smaller designs. The MK2 profile to date has served most of my plane needs/wants. If surface bases on Kerbin (or Laythe, though I've never been there.. Well anywhere, really; bases are still useless unless you mod out the wazoo...) got compelling to make and maintain (rather than building one just for the sake of it), then maybe I would care enough... But really, Between MK2 and MK3 profiles, is there a need for 2.5m plane parts? I see MK2 as medium-ish passenger liners with MK3 as heavy hauler. (I have built a 2.5 liner, but I was using mods like SXT and KAX.) What would a 2.5 aero profile add?

[Columbia]

12 hours ago, Firemetal said:

 

However, do you ever see a cylinder shaped plane? No. The reason? Because it is not aerodynamic.

 

Quote

you ever see a cylinder shaped plane? No. The reason? Because it is not aerodynamic.

Quote

you ever see a cylinder shaped plane? No.

Cross section of an Airbus A320-200, a modern-day passenger airliner:

Cross section of a B-29 Superfortress, a WWII era bomber.

 

And here is a thread discussing as to why airliners have circular cross sections:

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21523/why-is-the-fuselage-on-an-airliner-circular-shaped

More:

 

 

So, uhm, yeah.

Numerous other airliners have them as well. Just saying.

 

Rather than adding 2.5m airplane parts, I'd rather they overhaul the current 2.5m parts. They look sub-par. I'd be happy with a simple white tube, IMO. Better than the oil-drum aesthetic we have now. It would look better on both planes and rockets.

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Columbia

[Frozen_Heart]

Would rather have a 'Mk-2.5' series. Same size as the old Mk-3, but symmetrical. Really enjoyed building in that size and found it just right. Miss the cockpit most of all as a ton of my stuff used it.

[Spartwo]

We have these. Its called mk2

[Firemetal]

1 hour ago, Columbia said:

Cross section of an Airbus A320-200, a modern-day passenger airliner:

Cross section of a B-29 Superfortress, a WWII era bomber.

 

And here is a thread discussing as to why airliners have circular cross sections:

http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/21523/why-is-the-fuselage-on-an-airliner-circular-shaped

More:

 

 

So, uhm, yeah.

Numerous other airliners have them as well. Just saying.

 

Rather than adding 2.5m airplane parts, I'd rather they overhaul the current 2.5m parts. They look sub-par. I'd be happy with a simple white tube, IMO. Better than the oil-drum aesthetic we have now. It would look better on both planes and rockets.

 

 

 

Wow I didn't know that. I am not really much of a plane person. Problem is, in Ksp, 2.5m parts look silly on a plane. You would need actual plane fuselages to make it look good. However, I believe bringing mark 4 parts not the stock game would be a good idea. Better than this one.

Sorry, 

Fire

[Columbia]

9 minutes ago, Firemetal said:

Wow I didn't know that. I am not really much of a plane person. Problem is, in Ksp, 2.5m parts look silly on a plane. You would need actual plane fuselages to make it look good. However, I believe bringing mark 4 parts not the stock game would be a good idea. Better than this one.

Sorry, 

Fire

It's alright, misconceptions happen.

I personally just think it's a matter of the 2.5m parts looking... horrifying. 4m parts seem nice though.

[Firemetal]

2 minutes ago, Columbia said:

It's alright, misconceptions happen.

I personally just think it's a matter of the 2.5m parts looking... horrifying. 4m parts seem nice though.

4m?

Yeah. The orange tank is the only good looking one IMO.

Fire

Edited October 7, 2016 by Firemetal

[Columbia]

Just now, Firemetal said:

4m?

Oh, I read "Mk4" as 4m. Sorry about that.

[Van Disaster]

There are two Mk4 sets of parts, but you'd have to remember TouhouTorpedo to remember the older one ( there is a converter in the B9 legacy parts still, I think ), the original was a giant boxy shape & actually pretty useful. Most aircraft are at least ovular if they're pressurised, otherwise it doesn't matter all that much. Quite a few small aircraft have box cross-sections ( Twin Otter, Islander, the Shorts skybus derivatives ) but they're generally not pressurised - not actually sure about the S330/S360.

Edit: here, this is what I think of when I think "Mk4" -

Spoiler

Here's what a 2.5m form-factor aircraft looks like ( thanks, SXT ) - the one in foreground & background-left. Very far from strange/silly.

Edited October 7, 2016 by Van Disaster

[Scientia1423]

What about 3.75 plane parts?

 

Also can any rovers be driven into a 2.5 cargo bay? Seems possible... I tried it with the MK2 cargo bay and the plane "overdosed on dank meems".

[RocketSquid]

15 minutes ago, Scientia1423 said:

What about 3.75 plane parts?

That's Mk3 but a smidge wider.

15 minutes ago, Scientia1423 said:

Also can any rovers be driven into a 2.5 cargo bay? Seems possible... I tried it with the MK2 cargo bay and the plane "overdosed on dank meems".

Yes, and not just any rover but kerbbed ones.

[Van Disaster]

Mk3 is 3.75 with the sides sliced like this - this is B9 HL form factor, but that is where Mk3 came from.

Should probably actually be fully cylindrical but HL has side extensions which Mk3 is missing.

Edit: here's why Mk3 is the shape it is:

The front is all B9 - the HL shape was so you could put the side components on which makes it a little more cylindrical. When Squad took the shape to make Mk3 they didn't take all the parts, so we've got the sliced profile without anything to make it round. It's handy to attach things too, though.

Edited October 8, 2016 by Van Disaster