A "KSP Loading..." Preview: the Mk2 Lander Can

[Kroslev Kerman]

Remove Top Hatch Please

[Poodmund]

@SuicidalInsanity that mock up has some really nice qualities to it. The way the windows angle to allow for downwards viewing at the base but bevel the bottom leading edge is a nice idea. Seeing as in KSP we can't leave the seats in IVA and press our faces up to the glass like the real Apollo astronauts we are limited to the FOV from the seat positions. Also I think the multiple smaller window panes looks more... intuitive with regards to what we see on existing real life examples that have larger, flat faces for viewing and the rounded corners help protray that. It's nice to see an example of what the feedback has generally been suggesting in the flesh so to speak so that it can also be reviewed from a design standpoint.

EDIT: I also think it's worth mentioning that the window panes also look more believable on this mockup as they have strong AO on the sunken edges near the housing structure suggesting that they are recessed quite a lot into the frame. Are these windows using the same colour palette as the other stock parts because they look a lot more like the MK1 part windows but very different to the official preview windows of this new MK2 capsule here in this thread?

Edited November 3, 2018 by Poodmund

[Stevie_D]

Yeah im really not liking that new front window. The best way i'd describe it, is to say that it's gone from beyond "Kerbal Realism" to "Total Kerbal Cartoon" style. You would never have a structurally unsafe and overly large window like that in a spacecraft of the era this thing is meant to be in. On a rover, yes. On a spacecraft? No. I think the only reason you guys changed it to that is to double it up as a rover cabin.

A golden rule you guys might want to consider when making such drastic changes like this is this :-

- If adding a part variant changes the original model so much, then maybe just make the variant a separate new model.

I honestly feel like the new lander can wouldn't fit into the asthetic of the ships i currently build, and would -only- use it as a rover cockpit (of which there are already better rover cockpits).

 

So, all in all - meh. I think id actually download a legacy patch to turn this back into the old one. And thats the first time ive -ever- considered doing that.

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Stevie_D

[purpleivan]

I've got mixed feeling about the updating to this part. I probably like the original more than most people here, as I know it gets some criticism over it's mass per occupant.

To be clear, I'm not averse to a part I've used a lot over the years getting a shiny new coat of paint. Far from it.

However a couple of things seem a bit off about the new design. The first of which is that it doesn't really look like the top of a vehicle anymore, more like something suitable for the middle of a stack. The reason for this would be the uniform width of it, as opposed to the original's distinct lip at its base. This uniformity even extends to the texturing, which is pretty uniform in brightness/colour, up its sides.

The orginal had a clearer "right way up" look to it.

The other issue is the layout of the windows, especially when illuminated, which seem unnaturally cut into a rectangular area. I think it would have been better to have the lower row of three windows be inset slightly, forming a very wide based T shape. Possibly even removing the two smallest windows altogether, as this would look more natural.

On a positive note I really like the Bare version of the pod for rovers etc. I can see that part showing up in a lot of screenshots (looking forward to using it myself). It doesn't have the issue regarding the windows, due to the square cut frontal profile of the pod. This gives a better reason for the shape of the window area, and so feels natural, plus the side windows extends the shape beyond that rectangle.

[Xurkitree]

OMG I love the new design! It looks great, both as a Lander Can and a Rover Hull.

Good job SQUAD! I'm so hyped for this! 

Also, Sean's Cannery must have had a regime change huh

[MaverickSawyer]

Coming back for another comment... I think that everyone else has kinda hit on all the major points for a detailed breakdown of the design. But, my 0.02 is that... It just doesn't feel right with those windows. Others have gone into much better detail, tbh, but it boils down to that guy feeling of "That's not right".

[Burning Kan]

• love the new hatches & the round windows  & the  lights(green)
• great improvement for the FOV(hope the kerbal dont sit to high/or near the glass)
• open/closeable storage doors OMG
• rover variant (iam speechless)
• the inside sunk handrails also noteworthy(dont stick out like on the old one)
• the will have a diff mass .     YESSS, thats i want to hear/read

i guess the kerbal sit both in the first line ,or not in the middle like in the old one ,or the had the window frame in front?

nice news/great work thx

[Waxing_Kibbous]

I agree that seeing many parts getting some love is fantastic, and that softening the window corners either with a bevel or rounded corner would go a long way for this one. The rover variant is a great addition as well, fills a gap quite nicely.

[Nertea]

This seems like a step backward compared to the original part in a lot of design related ways (no question the actual texture work is superior). I spent some time writing up a set of direct comments on this. I tried to focus them quite clearly on design and consistency related things that seem out of place, keeping in mind that the art redo's artistic vision is not at all the same direction as I would take and trying to look at it through a more objective lens. 

Really what I want to get at is that this seems like two parts, that make specific and non-ideal compromises to become one part. It would be better served taking the part and creating two separate parts - this would naturally remove a lot of the strange artistic choices that are going on. 

 

[2204happy]

On 11/3/2018 at 3:14 AM, nestor said:

It's part of the work we already started for 1.6

Awesome, I can't wait!

Thanks for answering as well. 

[Tyko]

This window frames aren’t only a problem for air pressure. It’s also a structural issue. If a rover built with that butter stick body hits a bump the front body will try to flex and the all-glass thin-frame front just doesn’t look like it could handle the stresses of bouncing along a lunar surface without twisting and popping the windows out. Same thing, to a lesser extent, for landers and hard landings 

[panzer1b]

So yeah, been thinking a bit about it and while i really love the squareness of the rover/capital ship variant (there are way to damn many circular things in stock KSP, yes i KNOW its "realistic" but realism doesnt make starships look good imo), i do agree with the window issues, that frame looks super squish and not something that can actually handly any sort of pressure differential (sci-fi or not, there are some basic fundamentals that make sense to have).  Even the inline starfighter cockpit is believeable since its a curved rounded window that could at least in theory be a decent pressure vessel, but popsicle stick frame with no rounded corners would be (outside of super alloys used on capital ships in some of the less plausible sci-fi) completely unpractical from a structural element (and im a engineer irl, so i actually understand these things).

Another sorta personal complain is that the entire window looks way too square compared to some of the other parts in KSP and doesnt really fit in all that well.  Compare it to the porkjet cockpit parts (or even the cupola which is probably the ONLY non porkjet stock pod besides the newly released mk-1 that i actually like the look of), most of those are non-square windows that are imo cooler looking, very slight corner rounding, and overall look great inside and out.  Not sure if its possible, but id really like to see a bit less "square", and bit more varied shape like the side windows which are great.

Finally, i know this is likely driven by an attempt at sticking somewhat to the older style, but id love to see the entire part that stick out past the 2.5m diameter to be gone and have something similar to @SuicidalInsanity's concept art:

As to the window style, i actually like this render much better since it isnt just entirely square panels, and it looks way more natural.  That and this would provide both landing visibility, and allow you to make it a flush part of a 2.5m stack and not have it stick out awkwardly, while not affecting the rover/capital ship cockpit functionality.

I also like @Daishi's idea, minus the lack of flat side walls for the rover/capital ship slimmed model (easier to integrate with other thinsg when those sides are flat without the extra side boxes).  I really like the fact that the bays on the sides look like they are clearly a different part that was added after the fact and not an integral part of the model, and i like the idea with the structural ribbing near said side storage boxes as well as the gap between the .

My idea version would be @Daishi's with the front kept within 2.5m size (so nothing sticks out when in a stack) and flat sides where the boxes attach to the cockpit section.

Still, at this point, id take either of these 2 concepts over the stock one, since they look cooler, and are both cooler looking (specifically the latter), while keeping them at least sorta believeable with regards to teh windows.

[passinglurker]

48 minutes ago, Tyko said:

This window frames aren’t only a problem for air pressure. It’s also a structural issue. If a rover built with that butter stick body hits a bump the front body will try to flex and the all-glass thin-frame front just doesn’t look like it could handle the stresses of bouncing along a lunar surface without twisting and popping the windows out. Same thing, to a lesser extent, for landers and hard landings 

oof yeah I didn't think of that normally I assume the interior pressure vessel is just more rounded than the external structure but that window really does just fill the whole space doesn't it...

[Tyko]

Building on what @panzer1b said - what if the butter stick pressure compartment was one part and the side cargo bays were separate parts?? That would offer more “LEGO” options to players - even asymmetric designs with a cargo bay on one side and an exposed space on the other for science experiments, a tiny rover, an antenna, winches for KAS, whatever players wanted. 

[fourfa]

I sure hope the variant with service bays weighs and costs more than the bare rover variant

[roboslacker]

If the new lander can is designed for rovers, it would be helpful to be able to enable/disable to reaction wheel in flight. It looks amazing.

[RoverDude]

46 minutes ago, roboslacker said:

it would be helpful to be able to enable/disable to reaction wheel in flight.

You can already do this via the PAW.

[SuicidalInsanity]

Not going to lie, I'm not really satisfied how my mockup turned out - true, it was thrown together in 40 minutes or so - but seeing praise for what I could do much better on just feels weird.
I did end up spending more time on it and making a completed part, but the point of this thread is feedback on the official part, not the progress of a user created alternative; If Squad wants to see renders, I'll post one here, but otherwise I'd rather not step on the toes of Squad's art team.

I like the idea of pods with integrated lights (even though no other stock pod has them) as seen in Daishi's concept, they'd be undeniably useful on both rovers and landers, especially given the size of the stock Illuminator parts.
Echoing Tyko, Mk2 LC conformal radial service bays as a separate part would also open up the ability to use them elsewhere on craft where a radial SB might be useful. It would also sidestep the issue of a roverbody variant mk2 can still having ModulecargoBays defined but lacking a corresponding AnimateGeneric service bay doors anim to link to and Open/Close/ GUI button clutter.

Edited November 4, 2018 by SuicidalInsanity

[AVeryNiceSpacePenguin]

Eh, it looks like it is a mod. I like the older one, because it had a cleaner, brighter fuselage. I would suggest removing the panel lines, and brightening up the can.

 

[Snark]

One question I have:  So, the "full" version has openable "service bays" on the left and right side, yes?  Well, in that case,

Will the left and right sides of the "full" variant be available for surface-attaching radial parts?

The left/right sides of any part are prime real estate for surface attachment, particularly for 2x symmetry.  Batteries, solar panels, side-mounted fuel tanks, whatever.

Those two places are basically the only reasonable place to put 2x symmetry parts; the front/back don't work because they're occupied by hatch & windows.  So if, by any chance, those areas weren't surface-attachable, then that would severely limit the flexibility of the part in gameplay.  Basically, the only available option would be 4x symmetry at the 45-degree points.

In general I like the new part design, and the window design doesn't make a big difference to me personally... but if I couldn't attach radial parts to the left/right sides of the lander can, then that would be pretty much a showstopper that would probably prevent me from using the part much.

[passinglurker]

@Snark wouldn't that be a use case for butterstick mode?

[Snark]

4 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

@Snark wouldn't that be a use case for butterstick mode?

Not for me, because I hardly ever make rovers and probably won't ever use the butterstick mode myself (cool though it is-- I think that's a great addition to the game, just not one that I, personally, am likely to use much).

My use case for this part is as a cylindrical 2.5m command pod.  Either in an actual lander, or as an in-line component in a 2.5m stack.  A butterstick pod is basically useful only in rovers (at least for me).  And an important function of cylindrical parts, for me, is that they have sides that are prime real estate for radial attachments.

The old Mk2 lander can worked just fine for that-- my main issues with it were its unwieldy, unreasonably high mass, and that awkward "rim" around the bottom (though that one wasn't a showstopper for me).  "Don't do things to the part that would prevent use cases that the old part supports", is basically the summary of my feedback.

[passinglurker]

@Snark fair points the two potential solutions I have for that is either...

A. Drop the part's "roverness" and give the butterstick more Lander friendly windows. While it won't be idealy flush you could still radially attach enough to the sides that it doesn't look structurally precarious in a stack all it needs is a better landing view I imagine there are more people who care about their view from a Lander than from a rover so that should have the design priority.

B. On the tunacan configuration make the service bays like in MH with no doors just a hollow space who's exterior can be rendered invisible for access.

[Vexillar]

Something that has attracted only a couple of comments: a big thumbs up from me for the new hatch design.

The overall look is a great improvement on earlier stock hatches (is this basically the new standard hatch for non-aerodynamic parts?).  For me the roof hatch (that can be covered by a docking port if required) is a good solution.

I understand the comment about the green light, but to me a green light makes sense... hey! hatch here!  Safety!

The only reservation is (as has already been mentioned) having the four handles: that does seem a little redundant.  My Kerbals are a little clumsy, even when not wearing gloves, so I'd hate to think of them fumbling to enter the pod to escape a marauding Kraken!

[Kerbart]

25 minutes ago, Vexillar said:

The only reservation is (as has already been mentioned) having the four handles: that does seem a little redundant.  My Kerbals are a little clumsy, even when not wearing gloves, so I'd hate to think of them fumbling to enter the pod to escape a marauding Kraken!

I agree that the new hatch is a great improvement. Those complaining about it looking out of place... consider that none of the other parts using outside hatches has been updated yet?! If we keep everything immutable there will never be progress.

One can assume the handles are mechanically connected; it’s not like you need to operate all four of them, but rather can unlock/lock a door from any angle.

The windows need work though; just in case that hasn’t come across yet.