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

[Kerbart]

3 hours ago, Snark said:

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.

I don’t mind the butterstick per sé and I can see how it opens up opportunities for SF-like space ship design (Star Trek/Wars, The Expanse, etc). So I don’t think it’s a rover-only design.

Making it optional within the same part seems artificia. “We have no use for this feature. Wait. We do now!”

I’d rather see this applied to designs where you really want multiple variants. MLP’s with or without and outside airlock, or something along those lines. Same for the passenger fuselages, if I use three of them I don’t need an airlock on each.

For the Mk II, round seems to me a design feature, it holds pressure better. To have a non-round version... well why do you have such a limited geometry in the first place? Make it then an octagon like the Mk I.

Unless it has sheddable features that make this a rover-but-more-like-a-spaceship-when-putting-it-on-the-surface I would like to see two seperate parts if they support separate uses.

[Snark]

1 hour ago, passinglurker said:

@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.

Those are both pretty good ideas.

Option "A" doesn't really work for me, personally, because it involves a design-hack workaround needed every time I use the part-- it's not a total showstopper, but it's a high enough barrier to me (both in terms of construction convenience and in aesthetics) that I'd likely end up never using the part at all.  I still have PTSD from the days before 1.25m service bays, where I had to put together a kludgy monstrosity of conical adapters and struts any time I ever needed to have a 0.625m probe core inline in a 1.25m stack.

As far as option "B" is concerned-- that would work just fine for me.  As long as I can use the part as if it were an uninterrupted 2.5m cylinder whose full perimeter is usable for radial attachments (other than the window and hatch), then that's all I care about. 

Again, to be clear, none of my concerns here are about the part being inherently "bad" or "wrong".  (And also, this entire subplot may be completely moot-- I may be expressing a concern about something that's already set up the way I'd like.)  It's a question of personal tastes and gameplay styles.  One of the huge difficulties of designing a game like KSP is that different people have very different ideas of what a part should be, i.e. what it's for and how it will be used.  Since different people want different things, there's no way to please everybody-- no matter what the designer does, someone's not gonna like it because it doesn't suit their personal purposes.

Personally, I think the best answer to this insoluble problem is to try to keep the design of individual parts simple-- e.g. "one part, one function".  Doing that allows the players the freedom to construct their own creative narratives around what the part is "about"; they can fit it into their designs easily.  As soon as a designer starts packing multiple purposes into one part, there's the risk of the designer having a certain narrative in mind... which will be great for the players whose narrative matches the designer's, but makes the part unhelpful to anyone who has a different idea in mind.

I love the idea of having a butter-stick variant available-- but not if it comes at the cost of having a 2.5m cylindrical part that's usable as a 2.5m cylindrical part.  Hopefully I'm worrying about a non-issue and it'll just work the way I'm hoping. 

[SchwinnTropius]

I'll echo the mentioned window issues; I get paranoid they'll break just looking at them, and I personally will never have to sit inside the thing! As for the variants: the use here serves a function of reducing catalog clutter, but that's it. If the variants serve different purposes, they should be separate parts. Besides, Butterstick would be a great starting point for a rover body naming scheme: Buttertoast, Buttertoast...

[Guest]

multiplayer update when?

[qzgy]

8 hours ago, Aperture Science said:

multiplayer update when?

Assume no word on it.

Also assume its about as likely as finding an ice cube on the sun - probably never.

[Chel]

8 minutes ago, qzgy said:

Assume no word on it.

Also assume its about as likely as finding an ice cube on the sun - probably never.

But it still could be a possibility. @qzgy, as my old friend Harrison Ford said: "Never tell me the odds!"

[GrandProtectorDark]

3 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

But it still could be a possibility. @qzgy, as my old friend Harrison Ford said: "Never tell me the odds!"

Don't wait for it. It's not gonna happen. 

[Chel]

2 hours ago, GrandProtectorDark said:

Don't wait for it. It's not gonna happen. 

Are you sure about that

[Whirligig Girl]

I really don't like how different it is from the original. The original window was very practical. Saves weight, lets you look exactly where a lander can would need you to look. The new one doesn't even seem to overhang as much, and it no longer fits with the style of the Mk1 lander can--which is also a neat and tidy design, and even the M.E.M. Lander Can, which has the Apollo-style tiny windows. This pod would make a great inline rover can, but it does not work as a revamped lander can.

This is yet another case of changing the model completely rather than increasing the quality of the already existing model. I don't think it's the right way to go about this. Even Porkjet's part revamps always kept the basic design and details, just increasing the quality of the model. Compare many of the spaceplane parts with the revamped versions, in many cases they preserve both detail and design of the original. Or even the very (once) popular Ven's Stock Parts Revamp, which for the most part keeps part designs the same and just rebuilds them with better fidelity and quality.

I do like the "butter-stick" variant. But it again just seems to be a rover body design, not a lander can.

[jdb326]

On 11/1/2018 at 2:26 PM, The_Cat_In_Space said:

Ok, the second variant I am DEFINETELY using as a rover cockpit!

SAME!

[qzgy]

4 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

Are you sure about that

Pretty sure. Not gonna give you the odds, but I don't expect things to go as swimmingly as it did for Han Solo or Luke Skywalker.

[DMagic]

I'm wondering why this is one part. This seems like making use of the part variant system for the sake of using it. I get that they share some elements, but one of the biggest problems I've noticed is that this question:

On 11/1/2018 at 6:07 PM, sh1pman said:

2) Navball orientation. Upwards or forwards? Is it different for “lander” and “rover” variants? Maybe it can be toggled?

Was answered with this:

On 11/1/2018 at 8:53 PM, RoverDude said:

2.  I've ran the butter stick version around as a rover with some minor steering reversal on the wheels.

Which is to say not answered at all.

Fixing the rover body in 1.5 seems to have been one of the most universally well accepted changes for that update. So why would we be expected to fiddle around with rover steering or awkwardly clipping docking ports and probe cores onto the front of part again? If the part variant system doesn't support changing control orientation then make it a separate part. The butterstick version seems to be designed as a cockpit/rover body almost exclusively. Why compromise it by shoehorning it in as an unnecessary part variant.

[lunardog15]

I personally feel that the side things should be separate parts but the can has 2 variants that are there own parts with a funny story such as the mk2 inline cockpit

[JoaquinJAR]

14 hours ago, qzgy said:

Assume no word on it.

Also assume its about as likely as finding an ice cube on the sun - probably never.

actually its a very bad example, cuz you know what happens if something gets too near the sun.

LoL

And actually i love the pod but i think the windows should be more square so it will fit more with the rover variant and will look like the "old" mk2 pod

Edited November 6, 2018 by JoaquinJAR

[qzgy]

7 minutes ago, JoaquinJAR said:

actually its a very bad example, cuz you know what happens if something gets too near the sun.

Huh? I don't understand what you're trying to say by this. 

[JoaquinJAR]

i dont know how to explain this lol

"about as likely as finding an ice cube on the sun" - that means NEVER as obviously nothing can be inside, or too near the surface of the sun lol

and then you say "probably never." and that means you think theres a possibility of multiplayer being added, so in that case you should say something like "About as likely to land in mars only with parachutes" (Which is almost impossible i think)

i dont know if you understand this as my english its very bad and i think i example doest means what i think it does...

[FinalFan]

I only have one original thought to add to all this, which is:  I hope to see the "T–CAN " designation stay on the new part.  I got a laugh out of the wordplay and would hate to see it disappear. 

Other than that, I agree with the general trend of the comments regarding the windows, but I also want to underline how happy I am that this part is getting some long-desired attention.  I also second the sentiment that if there are extensive design compromises involved in adapting it for both cylinder and rover versions, a brand new rover part might be in order instead (in addition to a normal rework of this part). 

[edit:  Oh, and—"Butter stick?  Does that mean the other one's a cheese wheel?"]

Edited November 7, 2018 by FinalFan

[Stevie_D]

If you stick with the pre-amble, hopefully this might slightly impress as good modelling, and good feedback to Squad for using the part variant system to its fullest when updating old designs and models.

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Stevie_D

[Poodmund]

@Stevie_D this is not only a really good insight into your thought on the part but also your own version of the part is a very well thought through evolution of the original Mk2 Lander Can part. Its obviously still recognisable, is aesthtically more interesting that the original part and, most importantly, you've considered how your re-imagined version fits and works with other parts within the KSP toolbox and how players can interact with it.

[swjr-swis]

2 hours ago, Stevie_D said:

hopefully this might slightly impress as good modelling, and good feedback to Squad for using the part variant system to its fullest when updating old designs and models.

Well, I'm impressed. That looks awesome, and the window definitely lost its flimsy look.

Two points though:

One, I think making the main 2.5m cylinder flush is not an accident. It's consistent with their latest revamp rush. You'll notice if you go through the revamped part list that in general, they've been making things more 'flush'. I have nothing against that, it's a design principle I guess.

Two, this still doesn't solve the issue with the control direction of the part being incorrect for the rover variant. From their response to the question, or veiled lack of it I should say, it would seem that the game cannot handle changing control direction through the variant code. Which leaves either the rover cabin or the lander can variants with screwed up controls/navball, and I suspect it'll be the rover cabin. It only took years for them to finally acknowledge and correct that mistake with the Rovermate... I really hope they won't start off another part that way and make us complain for another couple of years before correcting it again. If variant code can't switch control direction, then so be it... but then please make the rover cabin a separate part with its own correct control direction. Or, within the variant system, flip the rover variant 90 degrees up so its window faces towards the top.

 

P.S.: I've wondered about this ever since I saw images of the three round pods in the MH expansion - why did they not do those as part variants? They look to be practically identical models other than the seat number...

Edited November 8, 2018 by swjr-swis
flip

[Vexillar]

23 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

the three round pods in the MH expansion - why did they not do those as part variants?

Because to keep the game balanced, the three "Russian" pods are introduced at different points in the Tech Tree, and their mass and other characteristics are different.

[swjr-swis]

2 hours ago, Vexillar said:

Because to keep the game balanced, the three "Russian" pods are introduced at different points in the Tech Tree, and their mass and other characteristics are different.

Gradual tech introduction: isn't that what the stock 'part upgrade' mechanism is supposed to be used for? If not for that, when is that ever going to see use in the stock game?

And variants can have different mass and other variables. So the question remains.

They go to the trouble of coding in these really nice tricks... and then don't use it in new/revamped stock parts. Missed opportunity.

[Vexillar]

12 hours ago, swjr-swis said:

stock 'part upgrade' mechanism

Wait... that's a thing already?  Sorry, slept through that one.  Point taken.

----Edit ----

12 hours ago, Snark said:

Part variants are very limited.  They can change the model, the texture, and the mass, but that's basically it.  Notably, they can't affect the resources content.  (Which is a pity, because otherwise it would be trivially easy to have switchable tanks that can toggle between LFO and LF-only, for example.)

(Feature request for Squad: could we make variants able to switch out resource contents?)

Or... does Snark's comment re resource content mean that the number of Kerbals cannot [yet] vary between variants (which kind of makes sense, given the needed seating reconfiguration etc.)?

Edited November 10, 2018 by Vexillar
Found information from Snark

[Ol’ Musky Boi]

The second variant will make a great cockpit/turret for WWII bomber replicas, I'm loving these new texture revamps!

[Gapone]

Only three words:

Please. Old. Windows.