Jump to content

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


SQUAD
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

True, but it only needs to hold 1 atm pressure difference, so... maybe it’s fine that the can has sharp edges and thin window bars? But it certainly wouldn’t hurt if it was more rounded and sturdy.

if that were the case, the de havilland comet wouldn't have had so many window blowouts, though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tyko said:

Those are really cool! Does the top still have a node? Where would I attach a docking port? 

Might be easier to make the top hatch a variant if it's going to cause problems with docking ports.

Yep top hatch has a node - you will EVA via the first unblocked hatch (defaulting to the rear one first) if you don't EVA from one of the hatches explicitly.

3 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

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

That was the idea :)

2 hours ago, DMagic said:

What are the "built-in service bays"? Are these actual bays, with doors that can open, or something along those lines?

Also @SQUAD the link to the hi res images points to the TVR couplers from the last update.

Side doors with cubbies to put you stuff in .

2 hours ago, sh1pman said:

Two things.

1) Does the “bare” version have a node on its back, so that other modules can be stacked behind it, forming a rover body?

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

1.  Yes it does.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoverDude said:
4 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

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

That was the idea :)

I see! I might have the cockpit, wheel base,  and then science equipment on the back for a nice Mun or Duna rover!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry the dual use is clever and all but that forward window just looks too flimsy to me. The panes are too big while ending in sharp corners and the supports are thin meanwhile the whole face is slightly curved and all together... it... just... doesn't look like it should work...

like look at the cupola or the cockpit windscreens  it just doesn't look consistent with how other parts handle large multi pane windows that are supposed to operate in vacuum. I hope this will be revised to look more space worthy before release if there is one thing I never complained about @RoverDude 's work its his modeling skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The windows are just odd. Way too toy-like while the rest of the revamp is a move towards "more realistic."

Please reshape the windows to something that looks like it can realistically function as cabin widows for a pressure vessel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in love with the windows either, but the dual use is pretty slick.

I will second concerns about navball orientation and steering.  Any time my navball points up, I've had nothing but issues with weird steering reversals, then switching the steering on the wheel panels, then having them return to normal again in the middle of a drive.  I'll clip a docking port inside the rover if I have to, but that is not an ideal solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RoverDude said:

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

So the answer is no - the control node orientation remains towards the top node, which means we'll need to add another part to 'control from here' like the old rovermate required for normal behaviour.

The steering issue is not as minor as you make it sound, since it makes rovers act unpredictably (more specifically, changing how wheels react to left/right inputs depending on the slope of the terrain). Just like the old rovermate did.

 

A part cfg variable that specifies the control orientation of a part variant would be a splendid way to solve this problem (he mused, oblivious as ever to the unseen code complexities).

Alternatively, if the game code does not allow that flexibility: just rotate the variant model 90 degrees so the window points 'up', with a corresponding adjustment of the node coordinates. If left as is now, that's what people will end up doing anyway, since that is within ModuleManager control.

Edited by swjr-swis
MM alternative
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my goodness, the most useless pod is going to become the most useful pod..S?!? Totally delighted by this, not nearly as concerned by the apparent window flimsiness as others here seem to be but maybe just the smallest tweaking to make it only a weeeee bit curvier and more durable wouldn't hurt, as long as it has a nice big open view since this is one of the things still severely lacking in KSP so far.

Now slap together a few stock hinges and propellers and make us able to stick a glob of chewing gum between parts to fuse them and sell the package to me for 30€ and I'll buy it right away! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not like it. 

Why have we lost the front window which was designed for forward and downward viewing?

What's with all the cluttered detail? The current one is nice and simple.


Why remove the skirting on the outside, presumably to make it more streamlined when in a stack (though useful to break it up visually when using the can on its own, especially on top of other parts with edges,)but make the back hatch jut out so much? 

It looks like it's meant to go in a stack, but hasn't really been thought out for use in other situations. 

 

Edited by Tw1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm digging the dual-function nature of the design now, but I'm with the others who want the kicked-out window for downward view. Not going to complain too much about the larger window area, though... Much needed, imo.

 

And re: crabbing rover wheels: Just reverse the steering on the wheels aft of the CoM via action groups. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RoverDude said:

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

IMO switchable (or just different) navball orientation for "rover" variant will be very welcome. As others said, steering reversal doesn't work well on sloped terrain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice! I will definitely be using the slim variant for a rover, and I like the idea of having integrated service bays on the sides.

While I do like the window design (nice and glassy for that all-important visibility) the surrounds are a little flimsy-looking. Otherwise, the hype is already building for 1.6 :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, ndiver said:

The new rover-like Mk2 is a great improvement and welcome for stock rover designs.

Am I wrong if I say that its lower front vision will not be good, especially compared to compared to other rover from mods, like the lovely Malemute, the Buffalo or the Lynx?

We've played with it - vision when used as a rover is very solid.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...