Kerbart Posted November 5, 2018 Share Posted November 5, 2018 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.