Discussion about the Mk.3 aircraft parts

[KvickFlygarn87]

They are honestly the least used parts on my end; the command pod is redundant and adapting them to the 1.25m or the 2.5m one (which you have to since there are no Mk3 engines) looks ugly as crap.

Summarizing, either more or less Mk3 parts.

[dryer_lint]

I agree that we need some sort of Mk3 engine, maybe one that looks like the space shuttle engine. I'd really like one because the Mk3 pod looks pretty cool (or it would if it had IVA) but, like you said, adding all those adapters makes it look horrible.

[Thomas988]

Mk3 is an abomination. The lack of dedicated parts for that line of cockpit is ridiculous, and I really think the textures are in need of a MAJOR overhaul. Please, Squad, do something!

[BudgetHedgehog]

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the Mk3 series would be better off scrapped completely and started again as a different line of parts/shape/idea. These are my reasons I currently find them useless:

• They are the most Shuttle shaped things, but the only fuel tank just holds liquid fuel so it's useless in space
  
• The CoM is too low
  
• The attach node is too low because
  
• The only other parts that attach neatly to the cockpit are the fuel tank and the Mk2-3 adapter
  
• If cargo bays were to ever become stock, you can't fit 2m parts in there (on the other hand, 1m parts would fit ok though, but on the other other hand, they also fit in the Mk2 shape, albeit with little room to spare)
  
• There's no way to fit anything on the back end that still looks ok and that isn't the adapter
  
• It has the most bizarre outline/silhouette
  
• The IVA is worse than awful
  

Yes, the textures are also awful, but not as egregious as the above points.

[Nuke]

i think they either require a complete overhaul or complete replacement. i dont really want to see them removed because they are really the only parts that look like they belong on a space plane in the stock game.

[MKI]

Theres a difference between useless and outdated.

The spaceplane parts in general need an update, i personally do not feel the parts should be changed to drastically they break older saves. Along with an update to the old parts, there need to be new parts to create uniformality between the Rocket parts and the Spaceplane parts.

Currently the parts are just difficult to adapt to the current parts. BUT these are the "Shuttle Parts", so getting rid of them completly would mess up certain designs.

I don't use these parts often, but i do use them because they have the right shape to make bigger planes. They are hard to work with but can give good visual results. Making Shuttles is still extremely difficult, but it MUST be done with these parts.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Theres a difference between useless and outdated.

The spaceplane parts in general need an update, i personally do not feel the parts should be changed to drastically they break older saves. Along with an update to the old parts, there need to be new parts to create uniformality between the Rocket parts and the Spaceplane parts.

Currently the parts are just difficult to adapt to the current parts. BUT these are the "Shuttle Parts", so getting rid of them completly would mess up certain designs.

I don't use these parts often, but i do use them because they have the right shape to make bigger planes. They are hard to work with but can give good visual results. Making Shuttles is still extremely difficult, but it MUST be done with these parts.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, they're pretty much useless. See my list for reasons why. Yeah, they're almost Shuttle shaped but as I said, the only fuel tank doesn't hold oxidiser so you need secondary tanks to make it space-worthy. And if we're being pedantic, the Shuttle didn't contain any fuel for it's engines at all, only hypergolic stuff for its OMS - it was pretty much just a big cargo bay. As there are no cargo bay parts in stock (or even mods, I don't think), I honestly can't see why these would be used for 'Shuttle' based missions. You're just carting up either a buttload of useless fuel or an empty fuel tank.

And you can make Shuttles with any parts, who said you MUST use the Mk3 parts? I'd make one with the Mk1-2 pod or the Near Future pod if I could make Shuttles at all, there's a much wider variety of things to put behind it instead of just one fuel tank.

[sp1989]

I think an IVA is essential and dedicated parts for it are obvious solutions. However I think a reasonable looking adapter for it so I can use it as the command Capsule on interstellar voyages would be great too. I mean something that blends seamlessly into the shape and possibly a decoupler so I can return it to Kerbin without it looking like my ship broke apart. I think the potential for it to be a "top of the line" capsule in the new contracts and money system is huge. But right now its collecting dust in my hanger. I don't think I ever used except when I first started playing and made some really wonky looking rockets.

[LethalDose]

Eh, I used to think they were pointless, but I've found uses for the cockpit and adapter in my SSTO to move 4 kerbal passengers + a pilot to LKO. The width and heat shield texture flows pretty seemlessly from the Mk2 to the Mk3.

I do agree that the singular Mk3 fuel tank is difficult to use because very few players use aircraft large enough to need these tanks without needed oxizer as well. I think I would prefer to see the Mk3 parts expanded to include:

• LFO tanks
  
• A passenger cabin
  
• A Mk3-2.5 adapter
  
• Maybe a structural fuselage?
  
• A cargo bay(s)
  

Sure, give 'em a face lift, but I don't think they, or other parts, should be scrapped. I cannot understand this push to remove parts that players don't use. Just because you don't use them doesn't mean nobody uses them.

[MKI]

I utilize the MK3 Fuel tank as a support unit, i remove the fuel from it. Being one of the lighter larger parts it fits this role VERY well. Giving great shape and structure at a low weight cost works well for glider dedicated shuttle designs.

Now personally getting around the lack of rocket fuel options is easy, there are multiple ways to efficiently partclip in rocket fuel tanks into the MK3 body, keeping things streamlined, lined up and balanced.

So yes i am dragging a .3 ton structural part that litterally is there to hold everything together at the back of my shuttle. But i would personally say its pretty efficient in that regard.

I never said you MUST use these parts, but the simple fact that you can and people do use them doesn't make them useless. Removal of parts doesn't make sense as their is no point in reducing parts. Regardless of how you feel about them, before the next update the Radial Engine Body literally was useless, but now it will have an actual use in gameplay.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I never said you MUST use these parts

You really did though:

Making Shuttles is still extremely difficult, but it MUST be done with these parts.

I have more to say but I'm half asleep right now.

[MKI]

I have more to say but I'm half asleep right now.

I guess i did, say you MUST use these parts.

I was tired when i posted that too, i really meant something along the lines of how the parts are designed exactly for shuttles and not much more. Its easiest to get a good looking shuttle using those parts, which is where the "must" comes from.

[Sky_walker]

I'd really like one because the Mk3 pod looks pretty cool (or it would if it had IVA)

Nope, it doesn't. It looks horrendous. Not to mention that it looks like something taken out of a mod - doesn't fit the game ascetics at all.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: the Mk3 series would be better off scrapped completely and started again as a different line of parts/shape/idea.

THIS.

[Red Iron Crown]

I like the look of the Mk3 cockpit, but its offset CoM and attachment nodes are infuriating. I think it looks ok with the other stock parts, but I use a cuboct to fix the offset node and just deal with the CoM being off centerline.

Detail of a recent interplanetary ship using Mk3 cockpit:

[CaptRobau]

Theres a difference between useless and outdated.

The spaceplane parts in general need an update, i personally do not feel the parts should be changed to drastically they break older saves. Along with an update to the old parts, there need to be new parts to create uniformality between the Rocket parts and the Spaceplane parts.

Currently the parts are just difficult to adapt to the current parts. BUT these are the "Shuttle Parts", so getting rid of them completly would mess up certain designs.

I don't use these parts often, but i do use them because they have the right shape to make bigger planes. They are hard to work with but can give good visual results. Making Shuttles is still extremely difficult, but it MUST be done with these parts.

You need to break eggs to make an omelette. The basic setup of these parts is so wrong, compared to how modern KSP can and should work that keeping them too much the same, just to keep some legacy designs, would make the improvements useless. Yes, the revised parts can keep a recognizable shape (the Mk2 spaceplane mod shows that in HD the MK2 system looks stunning). But things like the model, the attach nodes, etc. are so badly designed that they need to be redone.

[karolus10]

Mk3 Parts are pretty much a placeholder parts from spaceplane update released 2 years ago, they where basically a C7 mod parts with couple improvements and they will be most likely replaced with entirely different spaceplane parts later on, when game will be pretty much completed and devs will focus on improving existing content and features.

Edited July 12, 2014 by karolus10

[Random Tank]

Just edit the .cfgs if you want the fuselages to be useful. As they're quite a bit bigger than a FLT800, but have much higher impact resistance, I made them hold 450/550 LFO, then made a SSTO out of them... Works quite well!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Javster]

They do look exactly like ancient mod parts...

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

They aren't useless. Add a rocket fuel tank with 240 less fuel in it and both the problem of oxidizer and COM is solved. For the case of dumb weird attachment points use the BZ-52 Radial Attachment Points. But these are botch solutions. 2 options should be added to them:

• What's in it: Liqulid fuel, LFO, or nothing ( structural fuelsage )
  
• And for its type: lots of fuel, the courrent low fuel ammout (with a lot better fuel-mass ratio), or (MOST IMPORTANTLY) a cargo bay
  

For optimal desgins there'd be a half-lenght, smaller Mk.3 fuelsage, with the mentioned options.

Low COM is good as it gives more stability to planes and comes handy with shuttles. Adjusting the COT is hard anyways because of that, that's why adapters for engines would not solve that. My thread have been merged with this, that's topic was about the Mk.3 cockpit. Here is that:

---

Greetings.

(Before all, I am new here, and my upload is not working. could someone help me fix that? thank you.)

I think there's still some work to be done with the Mk.3 fuelsage system.

Do you like the Mk.3 cockpit and fuelsage? ( 'cause I do not )

First of all, I think there are several things to fix on the Mk.3 Cockpit.

-My main problem is that it is not having an IVA view.

-Secondly, I don't like it's shape. It's not fitting with any plane's image.

-Thirdly, I can't find a nose-cone that is fitting with it. (the Aerodynamic Nose Cone in colour)

But still, it is the best choice for big planes, looks better on planes than the Mk.1-2 Command Pod. I think a remake would help it to be much better.

What do you think?

I also made a draw of my idea for that how it could be made into the pod with the best view from it.

-It was drawn onto the previous image, the represented kerbals are real-sized ( relatively to the fuelsage )

-Because the pilot is close to the vindow wich is having a steeper angle, there is a very good view from IVA. Better than from the Mk.1 cockpit. Top windows are there because they would be cool.

-As the original Mk.3 cockpit is seen from the front, there'd be no window for the kerbal sitting in the middle, so he could be looking backwards, maybe with a window wich from he could see into a cargo bay behind the cockpit. Or he could be sitting in the lower floor, just like the mission specialist at the STS, or simply like the third passenger in the Mk.1-2 Command Pod. Or four of them at the top... Describe what you think...

-At a lower floor there could be the third passenger or you could go down there in the upcoming IVA version (As I know they're going to add it once), beds could be there, but because kerbals do not sleep, rather tables and funny things like in the PPD-10 Hittchhiker Storage Container, there could be the airlock, but most importantly, a window.

-An addition could be an RCS nosecone right fitting to it. I've copied the layer of the nosecone I've drawed onto a Mk.2 cockpit, to show that it is fitting with other cockpits too.

An RCS nose cone could have 100 RCS fuel in it, and the thrust of 3 RCS thrusters to all direction ( expect for backwards, where the connection is )

I've made a subassembly from how it could work, and if everything is fine, I've uploaded it.

http://file:///C:/Program%20Files%20%28x86%29/Steam/SteamApps/common/Kerbal%20Space%20Program/saves/TT/Subassemblies/RCS%20Nose%20cone.craft

This is how it looks like

The arranging of thusters and tanks under the nose cone

3 thrusters to all directions

Would you support a remake of this cockpit?

(Sorry for mistakes in my english)

Edited July 12, 2014 by CaptainTurbomuffin

[Red Iron Crown]

You need to upload your images somewhere like imgur.com for us to be able to see them.

Edited July 12, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Merged threads make me sound like I repeat myself.

[CaptainTurbomuffin]

You need to upload your images somewhere like imgur.com for us to be able to see them.

I like the Mk3 cockpit, but its offset CoM and attachment nodes make it difficult to use in an aesthetically pleasing manner.

Thank you! now my images are working!

[BudgetHedgehog]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/85535-Let-s-face-it-the-Mk3-part-system-is-useless

[BudgetHedgehog]

Just edit the .cfgs if you want the fuselages to be useful. As they're quite a bit bigger than a FLT800, but have much higher impact resistance, I made them hold 450/550 LFO, then made a SSTO out of them... Works quite well!

http://imgur.com/a/nKrDW

I might end up doing that (editing the configs and what have you, as well as offsetting the CoM) if I ever use the thing, but omg, what mod is that ALS from?! I'm assuming Kerbtown or similar?

[Tw1]

I also like the MK3, but not so much for planes. It makes a stylish end to my rover.

It definitelly needs some polishing, perhaps a little reshapement, but I'd miss the angularity it brings, despite how it's hard to make aerodynamic looking planes with it, without other MK3 parts. Though you can always use the MK3 parts...

Edited July 12, 2014 by Tw1

[Random Tank]

I might end up doing that (editing the configs and what have you, as well as offsetting the CoM) if I ever use the thing, but omg, what mod is that ALS from?! I'm assuming Kerbtown or similar?

I would, it makes them useful, that plane still has about 3-4k of dV after orbit, and looks quite good too! The ALS is from a mod called KerbinSide, it improves on the KSC and adds about 15 more launch points around Kerbin (each with unique models, quite well done, and even includes KSC 2). Good mod!