What barts need a Buff for 1.0

[Rath]

to start this off the 1-2command pod relly needs a BIG reduction if weight-the mk3 cockpit is lighter bet it holds more kerbals monoprop and electric charge. Have you never noticed how nobody uses the mk55 radial engine, because it is almost usless:mad:

[Tex]

Yes, but the Mk55 Radial Engine was buffed in .90. It's now quite a bit more efficient than it used to be, and with a thrust of 120 It's a good mid-range radial engine for landers that need to be kept short. Not useless, I've seen plenty of designs that use it

Also, remember that the Mk3 Cockpit is a spaceplane part. Using it on a rocket, while possible, will affect the center of mass because I don't believe it's balanced like the Mk1-2 Pod is. They're two different classes of command pods, there isn't much point comparing them.

[OhioBob]

I've used the Mk55 frequently on two-part spacecraft that are connected inline with a docking port. The Mk55 provides a good engine for the forward part.

Example:

Maximus97 is right about the upgrading of the Mk55 in 0.90. I believe it's vacuum specific impulse was changed from 290 s to 360 s. The Mk55 is still on the heavy side, but it's performance is now good enough not to be a detriment.

[Thomas988]

I'm still amazed how little use there is for probe cores. Most of them are the exact same part but in a different shape. They need much more variation for me to care more about making satellites.

[Guest]

Well, the probe cores got variation in .90. They have different SAS abilities.

[Daze]

Well, the probe cores got variation in .90. They have different SAS abilities.

This isn't a good variation

[Slam_Jones]

I'm still amazed how little use there is for probe cores. Most of them are the exact same part but in a different shape. They need much more variation for me to care more about making satellites.

This isn't a good variation

Well what sort of variation would you suggest?

The variables I can think of are:

- Size

- Shape (octo, hex, flat, tall, etc.)

- Weight

- Electricity drain

- SAS ability

Which are all varied in the available probe cores.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[KrazyKrl]

Well what sort of variation would you suggest?

The variables I can think of are:

- Size

- Shape (octo, hex, flat, tall, etc.)

- Weight

- Electricity drain

- SAS ability

Which are all varied in the available probe cores.

I'd say something with more functionality. Possibly via tweakables that raise the probe core's mass.

It would help keep part counts down on very small craft; as long as the item adds more mass than the standalones, and the components are at least 30% more costly.

- Antennas

- Experiments (Goo Container + Data collection(thermometer, barometer, gravity detector, etc...))

- Resource scanner

- Batteries

- Small RTGs

The model for the probe core could change also, to outwardly display the change.

[moronwrocket]

Well, do you expect a late-tech space program to use early-tech cores? I could see that for dumber items like comsats deployed in space from a bus a dumber core might be worth it, if there was a cost or mass delta. There are a couple of features the cores could vary on

Mass

EC storage

Maneuver capabilities

Torque

Cost

It would be nice if there was greater variation in cost and EC storage IMO. Maybe a top tier probe core like the Remote Guidance Units could include 500 EC storage in the RCS-001S and 2000 in the RCS-L01, and built in surface mounted solar panels, for double the current price. It would help reduce part count for my larger multi-deployment RemoteTech/probe mega-assemblies.

[Jouni]

A random idea for probe/command pod rebalancing:

• All probe cores function as pilots. Their pilot level depends on the tier of the R&D at the time of the launch.
  
• Instead of having separate sensor parts, there are three abstract sensor sets: atmospheric, space, and surface. A crew report/probe report always includes sensor data. If the craft has no relevant sensors, the report is worth less science points.
  
• A probe core has room for 0, 1, 2, or 3 sets of sensors, depending on its size. The sensors can be chosen freely.
  
• Command pods, lander cans, and cockpits always have the set of sensors fitting for their purpose. Large ones have room for more sensors.
  
• Large command pods can carry better tools for the crew. Engineer tools allow engineers perform more extensive construction/repair work, while scientist tools give better EVA reports from surface. All multi-kerbal modules (except the Mk2 spaceplane ones, which are supposed to be lightweight) carry one set of tools, which can be chosen freely.
  

[Whirligig Girl]

This isn't a good variation

I agree. THey should specifically have different ones available, rather than leveling up. But then, you don't really need any more than stability assist. Maybe if they had their own science reports.

For instance:

Stayputnik: Radio-frequency test (To find how space affects radio signals)