2 years and still no balanced command pods

[NikkyD]

I like the idea of having the option to use a really light weight can that has 0 protection and a heavier version with heatshield/aero (capsule). The parts are already there, but they are simply not balanced, never were except for the two 1.25m ones.

I don't care so much about historic ones, that could be added via mods to not clutter the stock game because mainly the stock game needs parts that allow building rockets after the same principle, like the fuel tanks. All except the oscar b tank have the same 1/9 dry mass ratio. With 1/4, 1/2 and 1 size fractions they allow more freedom than there are suitable engines or command pods.

[JacaByte]

It's worth noting that the stock Mk1-2 capsule is heavier than the Mk3 cockpit, which is a larger part. The logic behind this escapes me.

[NikkyD]

It has nothing to do with command stuff but... all mk2 parts have 45 m/s crash tolerance, ALL, even the long cargo bay... just the crew cabin does not! It has 6 m/s. QA at its finest.

[Beowolf]

Its simple values in a cfg file that MATTER a lot. So how hard is it to have one dev sit down and go over it for one hour ?! They have tweaked other things, so they had time for that but no one ever bothered with the pods.

Well, because they don't agree with your conclusion, probably. A capsule designed for deep space masses more per person than one designed to last a few hours in low orbit.

The last and heaviest Mercury capsule massed 1,400 kg, but the lightest Apollo capsules were 5,650 kg (1853 kg/person).

Russian Soyuz run even heavier, with a current one massing 7,150 kg for three cosmonauts. A shocking 2,383 kg/person for a short-term, low-orbit vehicle. But Soyuz are far more modular than Apollo was, which added to both their mass and their flexibility, resulting in the design's amazing longevity. Plus they all have these sweet built-in airlocks via depressuring the Orbital Module.

What you're after is a cheap surface-to-orbit taxi: SpaceX Dragon v2 will be 4,200 kg for seven people (600 kg/person). That figure even includes a fully redundant escape system enough fuel to soft-land on engines, and landing legs.

But, other than that nuclear engine, KSP rocketry is based in 1960s tech. A Dragon couldn't be built in the 60s for any amount of money. It takes another 50 years of progress in materials science and CAD to make a ship that light. When I want to play in the modern age, I use LazTek's SpaceX pack and recommend it. Dragon's such a flexible and useful vehicle I end up with them all over the solar system, though I always include an inflatable habitat on long missions so my Kerbals don't go stir-crazy.

I agree stock needs a better selection of command pods, and truly hate the lack of a Gemini-equivalent. But I believe your criticism of the Mk2 is misdirected. Making it lighter will just annoy all the realism players.

[Superfluous J]

Well, because they don't agree with your conclusion, probably. A capsule designed for deep space masses more per person than one designed to last a few hours in low orbit.

There is a major flaw in this logic. To send one Kerbal to Eeloo, you can use any command pod in the game. If you want the Mk1 to only work to send a Kerbal up to LKO and back, then that needs to be coded into the game somehow. I personally don't want that. I'd rather have logically massed/sized/priced command pods that all make sense when weighed against each other within the confines of the game.

[NikkyD]

What has the whole historic realism thing to do with the kerbal game balancing ?!

Once you install the realism mods you have the real stuff anyway.

[NikkyD]

Next patch is out... no change

They're changing physics upside-down but still the same old unbalanced command pods!

[Murph]

Next patch is out... no change

They're changing physics upside-down but still the same old unbalanced command pods!

From my point of view, they are not fixing them because the pods are neither broken nor unbalanced. You might not like it, but there's actually no requirement for the pods to be setup the way you would prefer, and zero downside from them remaining as-is from now until the end of time.

They work just fine right now, and it's entirely irrelevant if one pod weighs 2 elephants per passenger and the other weighs 3 whales per passenger. All that matters is if they can be used when stuck on top of a same diameter fuel tank and engine. In the case of every single pod, lander can, etc, they are all just fine by that simple measure; the 1.25m pod/can works just fine on a 1.25m stack, and the 2.5m pod/can works just fine on a 2.5m stack.

There are vastly more useful and important things for Squad to work on.

Personally, I think it's quite correct for the 2.5m pods to be heavier, as the weight is much more related to volume and not radius. I.e. it would be very wrong for the 2.5m pod/can to be twice the weight of the 1.25m pod/can; it should be a minimum of 4x the weight (yes, 4x would be for area, not volume, but it's a reasonable approximation of the absolute minimum likely weight for a doubled radius hollow cone).

Edited June 27, 2015 by Murph

[Tankman101]

Reviving a month old thread to express how salty you are.

I mean, that's a thing.

[Superfluous J]

From my point of view, they are not fixing them because the pods are neither broken nor unbalanced. You might not like it, but there's actually no requirement for the pods to be setup the way you would prefer, and zero downside from them remaining as-is from now until the end of time.

Yup. And 1-man lander cans should be hands-down the best and only thing you should ever use, from a game-balance perspective.