Jump to content

Come hear about KSP 1.1, straight from Squad!

Streetwind

By Streetwind
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Yukon0009

Yukon0009

Posted
Posted
Well, it's not meant to be "Kerbal Space/Jet Fighter Program" and more like "Kerbal Non-Military-Focused-On-Exploring-Rather-Than-Fighting Space Program".

I mean, there were aircraft that were used by NASA and had weapon carrying capability, but only because NASA is kind of poor compared to US Army and can't afford producing 1-man crewed jets on their own. It's way easy to reuse stuff someone else already replaced and doesn't have any use for them apart from weapon testing.

Valid point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kuu Lightwing

Kuu Lightwing

Posted
Posted (edited)
Well, it's not meant to be "Kerbal Space/Jet Fighter Program" and more like "Kerbal Non-Military-Focused-On-Exploring-Rather-Than-Fighting Space Program".

I mean, there were aircraft that were used by NASA and had weapon carrying capability, but only because NASA is kind of poor compared to US Army and can't afford producing 1-man crewed jets on their own. It's way easier to reuse stuff someone else already replaced and doesn't have any use for them apart from weapon testing.

The upside is that they got their hands on the coolest jet ever:

610px-SR-71_LASRE_cold_test.jpg

Edited by Kuu Lightwing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted
A Lear jet canopy for a single seat aerospace plane? Seriously???

I find that a wee bit horrible. At the very least the canopy should be clear on top and far to the rear.

Why? Did shuttle pilots need to check 6 a lot? It has a window on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Dwarf

Red Dwarf

Posted
Posted
I think they're going to use the old IVA, and update it when they get the chance, which is fine by me.

My thoughts exactly. I never use IVA anyway, and since it doesn't have an affect on how the part performs, it won't bother me if it isn't perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wjolcz

Wjolcz

Posted
Posted

But how much 'rocket' parts we've got in a bunch of latest updates? - Like three or four. And 'plane' parts? - All of them.

I know you said stuff later on in this thread, but I want to reply to this one: Winged aircraft are far more complicated than rockets that simply go "up & gravity turn 'til you're out of the atmosphere". Airplanes need far more specialized parts than rockets. I'm not saying rockets are inferior, it's just that they are simpler, that's why we've been using them for at least 70 years to go in space and not SSTOs.

I will also say a tweakable for what kind of fuel we want to keep in our tanks would be a simple and amazing thing to have. That would also reduce the amount of spaceplane parts we have now and save some RAM for new, rocket-y ones.

A Lear jet canopy for a single seat aerospace plane? Seriously???

I find that a wee bit horrible. At the very least the canopy should be clear on top and far to the rear.

Well, I'm not going to disagree with this, but it makes more sense than a cockpit that is F-22 inspired. A glass canopy isn't something you want to have when reentering the atmosphere in flames. The less glass there is the higher the chance it won't crack and kill the crew inside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DancesWithSquirrels

DancesWithSquirrels

Posted
Posted

"Why? Did shuttle pilots need to check 6 a lot? It has a window on top."

When I think of developing craft in KSP, I like to think along NASA lines - rockets and X-planes.

The new model _is_ a fairly close match to the X-1 cockpit, and _could_ almost stand in for the X-15's (the in-line cockpit is a better match, although that looks a bit cartoonish with the current textures), although for the X-1 the top window is a bit silly. But the most of the single-seat X-planes have something closer to a fighter canopy, with a clear top.

Bell_X-1_color.jpg

Bell X-1

X24.jpg

X-24

1280px-Grumman-X29-InFlight.jpg

X-29

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaverickSawyer

MaverickSawyer

Posted
Posted
Wow. I agree the geometry on the current Mk1 is a little weird, and while I really rather like this new part I'm sad to hear it's replacing the old one. These look like two completely different things. The current Mk1 makes sense for a spaceplane. The new one looks like a purely low-atmosphere craft.

How many times has the Mk1 cockpit been redone now? 3? And yet we're still using the same two capsules that we've had for at least two years?

Yeah, but they work just fine. I'm quite happy with them, tbh.

That said, of you don't like the potential new Mk1 spaceplane cockpit, back up the existing one and overwrite the new one. It's that simple. No need to groan and moan... unless that's just what you enjoy doing. If that's the case, then I have no sympathy for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bloody_looser

Bloody_looser

Posted
Posted
I know you said stuff later on in this thread, but I want to reply to this one: Winged aircraft are far more complicated than rockets that simply go "up & gravity turn 'til you're out of the atmosphere". Airplanes need far more specialized parts than rockets. I'm not saying rockets are inferior, it's just that they are simpler, that's why we've been using them for at least 70 years to go in space and not SSTOs.

I will also say a tweakable for what kind of fuel we want to keep in our tanks would be a simple and amazing thing to have. That would also reduce the amount of spaceplane parts we have now and save some RAM for new, rocket-y ones.

Well, SSTOs are still just a concept and rockets are way to go. :wink:

Such tweakable is a thing needed for a long time. Maybe, some special tanks like xenon should be left as is. Though it looks like SQUAD's vision of the game - all LEGOy and stuff - leaves no room for tweaking contents of a tank. Well, I still kinda hope we'll get it someday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alshain

Alshain

Posted
Posted

I don't see why they couldn't just add another part. Call the old one Mk-1F for fighter. It doesn't make sense to me to get rid of a perfectly good texture, even if I don't like it.

If you guys want it, you saw what we did with the Round8. The ball is in your court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wjolcz

Wjolcz

Posted
Posted (edited)
If you really want to keep it, just remove the part folder for the cockpit, change the name and title fields, update, then put the part folder back in.

Exactly. No point in keeping a cockpit that looks bad. It probably won't even break the crafts with it anyway.

EDIT: Don't forget we have the inline cockpit with glass canopy, so if you want a jet fighter use that. Looks far better than the other one too.

Edited by Veeltch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
klgraham1013

klgraham1013

Posted
Posted
I don't see why they couldn't just add another part. Call the old one Mk-1F for fighter. It doesn't make sense to me to get rid of a perfectly good texture, even if I don't like it.

It makes perfect sense. One of the first things a creative type must learn is to kill your darlings. Sometimes you have to hit delete on that thing you love for the betterment of the whole. That being said, does it make sense for a post 1.0 game? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RocketPilot573

RocketPilot573

Posted
Posted

I love the new cockpit! Though I would really appreciate it if this was a NEW part rather than just replacing the current one. The current one is a fighter jet cockpit, the new one is quite different, having both wont hurt anything. :)

Also, about the new jet engine, I think it is cool, but I think many people could have benefited more from a 2.5 meter engine...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wjolcz

Wjolcz

Posted
Posted (edited)
It makes perfect sense. One of the first things a creative type must learn is to kill your darlings. Sometimes you have to hit delete on that thing you love for the betterment of the whole.

I agree with this.

I love the new cockpit! Though I would really appreciate it if this was a NEW part rather than just replacing the current one. The current one is a fighter jet cockpit, the new one is quite different, having both wont hurt anything. :)

All the good-looking fighter jets I know about have a glass blob (inline mk1 cockpit) on the top of them.

Also, about the new jet engine, I think it is cool, but I think many people could have benefited more from a 2.5 meter engine...

2.5m jet engine...? Why tho? I need a real life example.

Edited by Veeltch
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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...