Come hear about KSP 1.1, straight from Squad!

[Alshain]

The 2 extant retractable ladders are only really different in appearance. They should take the Telus Mobility Enhancer, and make it have no "depth" that sticks radially inward, then it can be placed on a surface, and rotated out with no risk of the "tail" protruding. Would not affect existing designs, either.

Yeah but look at that door. It's so far down the ladder would be on the belly of the plane regardless of how deep it was. I agree, they could have more telescoping and take less internal space, but even if they did it won't work on that cockpit.

[panzer1b]

Am I the only one who thinks the new MK1 cockpit looks awesome, better than what we have now?

I dont mind either way.

90% of my fighter styled craft use rear mounted cockpits anyways as i was never a fan of having the most vulnurable part of my ship facing the enemy FlaK cannons head on. That and it makes my craft look more sci-fi and not like a F22 or F35 or (insert modern jet here) clone.

I still will most likely not use the new cockpit as i dont really like frontally mounted cockpits on anything but supply ships and non military craft (i dont even recall when ive made a "non-military" craft in the last 2 years playing KSP, even my peaceful mining rigs and explorators probes have missiles on them ). Then again, i will definitely take a look at it when it comes out, it cant be any worse then the current cockpit which while not bad and above average compared to some parts (2.5m 3 man pod im looking at your ugly model/texture thats from the pre KSP days, that and the turbojet looks bad), is still outdated a bit compared to teh new MK2 and MK3 stuff that looks stellar, heck, even the mk1 command pod while old looks decent enough to keep around as is.

i can see why a fighter styled is desired as many people make fighter jets from it, but its not like its a change that will affect me personally. Provided they dont ruin the MK1 inline thats the main cockpit of 90% of my designs due to the bar above teh corsshairs that help me aim missiles at enemy ships, ill still be happy.

That said, i like teh idea of the new engine, but i dont get why they keep going small, but ignore the larger needs of transporters. Its a really big pain to have to strap 20+ engines to get a not so heavy 300t cargo ship into orbit. Itd be much nicer if we could have 2-3 2.5m engines instead. Guess cutting down on part count isnt the priority for the devs, large SSTOs are all but dead for me as i dont want to have 100 bloody parts of just engines on it. Ohh, and a 47kn thrust maximum, thats very very weak, i bet itll be as underpowered as the current basic jet engine which is just useless for everything but slow low altitude stuff (if it had some stationary thrust id use it for VTOL, but for now its heavy and has way less thrust then the turbojet gives on the ground immobile.

Edited August 21, 2015 by panzer1b

[Svm420]

It's pretty sad that they can't even include an IVA in a part they make. Screams lazy to me, and replacing parts when they could add new things didn't they learn anything from the round 8?

[tater]

To be fair, we've had lots of good rocket parts for a long time. Plane parts, on the other hand, were a pretty sorry mess of unrelated components and odd bits.

Just counted 280 parts on the wiki. 98 are plane parts.

[Red Dwarf]

IVA's are hard to do man. I won't claim to know everything about modelling or programming, but hearing the devs talk about it, they're a real pain in the butt to put together. I'm just happy we're getting new content at all. Also, I don't really follow what you meant by "replacing parts". Did I miss something? What are they replacing?

[SmashBrown]

I'm glad, the current Mk-1 Redesign looks good but the shape is annoying around the sides, especially if you are trying to place a ladder. Though I'm concerned this one may not be much better, the door looks too low.

Just rotate the ladder.

[Streetwind]

I want that inline crew cabin especially for rockets, not planes! What makes you think it's only useful for planes? Do you even play the game?

[Wjolcz]

I was so into my career I wasn't expecting the image tease to be so soon.

I agree that the hatch on MK1 cockpit could be somewhere else. Maybe on the top where the small window is? Other than that I really love the fact that it finally got some love. I like the small engine.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Veeltch

[Svm420]

IVA's are hard to do man. I won't claim to know everything about modelling or programming, but hearing the devs talk about it, they're a real pain in the butt to put together. I'm just happy we're getting new content at all. Also, I don't really follow what you meant by "replacing parts". Did I miss something? What are they replacing?

New cockpit is the new mk1. No more mk1 fighters. Seriously you're making excuses for them? How long does it take a day or 2 tops? What are the artists doing then? They can't code so what are they doing? I'd rather wait and have a finished product that half assed laziness. And if it is too hard for the current artist find someone who can finish their work in a timely fashion.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Svm420

[Alshain]

Just rotate the ladder.

You can't. That's the point.

[Ignath]

Also, I don't really follow what you meant by "replacing parts". Did I miss something? What are they replacing?

The cockpit that was show in the screenshots is a replacement for the current mk1 "jet" cockpit.

[tater]

Just rotate the ladder.

As was said, you can't, since the "inside" bit will rotate out of the craft. On top of that, I think alshain's point is that the hatch is actually facing downwards, so the ladder would be sloping the wrong direction (overhanging).

[Alshain]

As was said, you can't, since the "inside" bit will rotate out of the craft. On top of that, I think alshain's point is that the hatch is actually facing downwards, so the ladder would be sloping the wrong direction (overhanging).

Yep, even if the "inside" bit wasn't there, putting the ladder rotated at the bottom of that door would create and awkward "v" shape that would be not only ugly but may not work.

[Bloody_looser]

To be fair, we've had lots of good rocket parts for a long time. Plane parts, on the other hand, were a pretty sorry mess of unrelated components and odd bits.

Oil drum styled tanks and stuff like that are nowhere near 'good parts'. And now we have Mk1 cockpit redone. Again.

[Red Dwarf]

New cockpit is the new mk1. No more mk1 fighters. Seriously your making excuses for them? How long does it take a day or 2 tops? What are the artists doing then? They can't code so what are they doing? I'd ratehr wait and have a finisheed product that half assed laziness

I dunno. I think fighter planes were never in the Big Plan for KSP. Planes in KSP, at least from a career mode perspective, would be for surveys and pleasure cruises for tourists. Having a model that fits with that purpose makes sense. Also, it's not like we're being deprived of a good looking cockpit for replica craft. Once they updated the Inline Mk 1, I found myself using it exclusively. It's a closer match for a lot of fighter planes anyway.

Also, I don't think either of us know enough to speculate on how the artists and programmers are spending their time They get done what they get done, and we take what we can get. If things don't look as pretty as they could, we get creative. That's what we've always done in the past. That's at the very core of replica building: Making due with what we have, and making it work.

[Yukon0009]

It would look really out if places on jet fighter jet styled planes like the stock Aeries 3.

[tater]

Oil drum styled tanks and stuff like that are nowhere near 'good parts'. And now we have Mk1 cockpit redone. Again.

Maybe they'll make the mk1 cockpit stats based upon the mk3 cockpit, which should result in it having negative mass.

Edited August 21, 2015 by tater

[FishInferno]

http://imgur.com/jRpgEBP new Mk.1 cockpit!

It's, it's beautiful (sheds tear)

[Yukon0009]

Does that thing have a IVA yet?

[Red Dwarf]

Does that thing have a IVA yet?

As far as we know, no. The plan may be to use the original IVA as a stand-in until they can focus their attentions on proper IVA's for the new cockpit and crew can.

[Yukon0009]

I hope they make an IVA for it.

[Cydonian Monk]

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?

[Bloody_looser]

Maybe they'll make the mk1 cockpit stats based upon the mk3 cockpit, which should result in in having negative mass.

Discussing parts stats would derail the thread even further.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Bloody_looser

[Wjolcz]

It would look really out if places on jet fighter jet styled planes like the stock Aeries 3.

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.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Veeltch

[SmashBrown]

You can't. That's the point.

Im sure you can... i could be wrong. Using the vab stuff? Or am i missing the point?