Jump to content

Remove the nosecone on the new mk1Cockpit - Gifs and pictures


Should the nosecone on the new mk1Cockpit model be replaced with a 0.625 node?  

185 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the nosecone on the new mk1Cockpit model be replaced with a 0.625 node?

    • Remove the nosecone
    • Keep the nosecone


Recommended Posts

  ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:
The picture with the ncs cone doesn't look like it would in-game, though. To find out, we would need a screenshot of it in-game.

Hmm...

Avera9ejoe, are you up for this?

Indifferent. :P

- - - Updated - - -

  ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:
The incorrect scaling on the example pictures was also bugging me, since it made it look ugly and I knew it wasn't right. So I found out what it should really look like.

It should look like this:

http://i.imgur.com/gJV55u5.jpg

Hm... I'll look into that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Alshain said:
As I said, that looks hideous. It doesn't match the slope of the cockpit for a nice smooth appearance like the original picture. I was actually talking about the small nose cone though. In either case they don't work, they have a sudden change in pitch. It needs to be lengthened and made more gradual to fit this cockpit.

I see what you mean, but I just figured out that the ncs nosecone has a slightly rounder shape, so it might fit right after all. Also, it mostly looks bad due to a tiny size difference that I just noticed, so it should be a little smaller. In-game, the angle difference would barely be visible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It just looks bad. We already have some parts that don't look good no matter what you attach to the front of them - Mk3 cockpit and both Mk2-to-Mk1 adapters. Don't turn the new smooth and sleek cockpit into one more of those parts.

And even if you make avionics hub fit, there's no other part that would look good in its place. Just no reason to spoil PorkJet's design.

Edited by Kuu Lightwing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Azimech said:
I want it, but with the original nose cone as a separate part and have it a seamless connection to the cockpit. This way, looks are retained for the ones who want it, while giving the flexibility to others.

That would be a great possibility actually... It wouldn't lose any aesthetic appeal but still be replaceable with other parts. I hope that would be doable with textures...

Edited by Avera9eJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Azimech said:
I want it, but with the original nose cone as a separate part and have it a seamless connection to the cockpit. This way, looks are retained for the ones who want it, while giving the flexibility to others.

Excellent. Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it with the integrated cone better, tbh. It's one less part, affecting both performance and speed of construction. We already have a cockpit with a front node, this just seems redundant.

Semi-related: What really needs to happen is for the standard node sizes to actually be consistent. Try putting 0.625m parts on top of a Mk1 capsule, or 2.5m parts on a Mk2 lander can, it just looks bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Red Iron Crown said:
Semi-related: What really needs to happen is for the standard node sizes to actually be consistent. Try putting 0.625m parts on top of a Mk1 capsule, or 2.5m parts on a Mk2 lander can, it just looks bad.

Or 1.25 meter parts on top of a Mk1-2 Command Pod. Agreed. If the MK1 was designed for the Mk-16 (is that the one? The small white one) parachute, then make the parachute 0.625 meters at its widest point (which will sit flush with the node) and widen the top connector on the capsule. Same goes for any parts. It would increase the fluidity of building, allowing more parts to interconnect seamlessly.

Edited by Starwhip
Top. I said top!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  FishInferno said:
Honestly why is there such a big fuss about this? I say leave the nosecone built in. Everyone was perfectly fine with the old cockpit having a built-in nose, so why is it an issue now?

I always felt the old 0,625m nose cones were pretty useless, especially since there are stock fairings. When building aircraft, they never seem to fit 'right', and with anything bigger like the Mk3 noses, they don't fit properly in any design

IMO, the avionics nose cone, tiny nose cone and NCS were already overdue for an update, so the Mk1 cockpit revamp is only an opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Aladran said:
How will it work with our actual craft with Mk1 Cockpit? I have a bunch of craft using it, they would all look ugly noseless

All you would need to do is add a nosecone back on. :) The textures could be made to match seamlessly so there wouldn't be any aesthetic loss. There really aren't any downsides to making the nosecone removable as all it would to is add one extra part, and reading up on Unity 5 is prooving to me that that will have very negligible effects in the next update of KSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm starting to flip sides. I can't see any good use with removing the cone. I guess what I would like is to make this new cockpit a normal cockpit, and have the old one as a separate cockpit, and make the old one a two-seater with a new IVA and working air intakes. I guess I don't care whether it has a nose or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I'm not done with this thread after all, and I'm staring to see some uses for removing the cone (A docking port jr., for example). Also, those who say that the NCS cone doesn't fit are wrong. Just look at the GIF.

CfE5yfu.gif

See? It fits so perfectly!

qKlOUo1.gif

The avionics cone does too. Told you the angle change would be barely noticable.

- - - Updated - - -

I still want my above idea to happen, with the two cockpits, but this would be one of the big differences between the two cockpits.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...