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

  clivman said:
That photo is edited I believe

If you mean the nosecone was ripped out of a screenshot and then darkened to match the rendered lighting in the rendered image, yes it was edited :). It's the same size and shape as stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:
And it was only darkened because the brightness of the cockpit rendering was darker than the brightness of the nose cone picture. They're the same color.

Okay that makes more sense now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:
They're the same color.

I do have to sadly point out that there are like 5 different shades of black/gray among stock parts though :P. Old vs. new rocket parts and old vs. new spaceplane parts. And then there are a few different shades noticeable in the mk2 part's white coat as well.

Edited by Avera9eJoe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A possible alternative would be to provide a 1.25m -> 0.625m adapter which can be put on the front of the mk1 inline cockpit, to achieve the same functionality. Chances are it won't look as nice though.

I think the spaceplanes in general need some very light, fairly short adapters between gauges, because going from one to the other can be a pain. Especially with mk2, you basically have to use heavy fuel tanks each time which puts heavy restraints on your design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they should remove the nosecone. The mk1 cockpit that we have now doesn't have it's nose chopped off!

If they DO take off the nosecone, then we would just have another inline cockpit, and besides, I don't want to put in extra effort for a nosecone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may actually be a tough one. I voted to chop it off, and then realized the one actually competent argument of the people who would want to keep it on: Career mode. Leaving the nosecone on would allow them an extra part on their aircraft early in the campaign. However, building a plane with an avionics package which looks smooth (no part clipping) would take 3 parts (cockpit+adapter+avionics package), while cutting off the nose of the Mk 1 would be only 2 parts, allowing those planes an extra part. In the meantime, the Mk 1 capsule has identical node connections, but who the heck is going to use that piece of junk for an aircraft?

Anyways, my answer is still yes. The small hit to part count and aesthetics is far outweighed by the benefits of versatility for the nose of the aircraft. Then again, with the gizmos you could just radially attach the extra parts and then offset and rotate them into position...

Alright, now I truly believe that this discussion is pointless, as the issues both sides have with this are too easily fixed if they don't get their way.

EDIT: Except for being able to place a junior docking port on the nose, but there are going to be few situations where you cannot place it elsewhere.

Edited by Noname117
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  noname117 said:
This may actually be a tough one. I voted to chop it off, and then realized the one actually competent argument of the people who would want to keep it on: Career mode. Leaving the nosecone on would allow them an extra part on their aircraft early in the campaign. However, building a plane with an avionics package which looks smooth (no part clipping) would take 3 parts (cockpit+adapter+avionics package), while cutting off the nose of the Mk 1 would be only 2 parts, allowing those planes an extra part. In the meantime, the Mk 1 capsule has identical node connections, but who the heck is going to use that piece of junk for an aircraft?

Anyways, my answer is still yes. The small hit to part count and aesthetics is far outweighed by the benefits of versatility for the nose of the aircraft. Then again, with the gizmos you could just radially attach the extra parts and then offset and rotate them into position...

Alright, now I truly believe that this discussion is pointless, as the issues both sides have with this are too easily fixed if they don't get their way.

EDIT: Except for being able to place a junior docking port on the nose, but there are going to be few situations where you cannot place it elsewhere.

Well I almost always place a parachute on my planes in career so placing one on the nosecone of a new model would be fine by me. That is a fair point though.

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...