Remove the nosecone on the new mk1Cockpit - Gifs and pictures

[HafCoJoe]

I swear the poll has swapped leaders three times now. I really hope the change is made. There isn't any word from anyone official but I'm hoping for the best. Keep voting everyone!

[clivman]

If they make the chopped off nose cone a new part I support this

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

But we already have that

- - - Updated - - -

It's the small nose cone! It fits so perfectly!

[clivman]

But we already have that

http://i.imgur.com/CfE5yfu.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

It's the small nose cone! It fits so perfectly!

That photo is edited I believe

[HafCoJoe]

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.

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

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.

[clivman]

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.

[HafCoJoe]

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 . 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 August 30, 2015 by Avera9eJoe

[GDJ]

Remove the nose cone, but make it available for users to put it on at their option.

[Mutex]

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.

[Wanderfound]

If they do end up chopping the nose, it emphasises the need for a shielded small docking port.

[TheCatMan17]

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.

[royying]

I found that addition nose cone (stock or mod part) can never look like a "one part", either the shape not match or color not match.

But

.

.

.

Why not both?

[JMBuilder]

I say chop it off. Full support.

[FungusForge]

I vote to chop it off.

[JMBuilder]

Come to think of it, the base nosecone that it currently has is longer than the small nosecone part. I like the idea of having the normal cockpit as well as the chopped-off cockpit. It would add a nice extra option.

[SargeRho]

Off with the cone!

[Wanderfound]

This is turning into an aeronautical bris.

[SpaceKraken]

Remove keba~ er... the nosecone...

Why i can't vote!?

[pincushionman]

The only problem I have with "chopped nose" is it means another part slot is taken up on planes. When there's already a 30-part limit in the level 1 SPH.

[Starwaster]

If it's a cone, you must leave it alone!

[HafCoJoe]

If it's a cone, you must leave it alone!

that rhymes.

[FireFaced]

Off with the cone!

EDIT: *eats rep*

Edited September 3, 2015 by FireFaced

[Noname117]

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 September 3, 2015 by Noname117

[HafCoJoe]

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.