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

I'd like to see this cockpit both with and without nosecones.

In particular, I get why there is a demand for being able to swap out the nosecone, and in some cases I might even want the same.

But I was really looking forward to seeing the new nosecone on my SSTOs, purely for aesthetics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh come on man! You even changed your avatar to support this silly idea!

If you keep it like this I'll have to change mine to "Keep the cone" with the same picture to counter you, because I really don't want that to happen.

Bu nothing would be changed...

You could still use the cone on it to "fix" it in-game.

Plus, we would get a much better 0.625 m nose cone. That's a bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only a small thing, the nosecone, but it can have a big impact.

The current Mk1 and Mk2 inline cockpits, the Aerospike, the Mammoth, they all have this build restriction of having to be the end of a vessel, if you want to use these parts you have to take that into consideration.

This adds an element of design that would be lost if any part can be used anywhere, it exists with other parts too, as for example most engines are not radially mountable.

It's a trade-off, a choice, a decision that means you have to be a bit more creative with where you put other parts, it adds variation and thought, and helps define parts as being different from each other.

It isn't as adaptable, it's not meant to be.

And it'd screw up all the Mk1 inline cockpit equipped vessels still in flight when KSP is updated, that .6m flat nose may not be a problem for most, but for some it'll mean they can't land.

That's a big change from such a small thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, no! First they had Red Iron Crown and Sal_vager, and now Ted? We may have twice their men, but they have... they have...

I'm starting to feel we're losing. No, no. I musn't lose hope. Not now! We're so close!

You started out losing I'm afraid. 60% of 175 people is still losing. In my experience the only times the community can cause a change of direction with Squad is if it just overwhelmingly lopsided. You are fighting an uphill battle, that doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile trying, sometimes it works and you can't know how the community feels till you ask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only a small thing, the nosecone, but it can have a big impact.

The current Mk1 and Mk2 inline cockpits, the Aerospike, the Mammoth, they all have this build restriction of having to be the end of a vessel, if you want to use these parts you have to take that into consideration.

This adds an element of design that would be lost if any part can be used anywhere, it exists with other parts too, as for example most engines are not radially mountable.

It's a trade-off, a choice, a decision that means you have to be a bit more creative with where you put other parts, it adds variation and thought, and helps define parts as being different from each other.

It isn't as adaptable, it's not meant to be.

And it'd screw up all the Mk1 inline cockpit equipped vessels still in flight when KSP is updated, that .6m flat nose may not be a problem for most, but for some it'll mean they can't land.

That's a big change from such a small thing...

But... the polls say ~60% of people want it... even if they aren't a complete accurate representation. You could also add it as a secondary option, in which case it would have no compatibility problems whatsoever. I heard that talked about for a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's only a small thing, the nosecone, but it can have a big impact.

The current Mk1 and Mk2 inline cockpits, the Aerospike, the Mammoth, they all have this build restriction of having to be the end of a vessel, if you want to use these parts you have to take that into consideration.

This adds an element of design that would be lost if any part can be used anywhere, it exists with other parts too, as for example most engines are not radially mountable.

It's a trade-off, a choice, a decision that means you have to be a bit more creative with where you put other parts, it adds variation and thought, and helps define parts as being different from each other.

It isn't as adaptable, it's not meant to be.

And it'd screw up all the Mk1 inline cockpit equipped vessels still in flight when KSP is updated, that .6m flat nose may not be a problem for most, but for some it'll mean they can't land.

That's a big change from such a small thing...

But if people were to use the chopped-off cockpit somewhere in the middle, it would look hideous.

I agree with keeping the part with the nosecone and adding a chopped-off version as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

To the guillotine, off with the cone!

If there is a 0.6m node there we get WAY more options, and who would complain about a nose mounted missile hardpoint? A nodeless frontal cockpit is (at least for me) useless as it cant be placed in the rear of something nicely (well it can but draggy and ugly), and i dont see any reason to place cockpits on the front of a craft (do you WANT to be the first thing exposed to incoming flak when charging at a capital ship?). Anyways, military stuff aside, i dont think adding a node there will harm looks (and its what, 1 extra part for the nose cone for those that dont want anything but a cone there), and well, itll give us ALOT of utility improvements such as allowing alternate fronts to be used, missiles to be placed there , air intakes (that one might look odd), the avionics cone, docking ports, you name it. There is no reason not to do this (i cant say for sure but i doubt itd be much work for PJ to pull off seamlessly to fit the standard 0.6m nosecone).

Ohh, and while a little off topic, its about time the bloody mk1 command pod, mk1-2 pod, and the 2 person tuna can get fixed. They have non standard node sized and stuff looks very awkward on them if you are trying to make a seamless craft (say tuna can between 2 2.5m fuel tanks looks crap). Ohh, and the mk1-2 is just plain ugly externally and has a rather terrible IVA (well its one of the better original IVAs before PJ's mk2 IVA made them look like crap, but that doesnt make it ok to stay indefenetely), needs to be improved. Mk1 pod only needs node sizes fixed (and perhaps make the bottom flat as it looks odd attached to something), why does the docking port look so much larger then the pod itself?

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...