Jump to content

Remove the nosecone on the new mk1Cockpit - Gifs and pictures

HafCoJoe
 Share

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
      112
    • Keep the nosecone
      68

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
Columbia

Columbia

Posted
Posted
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...

Yes, this.

If a node was added to the front of the aircraft, then I think the Mk1 inline would go obsolete -- The lack of a nosecone is the only thing keeping the two distinguished, at least.

Different parts for different purposes. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
YargJay9991

YargJay9991

Posted
Posted

Would you buy a aircraft cockpit for your DIY plane with a nose cone (less cash and less shipping to pay and less work) OR buy the cockpit and nose cone seperatly, only to find out that no matter what it says on Ebay, they are not the same size. You also need to attach it yourself, it will cost more, and it may not look as good.

Anyone else agree?

EDIT: Just remember What Would Nasa Do

YargJay9991

(I should be a politician :sticktongue:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zombie_Striker

Zombie_Striker

Posted
Posted (edited)
Would you buy a aircraft cockpit for your DIY plane with a nose cone (less cash and less shipping to pay and less work) OR buy the cockpit and nose cone seperatly, only to find out that no matter what it says on Ebay, they are not the same size. You also need to attach it yourself, it will cost more, and it may not look as good.

Anyone else agree?

EDIT: Just remember What Would Nasa Do

YargJay9991

(I should be a politician k_tongue2.gif)

Yeah, what would NASA do? Would they only allow one design for a pod that cannot be modified? Would they force the design of the pods so much they you could not add to or replace the nose cone with extra reactionwheels, tanks of monoprop, or even dockingports (which in this case, would make the ship look better than having to put a docking port over the nose cone or under the pod.)?

Also, I would image they would re balance the pricing of the nosecone/pod so you could do this. How hard is it to place a second part? And don't you think they would retexture/fix the nosecone SO it would look the same and be the same size? I really don't see how your analogy works.

I really do not see how being "forced" to have to use two parts for the nosecone would be such a big problem? How much memory space does adding ONE part to a ship take up? Why would turning a 100 part ship into a 101 part ship be a problem?

Edited by Zombie_Striker
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Columbia

Columbia

Posted
Posted
Yeah, what would NASA do? Would they only allow one design for a pod that cannot be modified? Would they force the design of the pods so much they you could not add to or replace the nose cone with extra reactionwheels, tanks of monoprop, or even dockingports (which in this case, would make the ship look better than having to put a docking port over the nose cone or under the pod.)?

Also, I would image they would re balance the pricing of the nosecone/pod so you could do this. How hard is it to place a second part? And don't you think they would retexture/fix the nosecone SO it would look the same and be the same size? I really don't see how your analogy works.

I really do not see how being "forced" to have to use two parts for the nosecone would be such a big problem? How much memory space does adding ONE part to a ship take up? Why would turning a 100 part ship into a 101 part ship be a problem?

Why didn't anyone complain when the normal Mk1 had no nosecone, then, if a single node ​is such a huge problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
YargJay9991

YargJay9991

Posted
Posted

Give us two parts. I say keep the old Mk1 pod, and make two versions of the new one as a new cockpit. One with a nose and one without. We haven't had any new cockpits for a while and I think the game needs more.

Anyone else think so? Really, how hard could it be.

YargJay9991

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alshain

Alshain

Posted
Posted
Yeah, what would NASA do? Would they only allow one design for a pod that cannot be modified?

Well, yes actually. No NASA craft has ever had interchangeable parts on the outside of the craft. The only thing that ever had such parts were inside the shuttle cargo bay. They certainly have never had a plane where you could rip off the nose cone and put something else there.

- - - Updated - - -

Why didn't anyone complain when the normal Mk1 had no nosecone, then, if a single node ​is such a huge problem?

What is the 'normal Mk1'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Columbia

Columbia

Posted
Posted
What is the 'normal Mk1'?

The one we have at present, in 1.0.4.

- - - Updated - - -

Well if that is what he talking about, I don't understand his statement I guess, since that part does have a nose cone. Unless he specifically meant a detachable nosecone.

I meant that the one currently is not being complained about for not having a front node, while the new one is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Moss

Moss

Posted
Posted

I support this idea, however it can never be implemented due to a fundamental underlying problem with KSP. Most fuel tanks, science parts and capsules do not often sit flush against other parts with the same sized node. This is because most of them have a bulbous lip on their node, or protrude out slightly. The most egregious examples of this include the FL-T100, the avionics package, the Mark 1 Lander Can and the abomination that is the 2.5m service bay. Even most of the "adapter" parts don't have a consistent grade, joining together multiple adapters to form a large nose-cone results in an uneven and ugly cone.

I respect SQUAD's decision to keep the existing models for the sake of aesthetics; it's their game and they can do what they want with it. It does however, inhibit the construction of streamlined looking rocket fuselages. The new spaceplane parts are aesthetically delightful, as each part fits flush.

So if you ever wanted the Mk1 Cockpit to have it's nose replaced with a tiny node, you'd want to make sure that all parts able to fit to it have a cohesive body shape and texture.

Is this an issue that procedural fuel tanks would fix? To say nothing of how much memory could be saved on models and textures were this the case, my answer is yes. But unfortunately it will never happen.

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...