Part Tweaks

[Pthigrivi]

I feel like we ask for a lot of complicated new parts and don't often talk about minor improvements to existing ones. I could go carefully down the list but here are just a few off the top of my head.

- The MK 1-2 command pod and MK 2 landercan are much too heavy. I'd drop their weight down to like 2.6t and 1.4t respectively.

- Kerbodyne ADTP 2-3 aught to carry fuel or have a C7 counterpart.

- The small hardpoint and MK2 quad-coupler seem way too expensive. They could come down to 700f and 800f respectively.

- The wheels in general need some love, but it would be especially cool if the Rovemax M1 could deflate and fold up for tight packing.

That's it for now. Any others people have been thinking about?

[legoclone09]

Well a redo of the 2.5m to 1.25m structural adapters would be nice, and polished textures for everything.

[Rath]

Yes to everything before and after this post. Unless someone posts a suggestion that's stupid.

[Pthigrivi]

I dont think all the parts need retexturing. The only parts I think could use an art pass are the 1-2 adapter, the rockomax 2.5m tanks and MK7 nose cone (shudders). The Jumbo should stay orange though. Also I feel like the winglets are a mess. We really don't need so many and some seem redundant. The Delta-Delux could be dropped entirely. It would also be cool if the LT-2 landing strut and SP solar panels were given more aerodynamic housings.

[Snark]

Strongly agree about the 3-kerbal pod and 2-kerbal lander can being way too heavy. Their mass-per-crew-member is just way out of whack from everything else. The lander can is especially ridiculous-- why should having 2 crew instead of 1 cause it to have 4 times the mass? It's so bad that I never use that part if I can possibly help it, and certainly never in a lander (those are usually small craft, and therefore the command pod tends to be a big part of the craft's mass).

About the only time I ever use the 2-kerbal lander can is when I'm building a very large, massive orbital ship with a 2.5-meter stack, and need the command pod to be inline with other components-- a situation where the can's outlandishly high mass doesn't matter as much (since it's a relatively small fraction of total ship mass), and the convenience of 2.5m-to-2.5m form factor outweighs other considerations.

Which is kind of ironic, given that the avowed purpose of the pod is to be in a lander. Lander cans are supposed to give the benefit of being lightweight, in exchange for their drawbacks (low impact tolerance, non-aerodynamic shape).

While we're on the topic, I wouldn't mind seeing some tinkering with the can's model, either: particularly, can we get rid of that protruding "lip" that runs around its lower rim? Lander cans are supposed to be for landers, and landers tend to have a lot of radially attached paraphernalia on them, and that "lip" makes it awkward.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Snark

[Wild Cobra]

I feel like we ask for a lot of complicated new parts and don't often talk about minor improvements to existing ones. I could go carefully down the list but here are just a few off the top of my head.

- The MK 1-2 command pod and MK 2 landercan are much too heavy. I'd drop their weight down to like 2.6t and 1.4t respectively.

- Kerbodyne ADTP 2-3 aught to carry fuel or have a C7 counterpart.

- The small hardpoint and MK2 quad-coupler seem way too expensive. They could come down to 700f and 800f respectively.

- The wheels in general need some love, but it would be especially cool if the Rovemax M1 could deflate and fold up for tight packing.

That's it for now. Any others people have been thinking about?

I'm not so concerned about the command modules, but I would like to see a fuel tank adapter from a size 3 to 2, and even a size 3 to 1.

What I really think would be cool, would be having the ability to deploy a rover like we did the recent ones on Mars:

What I like the best of the mod add on parts are the GingerCorp Stock-alike Station Hubs. I would love for these to become stock parts. And... all three of these hubs need to be sized up to size 2 and 3 also.

[Snark]

What I really think would be cool, would be having the ability to deploy a rover like we did the recent ones on Mars

I realize that this forum's more about "I want X in stock" rather than "I want a mod that does X", but here's a mod that may be fun to play with:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/84359

...From RoverDude.

[Wild Cobra]

I realize that this forum's more about "I want X in stock" rather than "I want a mod that does X", but here's a mod that may be fun to play with:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/84359

...From RoverDude.

I want that to be a stock part! Not a mod.

Do they or do they not, add and/or remove parts in gave revisions?

[Alshain]

I agree with the HubMax being too limited (and the 1.25m version in too high a tech tree) but rather than implementing separate parts, I'd rather they implement different sizes (they can do both too if they like, the GingerCorp ones are nice). I've said it before but to do this they need a stock TweakScale implementation for structural parts. Make sure it's scales are unlockable on the tech tree.

The same goes for all of the Girder parts. They need to be more useful on a 2.5m station. Or bigger... or smaller (0.625m station anyone?) Well that last one may not be that useful but it should be our choice, not limited by the bounds of the available structural parts. Part count alone should dictate this, you can cut your part count to a fraction on 2.5m stations if you can resize the structural parts to match. Why isn't it stock already?

Edited October 24, 2015 by Alshain

[Destroyer713]

One thing I'd like to see done in addition to a lot that's suggested here is a rebalance of the nose cones in general. You would think the pointy Advanced Nose Cones would be less draggy than the rounded Aerodynamic Nose Cone, right? Despite what the in-game descriptions say, that's not the case.

I mean, the Advanced Nose Cones are really aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion. I'd love it if I could stick Type A on top of something or Type B on top of side boosters without having to sacrifice efficiency.

[Snark]

One thing I'd like to see done in addition to a lot that's suggested here is a rebalance of the nose cones in general. You would think the pointy Advanced Nose Cones would be less draggy than the rounded Aerodynamic Nose Cone, right? Despite what the in-game descriptions say, that's not the case.

I mean, the Advanced Nose Cones are really aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion. I'd love it if I could stick Type A on top of something or Type B on top of side boosters without having to sacrifice efficiency.

Your post piqued my interest (I'd always just assumed that the Advanced Nose Cone was better), so I did a little experimenting with side-by-side nosecones and the aero overlay turned on.

Result:

- Under Mach 1, the Advanced Nose Cone and the rounded nose cone had similar drag. Looked about equal, as far as I could tell from eyeballing the aero arrows.

- Over Mach 1, the Advanced Nose Cone does better.

...which kinda stands to reason. In real life, really pointy things only get better performance at supersonic speed-- that's why fighter jets are pointy but airliners have a smooth teardrop shape.

Anyway, useful information. Learn something new every day!

[NathanKell]

It's not that one does better or worse at subsonic, it's that the drag from everything else matters more, whereas supersonic the drag from the nose bits alone becomes (relatively) more important, and thus the lower drag of the pointy cone (yes, it *always* has lower drag) matters more.

[Destroyer713]

It's not that one does better or worse at subsonic, it's that the drag from everything else matters more, whereas supersonic the drag from the nose bits alone becomes (relatively) more important, and thus the lower drag of the pointy cone (yes, it *always* has lower drag) matters more.

Oh, well, seems I stand corrected. I was taking that info from the wiki, which in retrospect might be outdated. Glad to know I was wrong on that bit.

However, there is a difference between the two types of Advanced Nose Cones. The description of Type B (the slanted one) implies that it would work better on a side booster than Type A. This isn't the case, and I know I'm not just pulling this info from the outdated wiki this time, since I actually tested this myself.

While it's not a huge difference, it still means Type B is worse in every case I can conceive. Personally, I feel like reducing the drag of Type B so that it's slightly lower than Type A (and keep the asymmetric drag so it's not ideal to use on the center booster) might be a good idea.

[WinkAllKerb'']

I feel like we ask for a lot of complicated new parts and don't often talk about minor improvements to existing ones.

...

That's it for now. Any others people have been thinking about?

in, tweakable params posibilities not unleashed yet much more could be done with them.