The last of the Tailsitters

[Laie]

 

 

Because soon, the only stackable cockpits will be lander cans.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Laie
too stupid to insert a link

[Jarin]

Wait, what's changing about cockpits?

[Tourist]

I'am not sure where you're getting this idea from, Squad has not announced any redesign plans for the MK1 and MK2 inline command cockpits that would prevent stacking them. If fact they have just announced some ascetic changes to the Mk2 inline, so it seems unlikely they would be making further dramatic changes to its functionality.  

Edited April 6, 2016 by Tourist

[Laie]

Tourist, in order to better illustrate my point I have created another picture riddle for your viewing pleasure.

Something is wrong in this picture. Take your time. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

[Tourist]

Ok, I can see and appreciate your concerns. But to be fair, your original post does not make the problem clear. Especially considering the craft in the first picture would still work, because as far as I'm aware, Squad are not making any changes to the location of the hatch on the crew compartment.... at least not in any post by squad I've read (I could have easily missed something of course).  

Edited April 6, 2016 by Tourist
Marginal improvements to sloppy writing.

[Superfluous J]

As a player who cares more about craft mass than aesthetics, the mk1 lander can has been the only stackable (and otherwise) cockpit for years.

[Violent Jeb]

I see the problem!

You have your airplane straight up, this will cause a stall.
If you nose down and fly horizontally you should be able to continue enjoying KSP

 

[Xavven]

3 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

As a player who cares more about craft mass than aesthetics, the mk1 lander can has been the only stackable (and otherwise) cockpit for years.

Not to derail the thread, but I have to agree with you here. The Mk2 lander can is so much heavier than 2 Mk1 lander cans that it's hard to justify its use. Mk1 is overpowered

Back to the OP, from a purely game mechanics standpoint, I don't see a problem if you add additional Pegasus I Mobility Enhancers. From a realism standpoint, yes it would be a little awkward to get in and out of the cockpit with that kind of 90 degree turn in it, but if we're going to talk realism, tail-sitters are impractical to begin with. The pilot needs good visibility of the approach and touchdown, and tail-sitters afford very poor visibility. They also tend to have a high center of gravity, although your first design addresses that pretty well.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Xavven

[Gargamel]

I'm not seeing the issue here.  Some creative placement of angled short ladder rungs allows the kerbal to crawl around corners (at least it did a while ago, I haven't built anything with ladder 'intersections' in a while).

I don't think this is a game failure, but a failure of ingenuity. 

[Laie]

I'm afraid to spoil what little fun is left in this thread, but...

This vessel was built as a contender for the ultimate challenge, it can land an return from every body in the system. Eve and Tylo require some extra equipment, that's what the docking ports are there for. Given the mission profile, it seemed easier to come up with a rocket ship that still works in an atmosphere rather than a plane that works on Tylo. That the result looks like a 1950s sci-fi rocket down to the aerospikes is not an accident, but convergent evolution.

It needs a crew of two (Pilot and Engineer) and was originally supposed to be a mean lean Mk1 space yacht. It became Mk2 for the sake of the vertical hatch, the Crew Compartment was added later when I found out that there's enough dV to take the whole family. But, to repeat, design pretty much started from the Mk2 inline as the smallest possible cockpit that has a door in the right place.

I was wondering if I should start a petition for the Mk1 cockpits to have an alternate means of exit that would be compatible with stacks. Never came around to do it. And now even the last one will have it's hatch removed. I'm having a sad.

[RocketBlam]

They're removing the hatch from that cockpit? Is that what I had to read this whole thread to figure out?

[katateochi]

I'm confused.  can you link to where it's said that the side exit is going to be removed?  Without it the Mk1 is kinda useless isn't it?

[Starhawk]

 

12 hours ago, SQUAD said:

The door on the top is now replaced by a door on each side, to create even more room in the canopy.

I believe that this is the quote of interest.  From yesterday's devnotes.

Happy landings!

eta: That is a very beautiful ship, Laie.

[KerikBalm]

I am so confused as to what this thread is even about....

The mk1 inline has always had its exit ladder 90 degrees to its long axis.

This quote makes no sense to me:

"The door on the top is now replaced by a door on each side, to create even more room in the canopy." as the mk1 has no door on the top.

Is the complaint that the mk2 inline will have a different door location? all it takes is two of the short fixed ladders to reorient your kerbal. I know, I've made a lot of tailsitters with the mk1 inline.

So the complaint is he's going to need another two parts that mass 0.01 tons together?

I'd complain that the small fixed ladders are the same mass as the long extendable one... but those masses are so low, I don't really care

[The Great Potato]

Different door location on the cockpit...Laie doesn't like having to defy physics with ladder placement...hmm...I guess that's a valid concer--

Wait.

Laie, don't you have a perfectly vertical door on that crew compartment? 

[KerikBalm]

How is a horizontal ladder(call that 0 deg), a short section of ladder at 30 deg, a short section of ladder at 60deg, and the rest of the ladders to the ground at 90 deg "defying physics" ?

Its 2 "physicsless" parts (though physicsless has changed meaning a little, but they still don't do much to the game speed, they just add their mass to the parent part, and are ignored for most other calculations), which cause almost no slowdown of the game. This is hardly the end of tailsitters...

[The Great Potato]

1 minute ago, KerikBalm said:

How is a horizontal ladder(call that 0 deg), a short section of ladder at 30 deg, a short section of ladder at 60deg, and the rest of the ladders to the ground at 90 deg "defying physics" ?.

Have you ever tried to climb a sideways ladder? I haven't, but it sounds hard. 

[KerikBalm]

No, I cant say that i have, but its certainly not impossible... or physics defying.

These are elite kerbonauts, they can handle a sideways ladder... give them some rock climbing training (I used to do indoor rock climbing), and the sideways rungs of the ladders will look easy to deal with in comparison to what they trained with.

Sure the animation doesn't look quite right, but if thats your big realism concern... then you should find the planet scale in KSP completely unacceptible.... That start can't sustain fusion! Escape velocity is too low, that atmosphere would be lost to space... those jet engines are OP... etc etc.

Climbing a sideways ladder? that's where you draw the line, really?

[HebaruSan]

32 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:

This is hardly the end of tailsitters...

Maybe he means it as a reference to The Last of the Mohicans, the descendants of whom are alive and well in Shawano County, Wisconsin.

[The Great Potato]

3 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

Maybe he means it as a reference to The Last of the Mohicans, the descendants of whom are alive and well in Shawano County, Wisconsin.

Now I'm gonna have that soundtrack stuck in my head all day...

@KerikBalm You seem angry. Sure, the animations bother me. It's not a matter of realism in this case, it's a matter of looking good.

This is all beside the point. The Mk2 crew compartment is unchanged - Mk2 tailsitters can use that as an entrance. Or use it as the cockpit to save weight.

[KerikBalm]

Nah, I'm not angry, just... incredulous

I don't think that the mk2 crew compartment being the same will neccessarily placate everyone, because thats another two tons of drymass, but most of the time I can't understand what people get upset about and don't get upset about, so who knows.

Personally, I'm much much more worried about the wheel physics... I haven't seen any complaints for rovers, but I've seen a lot of people talking about issues with planes on takeoff/landing, and personally I use planes much much more than rovers...but I've adapted from pre-1.0 to now without complain about all the physics changes (I may have complained a little about heat on ISRUs, basically breaking the ISRUs I had already deployed in career, but thats it), so I suspect I'll be able to adapt to the wheel stuff on planes. - Adding two ladder segments is a very easy adaptation to make.

[Enorats]

The mk2 in line part is a PLANE part. Planes generally don't land on their tails, so it only makes sense that the part be designed to land horizontally. This is fixing the awkward exit location for a plane part used as a plane part. Yes, it makes it more awkward to use as a rocket part.

Ideally, both versions of the part could be included in the game, and I'm sure it would be quite easy to copy the part as is right now and rename it, then add it back in as a mod.

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, The Great Potato said:

Have you ever tried to climb a sideways ladder? I haven't, but it sounds hard. 

Kerbals can climb ladders sideways, I can climb from a vertical ladder into a horizontal door.

Let's call it a tie and move on.

[Laie]

19 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

As a player who cares more about craft mass than aesthetics, the mk1 lander can has been the only stackable (and otherwise) cockpit for years.

Normally I'd be with you, but some things are just not done.

28 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

Kerbals can climb ladders sideways, I can climb from a vertical ladder into a horizontal door.

Actually, they can even change directions. Place two ladders at a right angle and play with WASD while the Kerbal is at the crossing.

4 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

Maybe he means it as a reference to The Last of the Mohicans, the descendants of whom are alive and well in Shawano County, Wisconsin.

That's more like it. The last of a dying breed is rarely literally the last, and may survive in zoos and reservations for a good long while. Ofc it will always be possible to build a tailsitter if one really wants to. Don't know if *I* still want to if it means covering the vessel in angled ladders, though. I guess I'd rather stack lander cans.
 

 

 

[Tourist]

8 hours ago, HebaruSan said:

Maybe he means it as a reference to The Last of the Mohicans, the descendants of whom are alive and well in Shawano County, Wisconsin.

Chicks really dig you when your the last of something.