Mk1 Crew Cabin needs a side door

[Alshain]

3 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

like I said once implemented such a feature would need some refinement for example if the system was entirely unprompted some would complain about not knowing where it sends the kerbal since it is clearly not in the pod they tried to board. but these sort of things are probably best worked out through practical experience.

True, but they could handle that by adding more information to the Kerbal Portraits, I believe this mod tells you what part a Kerbal is in.  Quite frankly that mod just needs to be stock (unfortunately it was bit by the KerbalStuff downfall, hopefully it will come back soon)

 

EDIT: Oops, had the wrong mod.  This one!

Edited April 7, 2016 by Alshain

[Kerbart]

 

6 minutes ago, Foxster said:

Your sarcasm has certainly moved this discussion on in leaps and bounds. Thank you. 

Did you miss this part? The developer of the part itself told you it's a limitation on purpose, to prevent you from using it exactly in the way you're using it.

4 hours ago, Porkjet said:

That's the trade-off for skimping on weight.

Yet you insist that this part should get a door because then you can use it as a super light-weight solution. What makes you wonder that it invokes sarcastic reactions? Add a lander can. Problem solved.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Kerbart

[adsii1970]

May I offer a suggestion? Why not have a small fuselage part that's 1.25m, that contains ONE hatch with a ladder that can be extended/retracted under the hatch. This way, the player can rotate it along an X or Y axis to put it where it needs to go... meaning for someone like me, it can be on the side, and for someone else, it can be on top. Since it is just a hatch and ladder, it probably only needs to be wide enough to accomodate the width of the two parts...

Just an idea...

[Rhomphaia]

21 minutes ago, Alshain said:

 

What solutions?  Personally I don't care about the cabin + probe configuration, I want a crew cabin I can perform early game rescues with.  This fails at that because I have to annoyingly get the pilot out of the craft just to board the rescuee then transfer the rescuee back, and then reset all of my controls because I EVA'ed the pilot.  It's annoying, and for each one you rescue, it's worse.  That annoyance adds no value to the game at all.  This part gets deleted from my install to save memory, it ultimately has no function and therfore never gets used.  I think I use the micro node more.

There are ways.

 A longer service bay or a Mk1 cargo bay would be required to make this fully workable, as is it is ingress only.

[passinglurker]

9 minutes ago, adsii1970 said:

May I offer a suggestion? Why not have a small fuselage part that's 1.25m, that contains ONE hatch with a ladder that can be extended/retracted under the hatch. This way, the player can rotate it along an X or Y axis to put it where it needs to go... meaning for someone like me, it can be on the side, and for someone else, it can be on top. Since it is just a hatch and ladder, it probably only needs to be wide enough to accomodate the width of the two parts...

Just an idea...

There is no need atm. If you are making a plane you add a cockpit which already comes with a side hatch for easy access to the tarmack. if you are making a space ship or lander you use a pod or can which already comes with a top hatch for access to a ladder. If you are exploiting the mass deficiency between probes and cockpits then you are rightly penalized for doing so by losing door access.

This is probably the way things are going to be until the balance issues between manned and unmanned are resolved I'm afraid.

Edited April 7, 2016 by passinglurker

[Alshain]

Just now, Rhomphaia said:

There are ways.

A longer service bay or a Mk1 cargo bay would be required to make this fully workable, as is it is ingress only.

That is an unacceptable exploit to me.  But I like the idea we have been discussing in the last few posts, if Squad would just implement it.

[cantab]

In an aeroplane, having a door for every two seats is going to *look* a bit silly. It makes more sense to just have the door behind the cockpit.

In a rocket, the problem is really the general misbalance of the parts. If the 3-Kerbal pod was actually a sensible mass you'd see a lot less silly exploity stuff.

[Porkjet]

Totally agree that some more crew transfer options would be really nice to have and solve a lot of problems. Maybe the IVA overlay could even be utilized for this in a drag and drop kinda fashion to swap crew or right click and exit them, since it currently has no real practical uses. Plus the ability to exit any crew member from any hatch. Yea that'd be nice.

[Foxster]

3 hours ago, Kerbart said:

Yet you insist that this part should get a door because then you can use it as a super light-weight solution. 

If I was really interested in some kind of exploit as you seem to want to insist on then I'd use a mod, edit the config file or I can just continue to mount it sideways like I already do. What I am suggesting here is that the thing seems borked to me currently because both doors are blocked if you use it normally, which doesn't stop it being used at all but it would make it's a little more intuitive and elegant if you didn't have to frig it. 

There are other "interesting" ways around the problem of course...

Edited April 7, 2016 by Foxster

[passinglurker]

51 minutes ago, Foxster said:

If I was really interested in some kind of exploit as you seem to want to insist on then I'd use a mod, edit the config file or I can just continue to mount it sideways like I already do. What I am suggesting here is that the thing seems borked to me currently because both doors are blocked if you use it normally, which doesn't stop it being used at all but it would make it's a little more intuitive and elegant if you didn't have to frig it. 

You say you don't want to exploit it yet every picture you provide is of you using an optimized cabin probe core combo. It seems to me you that you just don't want this to be considered an exploit, but showing how you can exploit other exploits to enable you to exploit this exploit doesn't make this any less of an exploit. It's your game play how you want just don't expect to always be supported or facilitated. Like how doors are the cost of skimping mass your intuitiveness and elegance of construction are the cost of trying to get the doors back.

[Foxster]

All this talk of exploits is silly and a distraction. How can anything in a single player game be any kind exploit? Any use of any part that the game supports is legit. 

If anything, I'm proposing being able to use a part in a more "normal" way than it might otherwise be.  

[passinglurker]

1 minute ago, Foxster said:

All this talk of exploits is silly and a distraction. How can anything in a single player game be any kind exploit? Any use of any part that the game supports is legit. 

If anything, I'm proposing being able to use a part in a more "normal" way than it might otherwise be.  

Then why have you not even considered the alternative solutions to the dilemma the doorless mk1 cabin poses? surely if this wasn't about exploits you'd be on board with simply boarding and EVA'ing any kerbal from any hatch on a vessel.

[Kerbart]

5 minutes ago, Foxster said:

All this talk of exploits is silly and a distraction. How can anything in a single player game be any kind exploit? Any use of any part that the game supports is legit. 

If anything, I'm proposing being able to use a part in a more "normal" way than it might otherwise be.  

Except that in this particular case the game is not supporting it and you're requesting that it should be.

[Stoney3K]

4 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Hmm. I know this has been discussed before and I get the rationale, but I will say Im with Foxster on this one. I'd rather see its mass and cost increased a tiny fraction and have at least an escape hatch on the roof. Its not a huge deal, but people do use these things in unexpected ways, and Im just not so sure the added rigamarole of crew transferring before being able to eva is exactly the best solution for balance. 

This, or add a dynamic that Kerbals can exit through the nearest neighbouring door, and board into the nearest available seat which may not be on the part they boarded.

That would also make it viable to add a dedicated door, air stair or airlock part and strip the Hitchhiker and science lab of its doors.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Stoney3K

[Foxster]

If I want to build, say, a lander for 2 Kerbins of a reasonable size, that looks good too, out of mk1 sized parts then the mk1 crew cabin is a nice fit. I don't want to add another capsule or a lander can just so I can get the crew out. Imagine the conversation when designing Apollo 11..."Ah, sorry, but we are going to have to take the Command module down to the Moon too because we forgot to put a door on the LM". 

I'd be happy too with a 2-man mk1 capsule that weighed more than a crew cabin if that would be more acceptable. 

I am not suggesting that the game needs an exploit, free ride, cheat, OP part or whatever you want to call it. All I saw was a part underused or used in odd ways simply because it lacked a door. 

 

[Kerbart]

4 minutes ago, Foxster said:

(...) I'd be happy too with a 2-man mk1 capsule that weighed more than a crew cabin if that would be more acceptable. 

I am not suggesting that the game needs an exploit, free ride, cheat, OP part or whatever you want to call it. All I saw was a part underused or used in odd ways simply because it lacked a door. 

That makes sense, and is reasonable. Some of us including me apparently misunderstood that angle in the initial request (English is not my native language so that might be why). I like @Stoney3K 's suggestion of an "airlock" kind-of part (if I remember correctly somebody actually made a mod for that, of course) with the additional functionality that he mentioned so EVA'ing a specific crew member doesn't become a KSP version of Rush Hour.

For now you could attach a lander can to the end (my go-to "airlock") and clip it inward so just the door is sticking out. Yes, you'll have to transfer each kerbal to it in the first place, but I always roleplay that as "prepare for EVA".

[passinglurker]

11 minutes ago, Foxster said:

If I want to build, say, a lander for 2 Kerbins of a reasonable size, that looks good too, out of mk1 sized parts then the mk1 crew cabin is a nice fit. I don't want to add another capsule or a lander can just so I can get the crew out. Imagine the conversation when designing Apollo 11..."Ah, sorry, but we are going to have to take the Command module down to the Moon too because we forgot to put a door on the LM". 

I'd be happy too with a 2-man mk1 capsule that weighed more than a crew cabin if that would be more acceptable. 

I am not suggesting that the game needs an exploit, free ride, cheat, OP part or whatever you want to call it. All I saw was a part underused or used in odd ways simply because it lacked a door. 

sounds like you want them to fix the mass of the mk2 lander can. 

Really mk1 is very narrow and limited you should not expect it to be able to be easily used for everything.

[pandaman]

For me this issue here isn't that it only has doors on the ends, visually and for what the part is intended for I think that's fine, it's that the only way out is to transfer crew around etc.

If I'm on a full coach and need to get out I can walk past the other occupants to get to the door, they don't need to play musical chairs to let me out.  As has been suggested before, and acknowledged by @Porkjet, a slightly changed crew transfer system would be a good and possibly better solution.

[Kerbart]

2 minutes ago, pandaman said:

For me this issue here isn't that it only has doors on the ends, visually and for what the part is intended for I think that's fine, it's that the only way out is to transfer crew around etc.

If I'm on a full coach and need to get out I can walk past the other occupants to get to the door, they don't need to play musical chairs to let me out.  As has been suggested before, and acknowledged by @Porkjet, a slightly changed crew transfer system would be a good and possibly better solution.

...but you can, using "transfer crew" you can move any member to any part of the ship (provided there's room). You just can't EVA them straight from a crew transfer, they have to be moved to the unit with the door first.

What would be helpful is a separate EVA dialog (mod, anyone?) where you pick the crew member and click on the door you'd like to EVA from. Going back, in the same way, when you board, the game could be asking where the Kerbal should be housed (or cancel if at that point you decide you need to reorganize seating first)

[pandaman]

4 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

...but you can, using "transfer crew" you can move any member to any part of the ship (provided there's room). You just can't EVA them straight from a crew transfer, they have to be moved to the unit with the door first.

What would be helpful is a separate EVA dialog (mod, anyone?) where you pick the crew member and click on the door you'd like to EVA from. Going back, in the same way, when you board, the game could be asking where the Kerbal should be housed (or cancel if at that point you decide you need to reorganize seating first)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, but didn't explain well enough.  Thanks.

These ideas were all bounced around when the MK1 crew cabin first appeared.

[Stoney3K]

18 hours ago, pandaman said:

Yes, that's exactly what I meant, but didn't explain well enough.  Thanks.

These ideas were all bounced around when the MK1 crew cabin first appeared.

I suspect the mechanism could be very simple:

* Kerbal XYZ wants to get on EVA, is seated in an MK1 Crew Cabin. Currently, this would just render a "Hatch obstructed, can't exit" error message.

* Search through the part tree if the part nearby (up or down the stack) has an unobstructed hatch.

* If not, repeat with one part down the tree (imagine Kerbal XYZ just climbing through the corridors of a station.)

* Is the part tree exhausted without finding an unobstructed hatch? Display "Hatch obstructed, can't exit."

* Is there an unobstructed hatch in our search? EVA said Kerbal through that hatch, invisibly transferring him to that part first and subsequently doing an EVA.

For a Kerbal wanting to enter through a random door in a module that is completely occupied, use the same algorithm to find an available seat.

The whole idea could be augmented through mods like Connected Living Space which limit the parts through which a Kerbal can transfer.

[Warzouz]

Fun fact about this crew module : Stick a structure fuselage next to it and the kerbal will EVA into the structure fuselage

 

[Foxster]

2 hours ago, Warzouz said:

Fun fact about this crew module : Stick a structure fuselage next to it and the kerbal will EVA into the structure fuselage

 

Yup, but how do you get him out of there? Now, if the structural fuselage had a side door...  

[RocketSquid]

53 minutes ago, Foxster said:

Yup, but how do you get him out of there? Now, if the structural fuselage had a side door...  

Actually:

Attempting to climb while inside of a fuselage will clip the kerbal directly out. Attempting to climb the outside clips them in.

[Foxster]

Interesting. I can't seem to get a Climb(F) option whilst in the SF though in 1.1. 

Edited April 9, 2016 by Foxster