Suggested rebalance for the command pods

[Kerbart]

I just roleplay my way around it. The Mk-1 command pot is small and cramped and only meant for short trips. The only ones that can handle multi-day trips in them are Jeb and Val, as they're badass. The Mk-1 Lander Can seems slightly roomier so I can use them for multi-day missions. They're also my go-to airlock and control cabins for larger craft. Of course the Mk-1 Lander Can is vacuum operation only; you simply cannot use it in an atmosphere (as per the description)*.

The Mk1-3 is actually my workhorse transporter for surface to LKO. Yes, it's heavy. It's also my #1 re-entry vehicle, so I just chalk up the extra weight due a reinforced structure that guarantees survival (assuming the chutes make it). I don't use it beyond LKO so its weight is no big concern for me.

That leaves the Mk2 Lander Can. I'd like to think that it's heavier because, being roomier, it can be used for longer duration missions, but to be honest I prefer the comfort of the hitch-hiker with a Mk-1 can attached to it; the extra weight is well worth it for the comfort of my kerbals (and it offers room to 3 more kerbals, great for flag-planting and tourist missions). That combination also works well as an ad-hoc surface base. I can't see a crew of two staying in a Mk2 lander can for two weeks on the surface, but I can with the Mk1/Hitch Hiker combo (especially since it means that not everyone needs to suit up when a flag plant request comes in).

I don't think there's anyone who does not think the M2 lander can needs a weight reduction.

 

 

* Yes, of course you can make landings on Kerbin with it. I just don't do it.

[Kerbalstar]

21 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I just roleplay my way around it. The Mk-1 command pot is small and cramped and only meant for short trips. The only ones that can handle multi-day trips in them are Jeb and Val, as they're badass. The Mk-1 Lander Can seems slightly roomier so I can use them for multi-day missions. They're also my go-to airlock and control cabins for larger craft. Of course the Mk-1 Lander Can is vacuum operation only; you simply cannot use it in an atmosphere (as per the description)*.

The Mk1-3 is actually my workhorse transporter for surface to LKO. Yes, it's heavy. It's also my #1 re-entry vehicle, so I just chalk up the extra weight due a reinforced structure that guarantees survival (assuming the chutes make it). I don't use it beyond LKO so its weight is no big concern for me.

That leaves the Mk2 Lander Can. I'd like to think that it's heavier because, being roomier, it can be used for longer duration missions, but to be honest I prefer the comfort of the hitch-hiker with a Mk-1 can attached to it; the extra weight is well worth it for the comfort of my kerbals (and it offers room to 3 more kerbals, great for flag-planting and tourist missions). That combination also works well as an ad-hoc surface base. I can't see a crew of two staying in a Mk2 lander can for two weeks on the surface, but I can with the Mk1/Hitch Hiker combo (especially since it means that not everyone needs to suit up when a flag plant request comes in).

I don't think there's anyone who does not think the M2 lander can needs a weight reduction.

* Yes, of course you can make landings on Kerbin with it. I just don't do it.

Me too.

[tater]

Having to role-play things that are obviously screwy is bad game design, IMO. It would be better to make them rational.

What would be the best possible solution might be to have a slight variation of the "tweakable" things already on such parts. You can control the amount of mono carried, for example. Maybe have a couple version you can set in the right-click menu. One is the "short duration" version, and is lighter, the other is the long duration version, and is heavier. LS mods could then use that hook and provide the difference, and otherwise people can "cheat" and use the lighter version, but the part says "short duration" right there, so role-play away to square that. 

 

[Violent Jeb]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Having to role-play things that are obviously screwy is bad game design, IMO. It would be better to make them rational.

What would be the best possible solution might be to have a slight variation of the "tweakable" things already on such parts. You can control the amount of mono carried, for example. Maybe have a couple version you can set in the right-click menu. One is the "short duration" version, and is lighter, the other is the long duration version, and is heavier. LS mods could then use that hook and provide the difference, and otherwise people can "cheat" and use the lighter version, but the part says "short duration" right there, so role-play away to square that. 

 

I believe you can already alter the monoprop on hand from the VAB, unless you mean more dramatically.

Regardless, adding more monoprop doesn't simply balance these pods. There are many situations where i don't need monoprop on a pod at all. It'd be nice to have a few options. Heck, i'd be partial to even slightly modified retextures so I have 3 different looking versions of the same pod. Just so that my entire fleet doesn't look like it was sponsored from one company

[tater]

No, that's what I mean. Since we can already alter the pods slightly in that way, why not allow other tweaks the same way. Slide torque, EC, etc.

[MaxL_1023]

If the Mk 1-2 pod included a Heatshield it would help. Realistically, neither lander can would survive re-entry and a bolt-on heatshield shouldn't work as well as it does. 

[Armisael]

6 hours ago, Kosmognome said:

As for the cupola, what you are doing is making the part ridiculous OP for stations. That isn't its intention. I love the cupola for the view it provides, and that should be its main strength. If it gets some additional features like giving boni to pilot ability (or pilot abilities to engineers/scientists while inside) it would make the part very useful, while still retaining it original flavor.

-snip-

The cupola already has a unique role because it offers great visibility while inside. That already justifies the part - because it offers ingame exactly what it does IRL, and the view from it is simply breathtaking. I agree with giving it some more usefulness - but it should stay true to the spirit of the part, not simply make it OP by giving it ridiculous amounts of torque, electricity and monoprop. That doesn't make the part interesting, it just removes the lander can from the list of interesting parts as controlling part for stations and makes the cupola the clearly best choice. 

This weighs a quarter-ton less than my proposed cupola, has 65 more monoprop capacity, 50 more electric charge, and equal torque. How is my proposal making the cupola ridiculously OP?

 

48 minutes ago, MaxL_1023 said:

If the Mk 1-2 pod included a Heatshield it would help. Realistically, neither lander can would survive re-entry and a bolt-on heatshield shouldn't work as well as it does. 

Adding ablator capacity to the Mk1-2 wasn't an option I had considered, but it's definitely an interesting idea...

[MaxL_1023]

The Mk I pod has it (or at least in many Mods it does - have not played pure stock in awhile), so it has an edge over the lander can unless you are really coming in fast (where you would want a heatshield on the Mk I anyways). 

Considering how heavy the 2.5m heatshield is, removing the requirement from the Mk I-2 would make up most of it's mass deficiency over the other pods. 

[tater]

Heatshield in KSP runs about 1 kg per point of ablator.

[Superfluous J]

I support the tweakable idea. Being able to turn off/on reaction wheels, monoprop (already available), heat shields, and even tweak crash tolerance - all at a cost of mass and money - seems a great way to allow for a massive increase in the number of effective pods without littering the parts list with dozens of near duplicates.

And anything that gets me to actually use anything but the Mk1 lander can gets a gold star.

[MaxL_1023]

RSS/RO fixes the issue nicely, in that a lander can would never survive re-entry without a lot of extra work and equipment. It is perfect for the moon however.

[tater]

What does RO do to the lander cans? Decrease skin temp tolerance?

[Warzouz]

10 hours ago, Armisael said:

This weighs a quarter-ton less than my proposed cupola, has 65 more monoprop capacity, 50 more electric charge, and equal torque. How is my proposal making the cupola ridiculously OP?

 

Adding ablator capacity to the Mk1-2 wasn't an option I had considered, but it's definitely an interesting idea...

I don't think so. MK1-2 without heat shield can come back from Kerbin SOI. I suppose it can also come back from Duna and Eve (to be tested). Further more, in some condition, you want to drop the heat shield.