Launch into Command Chair: Why is this still a thing?

[Columbia]

I suggested this a few months ago, too. It's so frustrating that you need a delicate system of capsules and ladders to board an external command seat. Such a reasoning for not doing so is ridiculous, too. You're telling me that you'd rather remove many of the good possibilities of this part to attempt extinguishing one that can easily still be done, than let this command chair be much easier to use. And given that -- as what regex and countless others have stated --- much of the rest of the game reinforces that image. Destructible buildings became a thing. KSP 1.0's trailer had a disaster intended to be funny. 

I don't see what reasoning they still have left not putting this in stock. The way a single person plays a game is nowhere as disaster image-reinforcing than some of the added features and even the game's biggest version's trailer.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Columbia said:

KSP 1.0's trailer had a disaster intended to be funny. 

On top of that, KSP is almost always about failure and crashes on the way of getting to success:

Even the main menu has failure in it.

[SingABrightSong]

While we're at it, could command seats be given Crew Report capability? I tried modding it in with Module Manager, and was, ah, less than successful.

On ‎2016‎-‎04‎-‎22 at 8:55 AM, swjr-swis said:

While they're at it: please also make an IVA for the command seats.

Kerbals are now 'vessels' anyway, and IVAs in pods are treated as if the camera is sitting inside the Kerbal heads (to the point of seeing their own eyeballs ), so let's give the same camera perspective option to command seats please.

Careful, there. Command seat IVA leads to Command Seat flight indicators, and I shudder to think how convoluted it would be to add such panels where they would be rendered outside of IVA mode. Perhaps it would be best to sidestep the issue and just use a diagetic HUD on the inside of the helmet.

[swjr-swis]

16 minutes ago, SingABrightSong said:

Careful, there. Command seat IVA leads to Command Seat flight indicators, and I shudder to think how convoluted it would be to add such panels where they would be rendered outside of IVA mode. Perhaps it would be best to sidestep the issue and just use a diagetic HUD on the inside of the helmet.

No, unless someone decides to actually add 'props' to the IVA view, the game does not render anything by itself. It should be almost the easiest IVA ever to make: just transparent all around (easiest being the placeholder black hole one).

A command seat is completely devoid of instruments, as far as I can tell from the model. So one has the choice of truly flying by the seat of their pants in IVA, no instrumentation at all... or the regular flight view from 'outside' with navball, altimeter, and SAS indicators. I'd be perfectly fine with that.

[pandaman]

Yes, I support being able to launch in a command seat too.  It's ideal for rovers and microlights etc.

I dont really get the logic of not allowing it now we have aero heating etc. 

[klgraham1013]

11 hours ago, Columbia said:

KSP 1.0's trailer had a disaster intended to be funny. 

It really disturbed me that Squad thought that trailer was funny.  Maybe it's because I watched Columbia live on TV, but that trailer really turned my stomach.

Edited April 24, 2016 by klgraham1013

[Jacke]

 

56 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

It really disturbed me that Squad thought that trailer was funny.  Maybe it's because I watched Columbia live on TV, but that trailer really turned my stomach.

Yeah, at times Squad just doesn't get it.

Back to the External Command Seat.  I decided to release the Kraken!

I tried crafting a Module Manager script to convert the part into a full featured Command Pod, short of adding an INTERNAL.  Didn't quite work and would likely lead to problems.

Got all the functions of a Command Pod including usable as root part and adding stacking attachment.  But when I went to launch, there was no Kerbal ragdoll figure in the seat, nor was there a Kerbal portrait on the lower right.  But a Kerbalnaut was "aboard" as I could launch and do the other Command Pod functions.  Except no IVA and no  EVA and no leaving the seat.  And no seat EVA Report either.

But with an appropriate design, the now-invisible Jeb rode a BACC SRB close to Mach 5, separated seat from SRB after burnout, reached over 180km altitude, re-entered, and landed under parachute.  Without being seen.  Move over Macavity, there's a new Mystery Cat in town.

Tried the usual trick of adding ladders and a Mk 1 Pod and going to launch with Jeb in it.  He got out of it and scaled the BACC to the top and boarded the External Command Chair.  Now could see the Kerbal ragdoll in the seat.  But not in command of it as a command pod.  Had to do a "transfer" with the Crew Manifest mod from "Jebediah Kerman" to "EAS-1 External Command Seat" to get it to work.  The Kerbal ragdoll was still in the chair.  Now I had both!  And they are sort of two different crew locations.

This variant could only get just shy of Mach 4 without roasting the now visible Jeb.  Also had to delay SRB separation until it could be done without catapulting the Kerbal ragdoll out of the seat (but still claiming the Invisible Jeb was in the seat-as-command-pod).  Still got to over 90km and landed successfully.

But after landing, Jeb leaving and then reboarding the seat didn't put the ragdoll back in, but left it as a zombie standing by the seat.  Seat was claimed to be occupied, and recovering the seat also recovered Jeb.  Which left a zombie Jeb west of KSC.  Which I couldn't remove even in the Tracking Station.

Here's one picture that expresses the shear fun I was trying to get.  Too bad it's still flawed.

Spoiler

 

Edited April 24, 2016 by Jacke

[Columbia]

3 hours ago, Jacke said:

 

Yeah, at times Squad just doesn't get it.

Back to the External Command Seat.  I decided to release the Kraken!

I tried crafting a Module Manager script to convert the part into a full featured Command Pod, short of adding an INTERNAL.  Didn't quite work and would likely lead to problems.

Got all the functions of a Command Pod including usable as root part and adding stacking attachment.  But when I went to launch, there was no Kerbal ragdoll figure in the seat, nor was there a Kerbal portrait on the lower right.  But a Kerbalnaut was "aboard" as I could launch and do the other Command Pod functions.  Except no IVA and no  EVA and no leaving the seat.  And no seat EVA Report either.

But with an appropriate design, the now-invisible Jeb rode a BACC SRB close to Mach 5, separated seat from SRB after burnout, reached over 180km altitude, re-entered, and landed under parachute.  Without being seen.  Move over Macavity, there's a new Mystery Cat in town.

Tried the usual trick of adding ladders and a Mk 1 Pod and going to launch with Jeb in it.  He got out of it and scaled the BACC to the top and boarded the External Command Chair.  Now could see the Kerbal ragdoll in the seat.  But not in command of it as a command pod.  Had to do a "transfer" with the Crew Manifest mod from "Jebediah Kerman" to "EAS-1 External Command Seat" to get it to work.  The Kerbal ragdoll was still in the chair.  Now I had both!  And they are sort of two different crew locations.

This variant could only get just shy of Mach 4 without roasting the now visible Jeb.  Also had to delay SRB separation until it could be done without catapulting the Kerbal ragdoll out of the seat (but still claiming the Invisible Jeb was in the seat-as-command-pod).  Still got to over 90km and landed successfully.

But after landing, Jeb leaving and then reboarding the seat didn't put the ragdoll back in, but left it as a zombie standing by the seat.  Seat was claimed to be occupied, and recovering the seat also recovered Jeb.  Which left a zombie Jeb west of KSC.  Which I couldn't remove even in the Tracking Station.

Here's one picture that expresses the shear fun I was trying to get.  Too bad it's still flawed.

  Hide contents

 

I think you need that to be made into a KSP creepypasta.

Also, looking back at the time Squad featured Take Command on the Daily Kerbal, and how people clamored for making it stock, I'm sure they know they need to but won't. Flawed reasoning, perhaps?

As a sidenote, as i said in my earlier post, the way one person wants to play a game isn't nearly as reinforcing of the "~~'splosions" image as their own trailer, their own menu and some of their own game's features. Why deprive lots of good opportunities to attempt extinguishing one that's nowhere near their control and isn't as harming as some other things they themselves did?

Take Command is a godsend though. The way it puts kerbals into seats is somewhat crude, though. 

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Supported! I see no valid reason NOT to have this anyway..... so what if I strap him/her to a booster? That's MY fun that I wanna have!

*Determination.

[Commander Zoom]

Yes, please.

[Jacke]

Like to pass on to External Command Seat aficionados that @seanmcdougall has a KSP 1.1 version of Take Command, the ExtComdSeat improvement mod out.

I'll be looking at it and seeing if any of my ideas from my MM script could be useful for it.

On 2016-04-24 at 11:08 AM, Columbia said:

I think you need that to be made into a KSP creepypasta.

?!?

Edited April 25, 2016 by Jacke

[Jarin]

Okay, devil's advocate time for a minute here. Let's take the command seat and compare it to the mk1 command pod. Is there any actual reason to use the latter over the former, if going for efficiency? Aside from having to goa  bit slower on your ascent, I mean.

[Foxster]

1 hour ago, Jarin said:

Okay, devil's advocate time for a minute here. Let's take the command seat and compare it to the mk1 command pod. Is there any actual reason to use the latter over the former, if going for efficiency? Aside from having to goa  bit slower on your ascent, I mean.

Re-entry protection, SAS, RCS, monoprop, charge, top attachment point, realism... 

[Jarin]

18 minutes ago, Foxster said:

Re-entry protection, SAS, RCS, monoprop, charge, top attachment point, realism... 

I don't think the last point counts (:P), but the rest sound good to me. ... well, assuming the whole "kerbals can survive re-entry and bounce instead of dying" thing gets changed. 

[John FX]

On 22/04/2016 at 3:43 PM, regex said:

The fact that I have to hit the brakes, decouple the plane, exit the pod, and run over to the seat every time I want to test the craft after revert

Why don`t you do all that then quicksave then F9 instead of reverting?

[regex]

3 minutes ago, John FX said:

Why don`t you do all that then quicksave then F9 instead of reverting?

Because the main reason to revert is to tweak the plane or rover.