Mk1 cockpit is underpowered

[Firemetal]

The command pod used for rockets can be shielded with a heat shield. It doesn't need a high heat tolerance. But the Mk1 cockpit is underpowered. Great for building airplanes since they never go that fast but for us SSTO builders, it is useless. Why? Because it cannot survive re-entry. You really need to turn down re-entry heating to be able to use it. It looks absolutely awesome but it is horrible! So here is my suggestion. Give it a higher heat tolerance, but make it heavier. That way it gets buffed and remains balanced.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

With you there, but it works if you're a good pilot with a light SSTO

[Firemetal]

Heh my SSTOs ARE light. But you do have a good point. I Suck.

[Astrofox]

I agree with the original thread post. I can't deal with having to worry about the destruction of my spacecraft and whatever crew member(s) are in it.

I think the Mk1 (aircraft) cockpit should have a better heat tolerance than the one it already has.

Plus, trying to flip the craft around violently would make even the slightest of unstable aircraft unrecoverable. Of course, unless you build a craft that can recover itself and glide extremely well. Also, it requires a lot of quicksaves/loads to get the right possible combination correct.

[Codraroll]

Since the low weight of the Mk1 cockpit is useful for several early-game atmospheric planes, I wouldn't meddle too much with it or outright replace it. Might as well add another 1.25 m cockpit instead.

I'd rather like to see a Mk1B cockpit, unlocked slightly later in the tech tree, with integrated heat shields and increased heat tolerance.

Edited July 30, 2016 by Codraroll

[Adelaar]

What do you regard as a light SSTO @Firemetal?

In my opinion, it shouldn't be buffed, or at least it shouldn't be made any heavier than it already is.. Mostly because of what Codraroll said earlier, that it is an early atmospheric cockpit, and would disturb gameplay for atmospheric use.

[Firemetal]

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

Since the low weight of the Mk1 cockpit is useful for several early-game atmospheric planes, I wouldn't meddle too much with it or outright replace it. Might as well add another 1.25 m cockpit instead.

I'd rather like to see a Mk1B cockpit, unlocked slightly later in the tech tree, with integrated heat shields and increased heat tolerance.

 

1 minute ago, Adelaar said:

What do you regard as a light SSTO @Firemetal?

In my opinion, it shouldn't be buffed, or at least it shouldn't be made any heavier than it already is.. Mostly because of what Codraroll said earlier, that it is an early atmospheric cockpit, and would disturb gameplay for atmospheric use.

That is a better idea than mine.  A second one for spaceplanes. And keep this one for airplanes. And the inline cockpit along with a shielded docking port works as well.

Squad please consider this.  Thanks!

[Brownhair2]

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

Since the low weight of the Mk1 cockpit is useful for several early-game atmospheric planes, I wouldn't meddle too much with it or outright replace it. Might as well add another 1.25 m cockpit instead.

I'd rather like to see a Mk1B cockpit, unlocked slightly later in the tech tree, with integrated heat shields and increased heat tolerance.

This is a great idea, but I'd like to point out that the Mk 1 cockpit has a docking window with controls in IVA. So make that the spaceplane cockpit and add a new, low-level cockpit? Or make the Inline Cockpit the low-level cockpit, since most early planes had inline cockpits.

[Gojira1000]

I use the Mk1 cockpit all the time on spaceplanes. It's fine, you just have to watch your entry angle and not be a cowboy.

[Firemetal]

1 minute ago, Gojira1000 said:

I use the Mk1 cockpit all the time on spaceplanes. It's fine, you just have to watch your entry angle and not be a cowboy.

Yeah. Add loads of reaction wheels to it and keep nosed up 90 degrees.

[Stoney3K]

58 minutes ago, Brownhair2 said:

This is a great idea, but I'd like to point out that the Mk 1 cockpit has a docking window with controls in IVA. So make that the spaceplane cockpit and add a new, low-level cockpit? Or make the Inline Cockpit the low-level cockpit, since most early planes had inline cockpits.

I'd say remove that 'DOCKING MODE' prop in the cockpit IVA because it doesn't work to begin with, and have the basic Mk1 cockpit as an airplane cockpit. We can always add a new cockpit that *is* capable of going to space later.

[Van Disaster]

51 minutes ago, Firemetal said:

Yeah. Add loads of reaction wheels to it and keep nosed up 90 degrees.

I come in at 18 deg pitch from a low AP half an orbit behind my target spot, never burned up a Mk1 craft yet. You don't need any extra reaction wheels, the cockpit one is enough until your aero can hold it.

[Red Iron Crown]

I've also managed to reenter safely with a simple Mk1 SSTO using the Mk1 cockpit. It only gets complicated if it's used on more massive things, or a more aggressive reentry. For those cases I use an inline cockpit with a 1.25m fairing as the nosecone. IMO the cockpit is fine as it is.

[gchristopher]

3 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

It only gets complicated if it's used on more massive things, or a more aggressive reentry

In short, throw it away except for a very narrow range of missions. 

I agree that there's a reasonable debate, but for most of the game, the MK1 is pretty useless. In general, the game has this problem with re-entry, there's a large selection of parts and circumstances that simply can't be made to work. (Red Iron Crown is an expert and the advice is "in that case, just don't use the part.")

The MK1 is just the most obvious part that could benefit from optional paint-on heat shield tiles or some other mechanic to bring it back into being usable. 

The game really needs some change to help parts like this. 

I think the base problem is that the part catalog was complete before re-entry heat was added. Re-entry is where the part catalog and building options are the weakest, with no Kerbal-refurbishable heat shielding parts, and very limited options for how to assemble and use them. 

Re-entry is the aspect of the game most in need of refinement for how craft are built. 

[Red Iron Crown]

Just now, gchristopher said:

In short, throw it away except for a very narrow range of missions.

I assuredly did not say that. It's only useful for smaller SSTOs (though I'm sure there are some who make it work on larger ones), but it is quite useful for non-SSTO missions, like those Kerbin surface survey contracts where a regular plane is more suitable (and it comes super early in the tech tree, along with the first plane parts).

For larger SSTOs we already have a better cockpit, the Mk2. The advice of "in that case, just don't use the part" is valid for much more things than cockpits (Should poodles be good lifter engines? Should Rapiers be good vacuum engines? Etc, etc). The Mk1 is not really meant as a reentry-capable cockpit, even though it can be used as such in a narrower band of conditions. It's meant as a low tech atmospheric plane cockpit, where it excels.

[gchristopher]

2 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

The advice of "in that case, just don't use the part" is valid for much more things than cockpits (Should poodles be good lifter engines? Should Rapiers be good vacuum engines? Etc, etc).

That's true, but in the case of engines, you have several choices for most sizes. In the case of airframe cockpits, you have only one that sits on the front of a craft without requiring something else attached in front of it; the MK1. There's no other "cockpit"-looking part that sits directly on the front of a spaceplane.

Yes, this is a mild criticism, but it's valid. The part catalog was made a lot weaker with the addition of re-entry heat. 

I'm not advocating for any particular solution, but it should be easy to acknowledge that there's fewer usable parts and more limited ways to use them with re-entry. I like having more varied choices, so it's bad (from my game enjoyment) to have fewer options than I used to have in earlier versions of the game. 

That's a pretty modest claim to make: that a small part of the game (ship design) is less fun because there's fewer options for using the parts. 

 

Having re-entry heat is great, but it's be even better to re-evaluate the parts and building options a little bit. The part catalog WASN'T BUILT for hot reentry, it was built before that part of the game was in. And it mirrors the real world selection of parts, where in the real world, we don't bring rockets intact back from orbit, so parts and design options will have to be at least a little bit speculative, just like spaceplane parts in general, because spaceplanes also aren't yet in use, beyond some experimental programs. 

One examples is the AIRBRAKES. If those were scalable to rocket size and actually worked in re-entry, instead of being incredibly fragile, there'd be all kinds of neat options to try to explore other reentry options beyond the narrow selection of designs currently achievable. 

For example, with IR making it possible to reconfigure a rocket for increased reentry drag, I had a great time experimenting with design options that simply can't be tried with stock parts. I learned that if you can increase drag, combined with a careful re-entry profile, you can use a lot more parts with heavier designs more creatively. 

Whether it's a simple change to make the MK1 more survivable, or better airbrakes, or whatever, re-entry is just a glaring area under-supported part of ship design right now. 

 

[Red Iron Crown]

So turn down reentry heat, or turn it off altogether? If you want to use parts without concern for reentry limits you already have that option.

4 minutes ago, gchristopher said:

That's a pretty modest claim to make: that a small part of the game (ship design) is less fun because there's fewer options for using the parts. 

This is more of a philosophical thing, IMO. For me, the fun part of ship design is making things work within the given constraints, of which reentry heat is but one. It's certainly valid to prefer some of those constraints removed (I usually play sandbox where cost and tech level aren't concerns, for instance), but I'm not sure it's correct to say that removing constraints will universally make the game more fun.

[gchristopher]

7 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

This is more of a philosophical thing, IMO..... I'm not sure it's correct to say that removing constraints will universally make the game more fun.

Yep, agreed. It will make it more fun for players like me. I just think that's an aspect of the game experience that has been neglected for a lot of updates, in the (worthy, awesome) pursuit of making the game a better simulator. The joy of playing Kerbal didn't start years ago with "wow, that simulator is SO accurate." It started with "wow, I can't believe that wobbly rocket made it to space!" That spirit of seeing very "Kerbally" spaceships has been muted by recent versions, maybe a little bit too much. 

 

8 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

So turn down reentry heat, or turn it off altogether?

I'm hesitant to recommend the "if you don't like it, don't play the game as it's made" response. That's a little dismissive, when a more productive attitude is to say "Hey, this game is great, but it'd be a heck of a lot better with working airbrakes, or high-angle flaps that work in reentry."

I don't think players should give up on part of the game, but should voice reasonable requests, like this one for the MK1 cockpit, when there's a chance to make it more flexible. 

[Red Iron Crown]

41 minutes ago, gchristopher said:

I'm hesitant to recommend the "if you don't like it, don't play the game as it's made" response.

But I am recommending to play it as it's made. If you want more parts to be reentry capable or for reentry heat to be less of a concern (or not one at all), you don't need to mod the game, just adjust the setting the devs put there for people who feel that way. That is the whole point of having that setting available.

41 minutes ago, gchristopher said:

That's a little dismissive, when a more productive attitude is to say "Hey, this game is great, but it'd be a heck of a lot better with working airbrakes, or high-angle flaps that work in reentry."

Airbrakes and flaps shouldn't work during reentry, there has never been a real world example of such and I doubt there ever will be. We have enough magic parts as it is, IMO.

41 minutes ago, gchristopher said:

I don't think players should give up on part of the game, but should voice reasonable requests, like this one for the MK1 cockpit, when there's a chance to make it more flexible. 

Who is suggesting anyone give up anything? The request is voiced, and I voiced my disagreement with it. No one is telling anyone not to say what they think.

[Jarin]

I'm still in favor of swapping the forward and inline Mk1 cockpits in the tech tree. The inline cockpit is both more useful and more logical for low-tech aircraft design. Then being higher in the tree, the forward cockpit could have better heat tolerance. 

[gchristopher]

13 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Airbrakes and flaps shouldn't work during reentry, there has never been a real world example of such and I doubt there ever will be. We have enough magic parts as it is, IMO.

I dunno. The Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo folding wings are a pretty dramatic example of a vehicle reconfiguring for a different aerodynamic profile for reentry. (Albeit a suborbital hop.) There's a lot of room to imagine new designs, if the game supported them. Heck, all the SLS parts are speculative right now too. The things you can do in Kerbal are definitely ahead of real-life space programs. Is it a bad thing to have kids playing a game get to use technologies that are a little ahead of real life and might be unrealistic?

One thing I discovered playing around with the inflatable heat shield is that its ability to change the drag profile of a craft was far more significant in aiding reentry than it actually blocking heat from parts. 

13 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

The request is voiced, and I voiced my disagreement with it. No one is telling anyone not to say what they think.

Actually, I was mostly trying to convince you. Your voice is a lot more prominent than mine, and (in my view), it'd help the game a lot if players like you put a little more value on the experience players like me. I just thought the perspective of wanting more flexibility had merit and it you seem reasonable enough to consider it. (I know, crazy idea on the internet.)

Definitely no hard feelings for disagreeing!

[Red Iron Crown]

6 minutes ago, gchristopher said:

I dunno. The Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo folding wings are a pretty dramatic example of a vehicle reconfiguring for a different aerodynamic profile for reentry. (Albeit a suborbital hop.)

SpaceshipTwo configures itself to keep the leading edges of the airfoils into the airflow rather than placing them face on during reentry. The bulk of the aerobraking is done by the belly of the craft because, and this is really relevant to this discussion, the nose of the craft would overheat otherwise. SS2 is an argument against reentry-capable flaps and airbrakes, and for nosecones that are susceptible to overheating.

6 minutes ago, gchristopher said:

There's a lot of room to imagine new designs, if the game supported them. Heck, all the SLS parts are speculative right now too. The things you can do in Kerbal are definitely ahead of real-life space programs. Is it a bad thing to have kids playing a game get to use technologies that are a little ahead of real life and might be unrealistic?

For me at least, a big part of the game's lasting appeal is its reasonable level of realism. The "kerbally" stuff like wobbly rockets, big explosions, and panicked faces are there, IMO, to make the "I fail a lot" phase of learning the game more palatable. There are any number of unrealistic space "simulators" out there, that market is very well served by other games. The realistic space sim genre has far fewer options (and none that hit KSP's point of ease of access vs fidelity), so I'd be disappointed if KSP became less realistic.

6 minutes ago, gchristopher said:

Actually, I was mostly trying to convince you. Your voice is a lot more prominent than mine, and (in my view), it'd help the game a lot if players like you put a little more value on the experience players like me. I just thought the perspective of wanting more flexibility had merit and it you seem reasonable enough to consider it. (I know, crazy idea on the internet.)

I think you give my voice more credit than it deserves here, honestly. My opinion is just one among all the others.

I did consider your arguments (I try not to dismiss things out of hand), but I don't find them particularly compelling for the reasons mentioned (the part has its niche already, and the game supports greater "flexibility" by changing game settings anyway).

6 minutes ago, gchristopher said:

Definitely no hard feelings for disagreeing!

Same to you.

[katateochi]

On 30/07/2016 at 8:06 PM, Firemetal said:

Yeah. Add loads of reaction wheels to it and keep nosed up 90 degrees.

If your COL is almost directly on your COM as you come in for re-entry then you don't need lots of reaction wheel control. 

but yeah I agree with this thread, the Mk1 is not a reliable bit of space worthy kit. You can survive re-entry if everything is just right but it's not an error margin I'm happy with for my Kerbals.  It's clearly not for space, it doesn't look right for that either, it looks like a plane cockpit and for that role it's fine. But we need an alternative cone-nosed 1 man cockpit which is a bit more sleek than the inline version and perhaps one that works well with wings positioned along side it (for that arrowhead look) and which looks generally more spacey....and of course has a better heat tolerance. oh wait, I've just described the original MK1 cockpit which got taken out. Why did that get removed? Why can't we have both (in stock)? 

Edited August 1, 2016 by katateochi

[mk1980]

the mk1 cockpit is a bit fragile. not only during reentry. in my experience, the ascent is far more dangerous. the reentry trajectory can be tweaked to make it survive. the ascent trajectory is less flexible. if you ascend steeply (to avoid the overheating), you also waste a lot of fuel you'd save by "milking" the airbreathing engines / mode longer. not a problem for rocket based vertical liftoff systems and lower tech (panther) SSTOs, but a whiplash or rapier will make the mk1 cockpit explode during ascent if you try to use the engines to their full potential.

if you're looking for a stock "workaround", put an antenna on the point of the nose. it's a bit of an exploit i guess, but it works and doesn't require mods or removed / lowered reentry heat settings.

[Firemetal]

36 minutes ago, mk1980 said:

the mk1 cockpit is a bit fragile. not only during reentry. in my experience, the ascent is far more dangerous. the reentry trajectory can be tweaked to make it survive. the ascent trajectory is less flexible. if you ascend steeply (to avoid the overheating), you also waste a lot of fuel you'd save by "milking" the airbreathing engines / mode longer. not a problem for rocket based vertical liftoff systems and lower tech (panther) SSTOs, but a whiplash or rapier will make the mk1 cockpit explode during ascent if you try to use the engines to their full potential.

if you're looking for a stock "workaround", put an antenna on the point of the nose. it's a bit of an exploit i guess, but it works and doesn't require mods or removed / lowered reentry heat settings.

Hmmm. I must test that exploit. Thanks!