Mk 1-2 Pod versus Mk3 Cockpit

[tater]

The mk3 cockpit is an OP, easy mode part. It masses less, and every, single stat is better than the mk1-2, it's ridiculous. More crew, better impact, better heat tolerance, way more mono, vastly better torque, vastly more EC. Because spaceplanes. There is no unbiased way to come to any other conclusion than the part is completely out of balance. 

 

Edited August 23, 2016 by tater

[passinglurker]

6 minutes ago, tater said:

The mk3 cockpit is an OP, easy mode part. It masses less, and every, single stat is better than the mk1-2, it's ridiculous. More crew, better impact, better heat tolerance, way more mono, vastly better torque, vastly more EC. Because spaceplanes. There is no unbiased way to come to any other conclusion than the part is completely out of balance. 

 

hmm...

mk1 cockpits: early game, ~1 ton per seat (or more if you count the discrepancy with the nose cockpit)

mk1 crewed parts in general: early game, ~1 ton per 1.875m of length

mk2 cockpits: mid game 1 ton per seat

mk2 crewed parts in general: mid game ~2 tons per 1.875m of length

mk3 cockpit: end game, ~1 ton per seat (actually .875 but meh its end game) and ~? tons per 1.875m of length (this is hard to measure with the mk3 cockpits unique tapering shape)

mk3 cabin: end game, ~3.25 ton per 1.875m of length, and ~0.4 tons per seat (not that you are likely to use this to its full potential)

So yeah mk3 is admittedly better but its the last crewed parts you unlock and you have to be doing something on a massive scale to exploit thier benefits and any discrepancies that it has to iron out are nowhere near as extreme as the what exists between the mk1-2 pod and every other command part. So the mk3 balance is bad but not as bad as the 2.5m crew parts

[Snark]

1 hour ago, Sharpy said:

MK1 cabin is good for tourists.

Again, YMMV.  Depends on the player.  I use Mk1 cabin + Mk1 pod all the time, including for non-tourist missions, and with appropriate attention to crew roster and ship design it's simply not a problem for me.  It's a minor inconvenience, yes.  Which is why I'm okay with the Mk1-2 pod being 2.7 tons, i.e. 50% more than the mass of Mk1 cabin + Mk1 pod; that's a "tax" I'm willing to pay for the convenience of form factor & usable hatch.  But a "tax" of over 120%, I am not willing to pay.

It all comes down to individual players' styles, e.g. "how much personal inconvenience are you willing to put up with, in exchange for how much engineering inefficiency?"  Different players will turn that knob to different settings.  For me, I don't mind a little inconvenience, but as an OCD engineering type, flagrantly inefficient designs are like sandpaper on my soul and rob the game of enjoyment for me.

The reason I advocate for a lighter Mk1-2 pod (and Mk2 lander can) is not simply because I like it better-- just because I happen to like something myself doesn't mean it's the right decision for Squad.  Rather:  I believe that lowering the mass would make the part more welcoming to players like me, without taking anything away from players like you.  Thus it's a move that would be more inclusive of the player base, which I view as an unambiguously good thing, and that's why I advocate.

[Sharpy]

13 minutes ago, Snark said:

Again, YMMV.  Depends on the player.  I use Mk1 cabin + Mk1 pod all the time, including for non-tourist missions, and with appropriate attention to crew roster and ship design it's simply not a problem for me.  It's a minor inconvenience, yes.  Which is why I'm okay with the Mk1-2 pod being 2.7 tons, i.e. 50% more than the mass of Mk1 cabin + Mk1 pod; that's a "tax" I'm willing to pay for the convenience of form factor & usable hatch.  But a "tax" of over 120%, I am not willing to pay.

It all comes down to individual players' styles, e.g. "how much personal inconvenience are you willing to put up with, in exchange for how much engineering inefficiency?"  Different players will turn that knob to different settings.  For me, I don't mind a little inconvenience, but as an OCD engineering type, flagrantly inefficient designs are like sandpaper on my soul and rob the game of enjoyment for me.

The reason I advocate for a lighter Mk1-2 pod (and Mk2 lander can) is not simply because I like it better-- just because I happen to like something myself doesn't mean it's the right decision for Squad.  Rather:  I believe that lowering the mass would make the part more welcoming to players like me, without taking anything away from players like you.  Thus it's a move that would be more inclusive of the player base, which I view as an unambiguously good thing, and that's why I advocate.

Tell me then - how would you react, if in the name of retaining realism, but adjusting for the discrepancy, Squad made MK1 and MK3 considerably heavier instead?

[tater]

17 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

hmm...

mk1 cockpits: early game, ~1 ton per seat (or more if you count the discrepancy with the nose cockpit)

mk1 crewed parts in general: early game, ~1 ton per 1.875m of length

mk2 cockpits: mid game 1 ton per seat

mk2 crewed parts in general: mid game ~2 tons per 1.875m of length

mk3 cockpit: end game, ~1 ton per seat (actually .875 but meh its end game) and ~? tons per 1.875m of length (this is hard to measure with the mk3 cockpits unique tapering shape)

mk3 cabin: end game, ~3.25 ton per 1.875m of length, and ~0.4 tons per seat (not that you are likely to use this to its full potential)

So yeah mk3 is admittedly better but its the last crewed parts you unlock and you have to be doing something on a massive scale to exploit thier benefits and any discrepancies that it has to iron out are nowhere near as extreme as the what exists between the mk1-2 pod and every other command part. So the mk3 balance is bad but not as bad as the 2.5m crew parts

It is grossly unbalanced. Note that it's not even fair to compare the mk 1-2 to the mk 3 without adding the heat shield to the mk1-2, which is almost always added, making it far, far worse. The mk3 cockpit is a joke, IMO. 

The per seat mass is not the issue. What about Mono, EC, torque, tolerances? 

Edited August 23, 2016 by tater

[passinglurker]

1 minute ago, tater said:

The per seat mass is not the issue. What about Mono, EC, torque, tolerances? 

what about them? stand alone resource, control, and structural parts have always been more mass efficient than what's integrated into command parts so it's never been a valid argument to say something is over or underpowered based on how much monoprop it carries it is just another aspect of kerbals screwy balance that needs to be overhauled for consistency 

[tater]

Reality check, to get the mk1-2 (without the heat shield) to have the same capabilities that are possible we'd need to add: 0.2 tons for torque. ~0.35 for mono, and maybe 0.015 for EC. That makes the mk1-2 pod 4.685 tons. Adding the heat shield, partially because we just should, and partially to try and make up for the lower heat tolerance of the mk1-2 (for reasons), and the mk 1-2 is now 5.985 tons. And it's still less capable, and holds 1 fewer crew. If we care about the per seat mass, it's 1.995 tons per crew.

[passinglurker]

1 minute ago, tater said:

Reality check, to get the mk1-2 (without the heat shield) to have the same capabilities that are possible we'd need to add: 0.2 tons for torque. ~0.35 for mono, and maybe 0.015 for EC. That makes the mk1-2 pod 4.685 tons. Adding the heat shield, partially because we just should, and partially to try and make up for the lower heat tolerance of the mk1-2 (for reasons), and the mk 1-2 is now 5.985 tons. And it's still less capable, and holds 1 fewer crew. If we care about the per seat mass, it's 1.995 tons per crew.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. look kerbal's balance is broken on many levels and in reality needs a very deep overhaul of its part stats. making the mk1-2 pod lighter to the 2.5-3ton range just makes the issue a little more tolerable until the true balance overhaul comes.

[tater]

9 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

I'm not sure where you are going with this. look kerbal's balance is broken on many levels and in reality needs a very deep overhaul of its part stats. making the mk1-2 pod lighter to the 2.5-3ton range just makes the issue a little more tolerable until the true balance overhaul comes.

Like many spaceplane parts, the mk3 is OP. It likely needs the mass substantially increased. Close to being doubled, I'd say, but at least 50% heavier. It only seats 4, but of course it could actually seat more than that. It's a replica Shuttle part, and would likely hold 7 kerbals. It has the number reduced for balance, I suppose, but really I see it as having a 0.56 ton per crew mass, and a crippled crew value. Nearly doubling the mass would bring it in line (then bump up the crew value).

Edited August 23, 2016 by tater

[passinglurker]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

Like many spaceplane parts, the mk3 is OP. It likely needs the mass substantially increased. Close to being doubled, I'd say, but at least 50% heavier. It only seats 4, but of course it could actually seat more than that. It's a replica Shuttle part, and would likely hold 7 kerbals. It has the number reduced for balance, I suppose, but really I see it as having a 0.56 ton per crew mass, and a crippled crew value. Nearly doubling the mass would bring it in line (then bump up the crew value).

the mk3 IVA actually has 2 extra unused seats and the mk1 cabin shows kerbals have no issue riding backwards so rig the IVA to use those last two chairs and up the stats to 6 seats and 6 tons of mass and you'd probably find yourself quite satisfied, but unless they take the same measures in stock the mk3 cockpit will probably stay around the 3.5-4 ton ball park and blow raspberries at the square cube law.

[Snark]

50 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

Tell me then - how would you react, if in the name of retaining realism, but adjusting for the discrepancy, Squad made MK1 and MK3 considerably heavier instead?

Don't care what they do with the Mk3 spaceplane cockpit, because I never fly spaceplanes and therefore never use the part.  I happen to think it's OP and should have the heck nerfed out of it, much as I think lots of spaceplane stuff should have the heck nerfed out of it.  But then, I recognize that that's probably just my personal anti-spaceplane bias talking, and therefore I'm probably the last person anyone should listen to on that subject. 

I don't think they should tinker with the mass of the Mk1 command pod.  It's well-balanced with the other spacecraft components available in early game, and making it significantly more massive would make the game a lot harder for new players.  It's hard enough for newbies to get to orbit as it is, without doubling the mass of the heaviest payload component of their early craft.  I think it's just fine as it is, and not OP at all.

And I gotta say I turn an extremely skeptical eye on anyone who tries to play a "realism" card, there-- at least, if they're trying to assert a very narrow range for "realistic."  This is a game, playability is important, and we're talking about spacecraft designed for three-foot-tall little green men with heads the size of wastebaskets who live on a planet a tenth the diameter of Earth.  I'm not saying I'd be okay with really ludicrous extremes, just that I don't think you or I or anyone else is in a position to say exactly what mass would be the most "realistic" for a particular pod, other than within very broad boundaries.

"Realistic" is a range.  I think that the Mk1-2 pod's current mass of 4 tons is plenty realistic; that's not my beef with it.  I also think giving it a mass of 2.7 tons, or even 2.4 tons, would be just as realistic.  Both of those are perfectly believable to me, and easily explained away by "different tech" or similar hand-wavy rationalizations if need be.   (In contrast, giving it a mass of 100 kilograms, or 100 tons, would not be realistic.)

So IMO changing the mass from 4 tons down to something in the 2.4-to-2.7 range has nothing to do with realism; the game's not being made either more or less realistic with such a move.  The motivation is not to increase realism, and realism isn't being sacrificed, either.  The motivation is usefulness, not "realism".

To be clear, here is what I'm advocating:

• Leave the mass of Mk1 command pod and Mk1 lander can alone.  I think they're well balanced as they are.
• The Mk1-2 pod should have a mass that's slightly more than three times the mass of the Mk1 pod.
• The Mk2 lander can should have a mass that's slightly more than twice the mass of the Mk1 can.
• All the other command pods (i.e. airplane parts) seem basically reasonable, I think they can be left alone.  The Mk3 cockpit could stand to be a little heavier, I think, but I don't really care much about it since I never use it. 

[tater]

I'm with Snark, really. I'm not trying to peg it to a real value, I just think it is clearly out of whack with reality. I didn't even know about the extra 2 seats since I never use any of the aircraft parts at all.

I could get it even being lighter, as it is---if the stats were lower. The trouble is that it is both lighter, AND every, single stat is substantially better, and that's even with the crew capacity apparently explicitly nerfed (if the 2 seat are there but unused, it is really a 6 seat part that masses 3.9 and beats the mk1-2 in everything on top of that).

I'd lower the mono, lower the torque, raise the crew by 2, decrease the heat and impact tolerances, and raise the mass to ~6 I think. Then it's in the ballpark with he other parts (and it gets a crew buff as a trade off).

[passinglurker]

1 minute ago, tater said:

I'm with Snark, really. I'm not trying to peg it to a real value, I just think it is clearly out of whack with reality. I didn't even know about the extra 2 seats since I never use any of the aircraft parts at all.

I could get it even being lighter, as it is---if the stats were lower. The trouble is that it is both lighter, AND every, single stat is substantially better, and that's even with the crew capacity apparently explicitly nerfed (if the 2 seat are there but unused, it is really a 6 seat part that masses 3.9 and beats the mk1-2 in everything on top of that).

I'd lower the mono, lower the torque, raise the crew by 2, decrease the heat and impact tolerances, and raise the mass to ~6 I think. Then it's in the ballpark with he other parts (and it gets a crew buff as a trade off).

first why not buff the mk1-2 and other 2.5m crewed parts instead or simultaneously, and second with it carrying 6 crew it represents a massive gap between itself and the next size down what fills that gap?

[tater]

The mk1 is a Mercury capsule. It has no room for being buffed---except EC, actually, the pods should be able to function without solar for reasonable periods of time (where reasonable is pegged to the only benchmark we have, the RL versions of those pods). So the mk1 should be able to last ~1.5 days, and the mk1-2 for maybe 12-13 days.

Theres not much else to change, I have no desire to see them be extra powerful.

what is the final mass of a shuttle orbiter replica in KSP? Anything like ~60 tons (no cargo)?

Edited August 23, 2016 by tater

[foamyesque]

16 minutes ago, tater said:

The mk1 is a Mercury capsule. It has no room for being buffed---except EC, actually, the pods should be able to function without solar for reasonable periods of time (where reasonable is pegged to the only benchmark we have, the RL versions of those pods). So the mk1 should be able to last ~1.5 days, and the mk1-2 for maybe 12-13 days.

Theres not much else to change, I have no desire to see them be extra powerful.

what is the final mass of a shuttle orbiter replica in KSP? Anything like ~60 tons?

It depends a great deal on how you build it, but it's closer to 25-30t than 60t.

Edited August 23, 2016 by foamyesque

[passinglurker]

8 minutes ago, tater said:

 

The mk1 is a Mercury capsule.

 

no it's not.

it's like calling a a shenzhou a soyuz or a bruan an STS there are only so many shapes that work as reentry vessels so any resemblance to real world craft is purely coincidence, imagination, or a homage that is not meant to be taken literally.

[tater]

17 minutes ago, foamyesque said:

It depends a great deal on how you build it, but it's closer to 25-30t than 60t.

Given the 64% scale of KSP, that tells us rather a lot.

14 minutes ago, passinglurker said:

no it's not.

it's like calling a a shenzhou a soyuz or a bruan an STS there are only so many shapes that work as reentry vessels so any resemblance to real world craft is purely coincidence, imagination, or a homage that is not meant to be taken literally.

Reality doesn't matter if KSP has it's own balance that actually works. It doesn't. The mk3 is grossly OP, so the only choice is to look at the RL analogs as rough benchmarks. The mk1 is a mercury capsule. It looks like it, and it appears right away. You could use a Soviet analogy if you like, which would be Vostok (1 crew), which had a max mission of ~ 5 days, and was supposedly designed for maybe 10 days max. Pick that if you like, the bottom line is that there is not much room for buffing the spacecraft, it's a can barely bigger than a kerbal with a helmet on.

[Terwin]

I am pretty sure I have never used the Mk 1-2 cockpit, anything that is not done with a 1.25m part is usually done with the Mk3 cockpit, or, occasionally Mk2 parts.

I currently have a ship returning from Duna with 2 crew in a Mk3 cockpit(and more crew in a science lab in the back)

I also have a ship heading out to Jool with 2 crew in the Mk3 cockpit.

I have never gotten a space-plane to orbit, but I still use the Mk3 cockpit on every 'large' rocket I launch.

The rocket equation makes dry mass the primary optimization value for almost every ship to be launched, for a part to be useful from an engineering design standpoint, it needs to have benefits over other parts that serve a similar function.  I do not find the Mk1-2 cockpit to have compelling benefits over the Mk3 cockpit, so I do not use it.

[tater]

If I (or anyone else) was being strictly rational, I would do what @Terwin does, because the mk3 is always a better choice, no exceptions. Except I don't like the way it looks on a rocket, so I never use it.

[Sharpy]

BTW, doesn't MK3 have an asymmetrical drag profile?

[Terwin]

8 minutes ago, Sharpy said:

BTW, doesn't MK3 have an asymmetrical drag profile?

Not that I have noticed, but then again I generally have enough surface mounted drills, landing legs, radiators and solar panels that any shape based drag from a reasonably aerodynamic part shrinks into insignificance.

[Hupf]

If the Mk3 is to be destined to use with spaceplanes, i.e. more towards surface-to-low-orbit operations than long interplanetary flights, then it should only focus on properties necessary for this, which would include

• high max skin temperature
• low weight

Anything else should be nerfed significantly, which would be

• max core temperature (ascent/reentry shouldn't take too long?)
• impact tolerance (take an effort and land on your landing gear; about aero stresses: you don't want to make a highly maneuverable fighter plane with mk3, do you?)
• EC (engines should be in operation during the whole ascent, i.e. the alternator would be running)
• torgue (you have control surfaces)
• add a relatively high constant EC/minute consumption (for the fancy electronics in the modern/endgame pod it is; e.g. provide SAS in return)

Edited August 24, 2016 by Hupf

[Armisael]

I'm not a big spaceplane user, but the idea that the Mk3 Cockpit is hilariously overpowered seems strange to me when you can do this for 195kg heavier, 1708 spesos cheaper, and much earlier tech. For purely rocket designs the service bay husk can be removed, saving another 1.2t.

• 4 seats for both
• 500 EC for both
• Can store up to 90 monoprop (less than the Mk3's 100 units of monoprop - then again, who needs that much?)
• 2900K max skin temp (better than the Mk3's 2700K)
• 36 kN*m of torque in all three axes (similar to the Mk3's 40/40/20)
• 2.5m cross-section is more aerodynamic than the Mk3's 3.75m cross section (for rockets, at least)
• This design can store two sets of experimental data, over the Mk3's single set
• Significantly lower impact tolerance (only 14 m/s instead of 70 m/s)

...and this is, to be perfectly frank, an insanely stupid design built to more to provide cover from criticism here than to actually be useful - it'd be easy to make this lighter by using a heatshield for re-entry protection (but that'd expose me to complaints about performance during uncontrolled reentry). No dedicated part should be totally replaceable by a collection of other parts.

Frankly, I don't see how it's OP unless you're using the Mk1-2 command pod as a baseline part (instead of one of the worst parts in the game, which is what it is). I wouldn't be averse to further tuning it towards its role, but it's hardly a balance-ruiner.

Edited August 24, 2016 by Armisael

[KerbMav]

On 20.8.2016 at 6:16 AM, Snark said:

Ditto with the Mk2 lander can, which is similarly ridiculously overweight.  Has over FOUR TIMES the mass of the Mk1 can, to hold two kerbals.  I modded it down to 1.4 tons and now it's playable.

The MK2 lander can should get some reasonable perk for this - I for one plan to make it able to hold more science reports like the lab, and maybe to turn it into a kind of field lab carrying some experiments or an inbuild probe core.

[Corona688]

On 8/23/2016 at 11:50 AM, Sharpy said:

Tell me then - how would you react, if in the name of retaining realism, but adjusting for the discrepancy, Squad made MK1 and MK3 considerably heavier instead?

As I understand it, the mk2+ cockpits got their weight increased to account for their impact tolerances.  They kept boosting their mass until "re-entry without a parachute" stopped being a survivable option.