I think part balancing needs a serious overhaul

[Guest]

2 hours ago, 5thHorseman said:

While I agree with this in theory, I am hard pressed to find a reason ANYBODY would call the mk2 lander can - which weighs more than 2 mk1 lander cans - balanced. It's not realistic, and it's not good gameplay. There is *0* reason to use the Mk2 lander can except aesthetics, and ... well ... I don't see many people choosing the Mk2 lander can for its looks.

: me raises hand :

I use the Mk 2 lander can quite a lot, for the probe control point, stronger reaction wheels, and better form factor. Building a skycrane capable of recovering a rover based on the Mk 1 can gets pretty fiddly, you have to build a strut structure that ends up weighing close to the same, and you won't be able to RC the rover.

[NWM]

Whole the balancing is ridiculous. The durable aircraft fuselages has better wet/dry mass ratio than the fragile rocket tanks? The small tanks (RCSs, Round-8 and Oscar B) insanely heavy, seriously annoying when building a light re-docking probe!