BRING BACK MK1-2 MODULE

[Dr. Jeb]

i think we should bring back mk1-2 module and the original 2.5m tanks, also we need the old faings as variations for the new ones

[Dimas152]

it's still inside the game, just hidden somewhere in manufacturer tab

[Dr. Jeb]

thank you mr space gopnix

[Zeiss Ikon]

I can confirm (from loading my 1.3 save into 1.4) that the Mk. 1-2 is still a valid part in the new version.  Beyond that, I'm not sure why you'd want to keep it -- the Mk. 1-3 is significantly lighter, has built-in RCS ports (looks like mainly good for roll, hardly any pitch/yaw authority, but I've only glanced at a photo), bigger battery, and they moved the hatch around to the same side the pilots are on.  I see no reason to prefer the old 1-2.

[MinimalMinmus]

The MK1-3 is a boost of the MK1-2, as it was blatantly underpowered, being one of heaviest per-kerbal pods, in fact being second only to the cupola! It's safe to say that it was only used because it looked good, not because it was good. And the MK1-3 looks better, too.

 

[Dr. Jeb]

zeiis and minmus, i get your point, but this part is nostalgic, and honestly defines the kerbals as funny and funky, not "mr. serious"

[klgraham1013]

I respectfully disagree with this sentiment.

[Dr. Jeb]

nostalgiapeople, nostolgia, it really defines the kerbals, and honeslty i think that its just one of the most known parts that should be kept

 

[RatchetinSpace]

The Mk1-3 pod is pretty much better in every way. I especially like how the door is aligned along the 90 degree axis. If you don't like the part then just use the old one, it still works in the game. Put it in your sub assembly menu.

[Daze]

The only thing that I agree with is in having also the old texture (and even more) for fairing

[NSEP]

How about you people just accept change? Its better than keeping everything the same all the time.

[Geonovast]

11 hours ago, NSEP said:

How about you people just accept change? Its better than keeping everything the same all the time.

"Change for Change's Sake Doesn't Always Equal Progress." - Some smart person, probably.

 

I'm quite the fan of the Mk1-2.  I do like its looks, don't really care about the weight.  The Mk1-3 sounds pretty great though.  I do look forward to playing with it once 1.4.1 is available to me.

 

@Dr. Jeb, just make yourself a sub assembly that's nothing more than an Mk1-2 pod.  As stated it's still in the game, just hidden so it doesn't break legacy ships/saves.  I don't remember who, but I remember one of the Squad members stating that it would be removed in the future.  I understand the nostalgia, but I doubt they'll keep a piece around just for that.

[panzer1b]

Honestly, while i would prefer all the old parts to remain available, the MK1-2 was one of the few thinsg im glad to see die off, its butt ugly (model is so-so, textures are atrociously bad), its mass is stupid considering the crew capacity, and there is literally no reason to use it on anything unless im trying to make a pirate starship (which i actually prefer the lander cans as bridges as they have better vision).  Oil tanks are in a similar spot, pretty much exclusively used on pirate styled ships (primitive factions, ect), and occasionally on land based refineries (where they truly fit the part perfectly asthetically and still store fuel).  As for the rest, i like the new stuff, the old doughnut was neat, but considering we have a new model of that same exact tank which looks as good, i dont mind, and the old decouplers can go rot in a dumpster as they look atrocious and they were way too big to be practical (slim sized new models are way better as they dont take up half a fuel tank in space).

 

Still, despite only liking the oil drums asthetically (dont fit space ships, but make beautiful refineries and look good on pirate craft), i do still feel the choice to use old parts should remain in future versions (i cant imagine its taking tons of resources to keep those in game).

[Astrofox]

To be completely honest, I wouldn't be surprised if someone released a mod that just added the old parts back into the game. Just sayin'.

[SchwinnTropius]

15 hours ago, Astrofox said:

To be completely honest, I wouldn't be surprised if someone released a mod that just added the old parts back into the game. Just sayin'.

Mod already exists, so I'm not worried.

https://spacedock.info/mod/137/Discontinued Parts

[Dfthu]

The older parts (the ones that got replaced) are still In the game to not brake saves. I believe someone said there still available in the manufacturers tab.

[Wjolcz]

Don't. The old fairing textures were horrible and the MK1-2 pod was rarely used because of how awful its mass and off-center model was.

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

I absolutely love the Mk1-2, and was horrified to see it removed. I assumed the Mk1-3 was named so because it would be the 3rd Mk command pod. Any time I thought of "new parts", to my mind it meant "more parts". Not replacing the old ones with new ones. Plenty of players wanted parts that looked sleeker and more polished, but I think there are plenty of us who did not. Even with the mesh switching, the rockets I've seen this far all look pretty similar. Basically, something out of RSS. One of the best things about this game is the vast difference in style from one player to the next. I love seeing other guys' screenshots, because their ships are always so different from mine. People liked to crack on the old Rockomax tanks, saying how ugly they were and constantly going on about the "garbage found by the road" stuff, but that's really just looking at the part on its own. If you worked at your design, you could make ships that were really cool, asthetically appealing, and extremely Kerbal. To me that was always part of the fun of the game. You shouldn't just be able to throw  parts together and have it look good. You should have to work at it. You should actually have to put some "design" in your design. If you follow the Gameplay Questions forum, how many times have you seen someone ask what was the best way to do something, be given a perfectly good suggestion and say "no, it wouldn't look right"?

I don't want cookie-cutter rockets. Take the new LEM, for instance. You want a lander? Okay, here's your lander. No, I want to build my own lander. The Mk1 Lander Can was no beauty, but I've seen some pretty slick lander designs with it. I know they're trying to keep part-count down to make the game a bit easier on the average computer, but I prefer to build things myself.

The1.875 parts, on the other hand, are a great addition to the game IMO. The drop-down from 2.5m to 1.25m is a bit extreme. Having a middle option should help make for some smoother transitions. And since I often favor huge rockets, I'm sure I'll make use of the 5m tanks. For me, additional content is always welcome; but newer does not always mean better. I'm not ready to throw away the past, and I suspect plenty of others aren't either. If there's enough outcry, hopefully they'll be fully reinstated. Starting with my beloved Mk1-2.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Cpt Kerbalkrunch

[Capt. Hunt]

easy fix.  Find

	TechHidden = True

and change it to false

Edited March 15, 2018 by Capt. Hunt

[Kobymaru]

No, I want the new one.

[Capt. Hunt]

it doesn't replace the mk 1-3 pod if you unhide it.

[Temeter]

On 12.3.2018 at 11:56 PM, Geonovast said:

@Dr. Jeb"Change for Change's Sake Doesn't Always Equal Progress." - Some smart person, probably.

Except that the new pod looks far superior from the outside and evenmoreso from the inside.

Keeping inferior baggage for traditions sake isn't good either.

[mystik]

11 minutes ago, Temeter said:

Except that the new pod looks far superior from the outside and evenmoreso from the inside.

Keeping inferior baggage for traditions sake isn't good either.

I actually like the new pod. I used it to deorbit using the rcs thrusters. And did so from 1 mil meters in orbit of Kerbin. Just strap a RCS tank on top and you have a great emergency return option if you suspect you may run out of fuel returning. The old model was not so flexible. And not to mention it was so heavy by comparison. Maybe beginners don't care so much for weight, but after 750 hours I learned that you cannot make high performance ships if you waste energy with useless mass. I am that kind of person that uses the minimum weight and drains unused monoprop, uses the smallest ore tank, minimal approach to maximize efficiency. I welcome the new one because of this. I don't get what the love is for the old one. Except the nostalgia factor. The new one looks better as well and is more organized (the ladder is in the middle, not weirdly placed on the side).

Edited March 16, 2018 by mystik

[Temeter]

31 minutes ago, mystik said:

I actually like the new pod. I used it to deorbit using the rcs thrusters. And did so from 1 mil meters in orbit of Kerbin. Just strap a RCS tank on top and you have a great emergency return option if you suspect you may run out of fuel returning. The old model was not so flexible. And not to mention it was so heavy by comparison. Maybe beginners don't care so much for weight, but after 750 hours I learned that you cannot make high performance ships if you waste energy with useless mass. I am that kind of person that uses the minimum weight and drains unused monoprop, uses the smallest ore tank, minimal approach to maximize efficiency. I welcome the new one because of this. I don't get what the love is for the old one. Except the nostalgia factor. The new one looks better as well and is more organized (the ladder is in the middle, not weirdly placed on the side).

Yep. I still used it, just because it was more practical as a three Kerbal pod, but it wasn't a great value and also quite ugly,.

Only problem is that it lacks clickable windows. Which is minor, but bothers me since it's fun to go into IVA and watch through those windows. Also kinda necessary to actually use the docking windows.

Edited March 16, 2018 by Temeter

[Cpt Kerbalkrunch]

33 minutes ago, mystik said:

I actually like the new pod. I used it to deorbit using the rcs thrusters. And did so from 1 mil meters in orbit of Kerbin. Just strap a RCS tank on top and you have a great emergency return option if you suspect you may run out of fuel returning. The old model was not so flexible. And not to mention it was so heavy by comparison. Maybe beginners don't care so much for weight, but after 750 hours I learned that you cannot make high performance ships if you waste energy with useless mass. I am that kind of person that uses the minimum weight and drains unused monoprop, uses the smallest ore tank, minimal approach to maximize efficiency. I welcome the new one because of this. I don't get what the love is for the old one. Except the nostalgia factor. The new one looks better as well and is more organized (the ladder is in the middle, not weirdly placed on the side).

Nostalgia plays a part, certainly, but also personal preference and play-style. I don't know if beginners really don't care about weight or not, as you said, but if you're saying it's harder to launch a lighter payload, I'm not seeing the logic. I used the Mk1-2 for my Jool 5 and an Eve ascent vehicle precisely because it made things more difficult. They were not easy, and I'm extremely proud of them. To me, light rockets are difficult when you get to the end of the spectrum. In other words, when you make it so small you're now pushing the boundaries of capability; like a "low mass" challenge. Building a good, huge rocket can be just as difficult.

I don't dislike the Mk1-3. And I don't mind the added functionality it has. Your "top of the line" command pod should have things the others don't. However, it should come at a cost. And not just funds. To me, this game is all about accomplishment. Even after a simple mission, seeing my chutes pop back at Kerbin always makes me feel good. It's something that sets this game apart. So if you wanna launch 3 Kerbals but save mass, it's going to cost you in looks and "cool factor". You'll need some combination of smaller pods or passenger cabin or (God forbid) command seats in a fairing or service  module. If you want 3 Kerbals all in one pod that looks cool, is extremely sturdy, and has more functionality, it'll cost you mass. It should be so heavy, in fact, that it makes you wonder whether or not it's worth it. Design decisions should not be easy. If you want this, it should cost you that, and so forth. So I'm fine with the new pod, I just think it should be heavier. At least 4 tons. Make it a tough decision instead of a no-brainer.

As always though, this is just one guy's opinion. I doubt I'M the only one, though. Others surely feel the same way.