Inflatable Airlock Doesn't Work With Other Same-Size Docking Ports

[Technical Ben]

Ah, good point! Also, it might be handy for SpaceX style landers.

[edit]

Hmmm. Description says it can be used for docking... confusing.

 

Perhaps they only dock with themselves?

Edited March 19, 2018 by Technical Ben

[Technical Ben]

(Reposting for bump for info!!!)

They only dock with each other! It's a new type of docking port group!

[klesh]

5 hours ago, Technical Ben said:

They only dock with each other! It's a new type of docking port group!

 

Thats not true at all.

You seem to have missed the picture I posted in this very thread connecting it to a docking port jr?

[Technical Ben]

1 hour ago, klesh said:

 

Thats not true at all.

You seem to have missed the picture I posted in this very thread connecting it to a docking port jr?

Yes sorry. Again, the game is not clear on what port they are. So they dock to Docking Port Jr?! Great!... kinda. Still don't allow movement when docked, so I cannot make a crane out of them... unless...

[klesh]

6 minutes ago, Technical Ben said:

Yes sorry. Again, the game is not clear on what port they are. So they dock to Docking Port Jr?! Great!... kinda. Still don't allow movement when docked, so I cannot make a crane out of them... unless...

 

 

I kind of like the idea of a port on the bottom of an elevated base which lowers down to connect to a rover or something.

[Caelib]

I can confirm that it will indeed dock to a "Jr" docking port, but the air lock must be EXTENDED first.

[Kerbart]

On 3/16/2018 at 2:11 AM, Capt. Hunt said:

I'm pretty sure someone said they measured it and a Kerbal can fit through one without their helmet.

Call me old-fashioned, but I am not sure if an airlock is the kind of passage you want to pass through without a helmet. 

[Delbrutis]

Squad has changed a few things "to supposedly make the game more new player friendly" over the coarse of the game's development. The DockingJunior always bothered me. At least the old part's had Believably looking IVA hatches for you Kerbals to crawl through. take a look at the new IVA for the MK2 capsule and the new lander and tell me how the Kerbals get out? I really wish Squad would bring back the word IVA  on the player photo instead of view. You know right next to EVA "I think the console players can handle it" Squad is way more likely to loose players over the crappy career game than because they got to tech-ee with their acronyms. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Delbrutis
eh is there a word for tech-ee techie ?

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

56 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Call me old-fashioned, but I am not sure if an airlock is the kind of passage you want to pass through without a helmet. 

Who says the jr. port is an airlock? In fact it looks kind of small to have its own airlock.

[Kerbart]

31 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Who says the jr. port is an airlock? In fact it looks kind of small to have its own airlock.

Given that the title of this thread starts with "Inflatable Airlock" it's probably not the Jr. port itself we're talking about. Just the fact that the business end of the airlock is an opening that fits onto a jr. docking port, thus forcing Kerbals who want to leave the airlock to leave their helmet behind.

Which is fine when the airlock is connected to said docking port, but given it's historic context (as part of the Making History expansion pack) its use as an actual interface to the vacuum of space where no one can hear you scream (even without a helmet) is not something to be casually discarded at a first glance.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

39 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

Given that the title of this thread starts with "Inflatable Airlock" it's probably not the Jr. port itself we're talking about. Just the fact that the business end of the airlock is an opening that fits onto a jr. docking port, thus forcing Kerbals who want to leave the airlock to leave their helmet behind.

Which is fine when the airlock is connected to said docking port, but given it's historic context (as part of the Making History expansion pack) its use as an actual interface to the vacuum of space where no one can hear you scream (even without a helmet) is not something to be casually discarded at a first glance.

Hmm... Dunno what I was thinking! I was a bit silly there xD 

Though perhaps if we put it in the context of the Making History, perhaps it is assumed that the Kerbals will be using the new suits with the sort of balloony helmets. Has anyone measured how wide those are? They appear to not be as wide as the classic ones.

[Kerbart]

2 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Hmm... Dunno what I was thinking! I was a bit silly there xD 

Though perhaps if we put it in the context of the Making History, perhaps it is assumed that the Kerbals will be using the new suits with the sort of balloony helmets. Has anyone measured how wide those are? They appear to not be as wide as the classic ones.

Well you read "jr docking port" and stopped reading

Did you notice that the lights on the vintage helmets are yellow? I liked that little detail!

[mattinoz]

On 3/16/2018 at 5:11 PM, Capt. Hunt said:

I'm pretty sure someone said they measured it and a Kerbal can fit through one without their helmet.

Pretty sure that was @RoverDude and also fairly sure he said that Kerbals could fit thru a 6.25 dock with their helmet on. From memory the comment was made the first time the LEM or Service module was previewed in a developer note in the early days of Making History previews. 

As far as I know. There is still on answer to how Kerbals remove there helmets with short arms.

[Capt. Hunt]

1 hour ago, mattinoz said:

As far as I know. There is still on answer to how Kerbals remove there helmets with short arms.

Maybe they stole their helmet technology from the Goa'uld?

Edited March 20, 2018 by Capt. Hunt

[RoverDude]

The Airlock is working as designed.  And as folks have already figured out, the airlock docks to a docking port Junior.  

[Sweetcreek]

Not to belabor the  issue further,  but I arrived here as a result of my unfortunate attempt and assumption that the inflatable port could connect to a regular docking port. I found out the hard way so you don't have to!

[RealKerbal3x]

@Sweetcreek Same. I was under the impression that it could connect to normal docking ports. Guess I'll have to redesign my space station shuttle docking adapter AGAIN.....

[pandaman]

I too expected the inlflatable airlock to match the standard sized port.

It would make sense for that kind of stuff to be made clear in the part descriptions.

[Dunbaratu]

On 3/20/2018 at 3:50 AM, RoverDude said:

The Airlock is working as designed.  And as folks have already figured out, the airlock docks to a docking port Junior.  

Then something needs to be done to clarify that it only mates with a smaller docking port than the kind it *looks like* it mates with.  The looks seem to indicate that it's for the middle-sized docking port.  The description never says its for the docking port Jr size, and the artwork sure looks like it's the size of the bigger normal type.

Alternatively, the artwork could be slightly changed to make the ring on the end a smaller diameter, to visually communicate to the player what's going on.

But the fact that so many people didn't realize it wasn't the normal diameter part seems to prove there's something being miscommunicated by the game.  Finding out that it's a junior docking port instead of a normal size one shouldn't be an easter egg you find out by accident.

 

[Capt. Hunt]

On the contrary, since it's primarily an airlock, I feel like the docking function itself shouldn't be the main highlight of the parts description, since it's an airlock first and a docking port second.  I think the description could be like this:

Quote

Bill said he needed some privacy to get ready for a spacewalk, so Bob put a hatch on the end of this inflatable party slide and called it an airlock.  Coincidentally, also attaches to Clamp-o-tron jr. docking ports.

 

[Dunbaratu]

On 4/11/2018 at 12:41 PM, Capt. Hunt said:

On the contrary, since it's primarily an airlock, I feel like the docking function itself shouldn't be the main highlight of the parts description, since it's an airlock first and a docking port second.  I think the description could be like this:

The stock game has zero concept whatsoever of the notion of an "airlock" because all hatches already allow egress into a vacuum with no consequences.  There's no such thing as worrying about emptying the air into space or of kerbals suffocating when this happens.  In Gemini, there was no airlock and the doors just opened right into the cabin.  Therefore when one astronaut went on a spacewalk, the other had to also have his helmet on since the cabin would lose all its air when you open the hatch.  But Kerbal doesn't model this idea because nobody takes their helmets off anyway.  The point is there is zero concept of the difference between an "airlock" and "just a hatch" in stock KSP.  Therefore a part that is nothing more than adding an airlock to an existing hatch isn't providing *any* functionality at all when airlocks aren't even implemented in the game.

Thus I have a problem with the statement 'It's an airlock first".  No, transforming a hatch into a docking port is the only *game effect* it actually has.  As an "airlock" it does the same exact thing the hatch already did to begin with.

 

[Capt. Hunt]

You're looking at the part's functionality without also looking at the reason the part is in the game.

[Snark]

6 hours ago, Steven Mading said:

No, transforming a hatch into a docking port is the only *game effect* it actually has.  As an "airlock" it does the same exact thing the hatch already did to begin with.

Not quite.  One thing it can do is hold a kerbal.  It's a crewable part, while extended.

• When extended, it's a crewable part, and an EVA hatch, and a junior-sized docking port.
• When retracted, it's none of the above.  The only thing it can do is extend.
• If it's extended and either is docked to something or has a kerbal in it, it can't retract.

I assume the reason it's called "inflatable airlock" is because it's modeled after the actual inflatable airlocks on the Voskhod spacecraft.

Spoiler

Certainly it's not an "airlock" in game terms because, as has been pointed out, "airlocks" aren't really a thing in KSP per se.  There are crewable parts, and there are EVA hatches, and essentially every hatch in the game functions as an airlock.

In practical terms, as a KSP player?  I like 'em, I think they fill a useful niche.  The one thing about them that's a bit counterintuitive (or, at least, easy to miss, as this thread demonstrates) is that it's not super visually obvious what their docking port size is, just from looking at them.  They're junior-sized, but the player's eyeballs tend to fix on the part's diameter (which is big, like the medium-size ports).  So it's easy to look at it and just assume that it's a medium-sized port when it isn't.

[Dunbaratu]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

I assume the reason it's called "inflatable airlock" is because it's modeled after the actual inflatable airlocks on the Voskhod spacecraft.
 

I'm well aware of that, but all it does is mimic the look of that historical part without actually *doing* that part's job.

Quote

If it's extended and either is docked to something or has a kerbal in it, it can't retract.

When I was trying it, once it had previously been extended, it would refuse to ever collapse again, even when the kerbal wasn't in it anymore.  This meant it would screw up the re-entry as the capsule has this thing sticking out the side I can't get rid of.  Admittedly that was in KSP 1.4.1.  I never used it in KSP 1.4.2 to see if this was intended behaviour or a bug that was fixed.  (Because I didn't know it was a docking port, it appeared to have no purpose at all so I stopped using it.)

Quote

The one thing about them that's a bit counterintuitive (or, at least, easy to miss, as this thread demonstrates) is that it's not super visually obvious what their docking port size is

That's not a minor problem.  It's major.  Because that's the *only* purpose the part has is to be a docking port, and when you don't realize it's a Jr sized port, the conclusion the player comes away with is *not* "I guess I got the size wrong".  The conclusion the player comes away with is "I guess it's not a docking port after all.  I thought it was but it's not acting like it so I guess it isn't.".  You get no feedback that tells you it's a docking port when you try connecting to the wrong size.  It acts the same as it would act if it wasn't a docking port at all, so the player has no feedback to realize the problem.

 

[Snark]

31 minutes ago, Steven Mading said:

all it does is mimic the look of that historical part without actually *doing* that part's job.

Well, naturally it doesn't act as an "airlock" per se because airlocks aren't a thing in KSP and therefore the concept of "thing that allows keeping the interior of the ship pressurized when crew go in and out" is kinda meaningless.

It does, however, serve the other functionality of an airlock, in that it is, in fact, a hatch.  It provides a way to get in and out of the ship.  It's also crewable.

31 minutes ago, Steven Mading said:

When I was trying it, once it had previously been extended, it would refuse to ever collapse again, even when the kerbal wasn't in it anymore.

Perhaps an earlier bug?  I've never observed this behavior, ever-- they've always extended/retracted just fine for me.  Certainly it's not the case right now that they can't retract when empty and undocked.

31 minutes ago, Steven Mading said:

that's the *only* purpose the part has is to be a docking port

Sure, being a docking port is one of its purposes, and certainly a fairly important one, but not the only one.  It's also a hatch, and it's also a crewable part when extended (kerbals can reside in it).  I've already had some fairly useful and interesting uses for this part purely in its role as hatch / crewable, quite aside from its docking port functionality.

31 minutes ago, Steven Mading said:

That's not a minor problem.  It's major.

Didn't say it was minor.  It's certainly a usability issue, yes.  Would be nice if they did something to address this:  either do something to the visual design of the docking-ring portion of the part (to make it more visibly obvious that it's 0.625m), and/or put something in the part description like "Functions as a 0.625m docking port, compatible with the Clamp-O-Tron Jr."

(I wonder how much they consider their hands to be somewhat tied, design-wise, by trying to capture the look-and-feel of the Voskhod airlock?  After all, from a gameplay perspective, by far the best solution would be change the visual "look" of the docking ring so that it's obvious it's a 0.625m port... except if they did that, I wouldn't be surprised if the space-history enthusiasts would then jump down their throats with complaints of "no, that's not how it looked".)

Might be interesting to do a forum poll, something like this:

The first time you used the "inflatable airlock" part as a docking port, what was your experience?

• A:  I realized it was junior-sized right off the bat and had no trouble.
• B:  I thought it was 1.25m and it wouldn't dock, but then I quickly figured out the problem.
• C:  I thought it was 1.25m, it didn't work, and then I just figured it wasn't a docking port and gave up.
• D:  It never occurred to me in the first place that this is usable as a docking port.

My answer to such a poll would be B.  Sounds like you're a C.  I wouldn't be surprised if there are a fair number of D's out there.  I'm guessing that A will be a very small minority.  But it might be interesting to see what the numbers actually look like.