In-ship movement?

[Duck McFuddle]

I would really love to have tunnels that you you can move Kerbals through and into other parts. Right now you need to put them on EVA and build the inside with plates and all that stuff. But it would be so cool to have tunnels! For example, I could have a science lab connected by a tunnel to a crew cabin. Then I could have Kerbals in the cabin and then move then through the tunnel to the lab as if it were one big part! This could be really fun for space stations and long-distance mother ships. Just being able to see Kerbals float around inside would be great on it's own. 

[Skywalket]

I would love to see this. That way we could properly re-create Apollo 13

[Chel]

On 6/17/2018 at 2:19 AM, Duck McFuddle said:

I would really love to have tunnels that you you can move Kerbals through and into other parts. Right now you need to put them on EVA and build the inside with plates and all that stuff. But it would be so cool to have tunnels! For example, I could have a science lab connected by a tunnel to a crew cabin. Then I could have Kerbals in the cabin and then move then through the tunnel to the lab as if it were one big part! This could be really fun for space stations and long-distance mother ships. Just being able to see Kerbals float around inside would be great on it's own. 

Do you mean walking through? You can have Kerbals transfer from different parts, and to different ships via docking ports. Bit confused by what you mean 

[Gargamel]

2 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:

Do you mean walking through? You can have Kerbals transfer from different parts, and to different ships via docking ports. Bit confused by what you mean 

They want IVA EVAs.    Be able to move through the ship, in real time, in first person. 

I would absolutely love to see this. 

Couple problems with it though, tough, but not unsolvable. 

One, it would probably require a major rewrite of the existing code.  Maybe not, but a lot of effort would be required to make this work.   Enough effort that i can see it being part of KSP2 rather than the current version.

Two, continuity.    Lets say I have a command pod on top of a science lab.  I can unbuckle from my seat and drift down into the science lab.  This would require the hatches to be open and able to see through them. Now the IVA designers have to account for a multitude of angles to make things look properly.   What happens though if there science lab already has two kerbals in it and you want to pass through?  But halfway there, you leave the IVA mode, what happens to our extra kerbal?  All solvable questions, but they need addressed.

And what happens if there is a part (say a heatshield or decoupler, or even a fuel tank) in between our pod and lab?  Now they have to render the extended passageway without glitching out. 

Lots of issues, but I'd love to see it. 

[Aeroboi]

1 hour ago, Gargamel said:

Two, continuity.    Lets say I have a command pod on top of a science lab.  I can unbuckle from my seat and drift down into the science lab.  This would require the hatches to be open and able to see through them. Now the IVA designers have to account for a multitude of angles to make things look properly.   What happens though if there science lab already has two kerbals in it and you want to pass through?  But halfway there, you leave the IVA mode, what happens to our extra kerbal?  All solvable questions, but they need addressed.

Have the unbuckled Kerbal pop up in the crew transfer panel of any of the available crew containers and have a extra options to seat/buckle him in that particular crew compartment. If unbuckled that Kerbal will simply remain floating in the same crew compartment container, in the case of your example inside the science lab. I think the max Kerbal per crew compartment is the amount of Kerbals that can be strapped in seat or buckled in as you call it, not the max amount of Kerbals that can fit that volume so this proposed system could allow them to float inside containers that are already occupied in terms of seating area but you won't have to have that Kerbal seated in a unoccupied seat while leaing the IVA EVA mode. You will have to seat the Kerbal when under G strain otherwise you will hurt of even kill the Kerbal.

[mattinoz]

On 6/19/2018 at 7:21 PM, Aeroboi said:

Have the unbuckled Kerbal pop up in the crew transfer panel of any of the available crew containers and have a extra options to seat/buckle him in that particular crew compartment. If unbuckled that Kerbal will simply remain floating in the same crew compartment container, in the case of your example inside the science lab. I think the max Kerbal per crew compartment is the amount of Kerbals that can be strapped in seat or buckled in as you call it, not the max amount of Kerbals that can fit that volume so this proposed system could allow them to float inside containers that are already occupied in terms of seating area but you won't have to have that Kerbal seated in a unoccupied seat while leaing the IVA EVA mode. You will have to seat the Kerbal when under G strain otherwise you will hurt of even kill the Kerbal.

Which means you could then remove the seats from parts that shouldn't be crewed for high-G events anyway. As Kerbals can then be in a part to activate it without the seat. 

[Enceos]

There were some experiments on it in the past, the project is still alive. Needs a modeller to add IVA tunnels and props to every part.

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by Enceos

[RealKerbal3x]

Yes! I'd love to see this in stock-- it would bring even more immersion to the game

[Redneck]

I for one would love to see this implemented. IMO a meaningful update i think everybody would enjoy. I dont think it would be to hard to implement actually. Another unity layer possibly? If you look at this harvester (ksp creator) was explaining how they made internal IVA. So really this could be done it would just be a matter of colliders i think and maybe applying some kind of "Zero gravity" physics to the kerbal mesh with a camera as a child of mesh perhaps? 1st and 3rd person views could be done via unity layers could it not? Just a matter of turning them on and off with either bool or if else if correct? (im not a coder btw just brainstorming here) The kerbals could turn and float around while interacting with items (props would need colliders) inside. Or right click and "seatbelt" them into a seat or bed? Just thinking out loud here

 

Edited June 22, 2018 by Redneck

[r4pt0r]

Good luck coding for this.




There are WAY too many variables, and what you want is going to be impossible in the framework of KSP.

[Aeroboi]

3 hours ago, r4pt0r said:

Good luck coding for this.

There are WAY too many variables, and what you want is going to be impossible in the framework of KSP.

To many variables and it's impossibe, really? Aren't you thinking to complicated? Now, if I'm thinking to simple by the end of this comment do tell. 

From a designers perspective I'd set the rule to allow hatches or connection points as open doorways only when attached straight to existing attachment points. But it shouldn't work when they're surface attached as the example from your picture.
If from any point in IVA you would want to go straight left, straight down or all around you use the Rockomax multi point connector. I can see myself making a whole maze of different angled entry points and tunnels and then cover it in structural pieces, wings, fuel tanks and engines to make a entire spaceship with internal IVA routing.

The internal IVA of i.e. the Hitchhiker storage container has trash and snacks cabinets on the walls so one could never render a opening on any of those places without making it look jagged and misplaced no matter how much good luck one wishes the one willing to code it. Because of this reason the example on your picture will never work as you say so yourself. So, don't code it, saves the time.

Why would we want it that complicated anyway? Ask yourself, is that necessary?

In my view that shouldn't be needed. If I refer to that picture you posted and I assumed one were silly enough to surface attach a structural fuselage to the walls of a hitchhiker with this future implementation installed it would just be, a structural fuselage attached to the hitchhiker with no opening to go through. And at worst have it visible inside the hitchhiker storage container due to it clipping, luckily we have the move tool thingy to use for this. I also rarely see people attach modules together as in that picture. Is this what you do? Or just a worst case example? The latter I assume, so there's no need for tackling these extreme case variables  then anyway, is there? 

Now, if there were another compartment on the other side of the left attached structural fuselage like the Cupola in your example you could still enter it from there. You should see one seperated section as a private privacy place where naughty Kerbal stuff happens....
People talk about realism, realistically naughty stuff must happen.

So unless you think naughty privacy stuff should be public to everyone on board it is a good imagination to validate this as a excuse that some parts of the ship shouldn't be accessible only from outside. 
You just couldn't enter the left sided section with the cupola from the hitchiker compartments, that's all.
I remember so many sci-fi movies where the astronaut had to EVA to go from one side of a ship to another side. Usually because the ship broke due to whatever hostile intervention or having sections blown to smithereen. The way your extreme example has modules attached together also looks broken and it isn't how I design my vessels in KSP to begin with, and I rarely see it also so I doubt that you do.

If you still wanted that from the picture to work somewhat practically by having diagonal or non straight pathways in general while having everything connected in straight lines this implementation for a future release could add one or two curved angled pieces of structure that are stackable. Or just one such a piece that could be toggled between a 2.5° and a 5° degrees or more angle types that one could stack or completely toggle to create corners of 2.5°, 5° 10°, 15°, 20° or 22.5° which when created are hollowed structures that allows for internal IVA.

To expand on this whole idea a bit further...

First I would add a 2.5m multipoint hub that can be accessed at least 4 ways (5 ways?) with a floor/ceiling and a 2.5m structural tube so you can create 2.5m connected living spaces on a planetary surface. The current 2.5m modules can only be accessed top or down perpendicular to any floor while under gravity.

Furthermore, all the compartments should have ledges, handles, ladders and/or ropes visible in the IVA compartments. They could also have droppable rope ladders that automatically drop when inside of a low atmosphere under greater then 0.1G which themselves are only visual as the movement through compartments is still automated but the speed at which this happens depends on the gravity at the destination. You would still use the simple WASD-QE controls but the camera would pitch and roll according to simulate Kerbal effort in climbing rather then floating as it would in space and movement would be restricted to and from grab/climbing points within the compartment so as not to be as free moving like you would in space. All of this bundled together in my eyes would make a very solid IVA experience. 

I hope splendid imagination isn't deceiving myself this day but this doesn't seem in the vicinity of impossibility IMHO.  

 

[FireKerb]

15 hours ago, Aeroboi said:

Why would we want it that complicated anyway? Ask yourself, is that necessary?

Why should we have IVA movement? It's unnecessary and complicated.

[MR L A]

17 hours ago, Aeroboi said:

If from any point in IVA you would want to go straight left, straight down or all around you use the Rockomax multi point connector

this would actually make the part so much more useful! Shame its unlocked so late in career mode though

[Lisias]

3 hours ago, FireKerb said:

Why should we have IVA movement? It's unnecessary and complicated.

By the same reason (some of) we want Kerbalism, RSS, Galileo, Karbonite and others.

Yeah, it will be complicated. Yeah, there're good chances that this would ending up kaput. But the same could be told by some sucessful mods, so… Yeah, good luck - I wish success to the endeavour.  

[Mark Kerbin]

Would be cool but you would practically need an army of devs to get it to work with the complex stuff players come up with 

(probs said before on phone and threads work poorly also can’t change text size)

[mattinoz]

On 6/27/2018 at 1:13 AM, Aeroboi said:

From a designers perspective I'd set the rule to allow hatches or connection points as open doorways only when attached straight to existing attachment points. But it shouldn't work when they're surface attached as the example from your picture.
If from any point in IVA you would want to go straight left, straight down or all around you use the Rockomax multi point connector. I can see myself making a whole maze of different angled entry points and tunnels and then cover it in structural pieces, wings, fuel tanks and engines to make a entire spaceship with internal IVA routing.

The internal IVA of i.e. the Hitchhiker storage container has trash and snacks cabinets on the walls so one could never render a opening on any of those places without making it look jagged and misplaced no matter how much good luck one wishes the one willing to code it. Because of this reason the example on your picture will never work as you say so yourself. So, don't code it, saves the time.

Which in turn would do away with the need for the Radial attachment point.

Or keep the radial attachment point and except that using it might produce less than desirable results. Then the original image has only two ( well three if you include blocked as status quo) conditions to deal with. Node Tunnels between parts which in theory are just areas the internal texture of the hatch disappears. Radial Tunnels which need to brut force a whole in the IVA texture. The game already does part of this with the view that lets you see inside of rockets. 

 

Seems like it could be split over a few versions to bug check as it goes.