Inline Landing Legs?

[HobbitJack]

I'll make this short. Landing legs, while useful, stick off the edges of your craft. It could be useful to have some inline landing legs, maybe part of a fuel tank. would be great for landers, the only problem I can CURRENTLY see with this is the placement on the tech tree, and the usage besides reducing a small amount of possible explodey parts. Your thoughts?

[Rocket In My Pocket]

Either rotate the regular landing legs, offset them into the crafts main body, or use static structural pieces to land on.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Rocket In My Pocket

[SlinkyMcman]

An additional bigger size landing legs that are stored in aerodynamic pods seems like a pretty good idea (there's probably a mod with more landing gear parts). Currently i'm using AeroBrakes from the same purpose on my Duna Lander. I think the game kinda just wants everyone to land on their engines since they're generally more stable compared to landing gear. I want kerbal to extend the tech tree so having these be worth 1450 science wouldn't phase me at all (definitely a mod for that).

[HobbitJack]

Well, I guess I really didn't think about part clipping.  This thread is kind-of irrelevant now.

[Geonovast]

1 minute ago, HobbitJack said:

Well, I guess I really didn't think about part clipping.  This thread is kind-of irrelevant now.

I disagree.  Some of us find part clipping intolerable.  I for one would love radially attached shielded legs similar to the Buffalo ones.

[HobbitJack]

1 minute ago, Geonovast said:

I disagree.  Some of us find part clipping intolerable.  I for one would love radially attached shielded legs similar to the Buffalo ones.

Yah, the main reason I suggested it was because I HATE part clipping, but also for other reasons. I NEVER use part clipping, but I rather use part clipping to get my "inline landing legs" than have them sticking off the side. The reason? I want them to survive my crazy ascent profile through Eve.

[cfds]

Does part clipping actually shield the clipped parts in stock aerodynamics?

[Dafni]

2 hours ago, cfds said:

Does part clipping actually shield the clipped parts in stock aerodynamics?

AFAIK no, their drag is added to the parent part.

At least it was like that last time I checked, some KSP versions ago. And we havent been informed of any changes there.

[Cassel]

What about tweakable that would add landing legs to some parts? Capsules could have it, fuel tanks, some structural parts too.

[Rocket In My Pocket]

7 hours ago, cfds said:

Does part clipping actually shield the clipped parts in stock aerodynamics?

Not from drag, but it can get them behind the "heat shield cone".

10 hours ago, Geonovast said:

I disagree.  Some of us find part clipping intolerable.  I for one would love radially attached shielded legs similar to the Buffalo ones.

To clarify, I'm not against a new inline landing leg part at all, I was just suggesting existing alternative solutions.

[Pthigrivi]

What is that great modded inline, fold-down leg folks have been using lately? 

Stock could for sure use 3-6 new legs, including shielded legs, falcon-style, base footings and a big honkin one for larger landers. 

[Geonovast]

1 minute ago, Pthigrivi said:

big honkin one for larger landers. 

At this point I'd be happy with a stock leg bigger than the LT-2.

 

I know, I know, "just use fins."  Some of us geek out over deployables though.

[Dafni]

I wish they would incorporate some of the nice landing legs from the KRE mod. Can't live without these Falcon9 legs anymore.

[Xurkitree]

Speaking of landing legs, can we get bigger ones?

MUCH bigger ones. The LT-2 doesnt hold up to massive SSTA landers. I had to use Landing gear because for they are way more robust.

This is why I took on LET for my OPM save

[Tonka Crash]

There is a large node attached landing leg in the Mining Extension pack I use on larger sized landers. The Making History 5m Kerbodyne Engine Cluster Adapter Tank makes a good lander base to attach legs and have a central node for an engine placement.

 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Tonka Crash

[Pthigrivi]

@Tonka Crash Thats a gorgeous base, btw.

[Xurkitree]

Speaking of Inline Lansing Legs, maybe a fuel tank sized framework holing 4 landing legs that are taller wider and sturdier, but heavier than the stock landing legs?

[lunardog15]

you could have the legs go straight down when they deploy

that would be cool

[lrd.Helmet]

I was thinking you might be able to use the extending ladders as landing legs. However they don't appear to be very impact resistant.

[Brownhair2]

5 hours ago, lrd.Helmet said:

I was thinking you might be able to use the extending ladders as landing legs. However they don't appear to be very impact resistant.

Plus, last I checked the actual ladder part of the ladder clips through terrain

[Tonka Crash]

A close-up of the legs I mentioned above.

[Duck McFuddle]

You can just clip the legs. Problem solved. 

[HobbitJack]

The whole point is to avoid clipping. Can you put a landing leg inside a fuel tank in real-life and expect to receive no capacity issues or have it actually be able to land? Also, part clipping looks UGLY.

[Loskene]

1 hour ago, HobbitJack said:

The whole point is to avoid clipping. Can you put a landing leg inside a fuel tank in real-life and expect to receive no capacity issues or have it actually be able to land? Also, part clipping looks UGLY.

Lazy part clipping to handwaive a design problem looks ugly. I generally try to avoid it myself, but the single-part way you design vessels in KSP sometimes mandates clipping for greater realism rather than less. Science parts, doohickeys, avionics and other things that would normally be inside something that otherwise has a lot of empty space in it like crew cabins, but don't warrant an entire service bay to themselves. Done right it can be made to look aesthetically pleasing, a la cupcake's SSTOs, even if those are rather pushing it in terms of realism.

I also tend to use small degrees of clipping to make part transitions look nicer, within the realms of the imagined amount of empty volume each part offers.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Loskene
.

[Geonovast]

6 minutes ago, Loskene said:

Lazy part clipping to handwaive a design problem looks ugly. I generally try to avoid it myself, but the single-part way you design vessels in KSP sometimes mandates clipping for greater realism rather than less. Science parts, doohickeys, avionics and other things that would normally be inside something that otherwise has a lot of empty space in it like crew cabins, but don't warrant an entire service bay to themselves. Done right it can be made to look aesthetically pleasing, a la cupcake's SSTOs, even if those are rather pushing it in terms of realism.

I also tend to use small degrees of clipping to make part transitions look nicer, within the realms of the imagined amount of empty volume each part offers.

The issue in this context isn't strictly part clipping, but part clipping of moving parts.  Having pieces magically pass through each other because of clipping is just downright hideous.