Revamp the Kerbodyne Fuel tanks please!

[MrJoolian]

I don't like the look, including the Mammoth. It doesn't feel new.

[Xurkitree]

I second this - I think that the textures should get a resolution update and fix the wobbly lines 

[KeranoKerman]

They definitely do need a revamp. I would like it look similar to the 1.6 adapter (2.5-3.5m) and have all the same texture switches. This would be great for 1.7.

[Superfluous J]

I remember when they stood out because they were so realistic.

[Dfthu]

I'm guessing they are already planning a revamped since the 1.25m and 2.5m parts are revamped too. But I would like if they add added a 3.75m poodle/terrier equivalent and a flat 3.75- 2.5m adapter. But if they do revamp the parts I hope they include a lot of options like what they did with the 1.25m parts. Id also like if they did that with the 1.8m parts (Look kinda bad now) and more options for the 2.5m parts.

[Nebbie]

They really have odd texturing that's never looked good, it just looked better than the crazy 2.5m stuff. But now...the 5m stuff puts them to shame.

[Tyko]

On 12/23/2018 at 11:40 AM, Dfthu said:

Id also like if they did that with the 1.8m parts (Look kinda bad now) and more options for the 2.5m parts.

It's so sad how quickly the MH parts aged out. When they came out they were a big improvement over Stock, but it's pretty clear they threw out the design sheet (if they even had one) after MH and came up with new (much improved) art guidelines since then.

The absolute worst nightmare IMHO is the 2 person LEM lander from MH. Not even counting the texturing, the layout of the RCS thrusters aren't correctly aligned. It's not even possible to create a craft using that part that has balanced RCS without turning off the part's RCS entirely and pretending all those nozzles don't exist.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Tyko

[RealKerbal3x]

55 minutes ago, Tyko said:

The absolute worst nightmare IMHO is the 2 person LEM lander from MH. Not even counting the texturing, the layout of the RCS thrusters aren't correctly aligned. It's not even possible to create a craft using that part that has balanced RCS without turning off the part's RCS entirely and pretending all those nozzles don't exist.

I feel like that part needs a major rework. Besides the RCS alignment issues you mentioned, it’s also disproportionately small compared to an MH Command/Service Module.

[Tyko]

20 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

I feel like that part needs a major rework. Besides the RCS alignment issues you mentioned, it’s also disproportionately small compared to an MH Command/Service Module.

Interesting...I always thought the Mk1 and Mk2 Lander cans were too big and that the LEM was about the right size. The RL LEM was supposed to be as small and light as possible and only had to squeeze 2 crew for 2 days. The Apollo capsule had to support a crew of 3 for two weeks. One could argue that the MH LEM and the Mk1-3 capsule are not supposed to be exact replicas of the Apollo program, but if the MH LEM is modeled after the real-life LEM I think it's about right.

In my game I downsize the Mk1 lander can to 80% stock size (keeping all stats the same).

Edited January 10, 2019 by Tyko

[Nebbie]

On 1/10/2019 at 1:16 PM, Tyko said:

Interesting...I always thought the Mk1 and Mk2 Lander cans were too big and that the LEM was about the right size. The RL LEM was supposed to be as small and light as possible and only had to squeeze 2 crew for 2 days. The Apollo capsule had to support a crew of 3 for two weeks. One could argue that the MH LEM and the Mk1-3 capsule are not supposed to be exact replicas of the Apollo program, but if the MH LEM is modeled after the real-life LEM I think it's about right.

In my game I downsize the Mk1 lander can to 80% stock size (keeping all stats the same).

I really think the Mk1 Lander Can needs a downsize for sure since it's basically the only 1.8m part in vanilla (and the 1.8m heatshields are in MH). Mk2 would've been great if they made it seat 3, but instead they just gave it the same dry mass as the MEM and kept it this egregiously-large tuna can like a novelty crew part.

[KSPACE]

Those parts are based on the older versions of the SLS, which used black and white paint rather than the newer orange color.

[Ozymandias_the_Goat]

20 hours ago, KSPACE said:

Those parts are based on the older versions of the SLS, which used black and white paint rather than the newer orange color.

True, but they still don’t look very realistic. Plus, now almost every other fuel tank in the game gives you the option to choose between a white or orange paint scheme.

On 1/10/2019 at 3:00 PM, RealKerbal3x said:

I feel like that part needs a major rework. Besides the RCS alignment issues you mentioned, it’s also disproportionately small compared to an MH Command/Service Module.

Honestly, I would never use that part anyway. If you want a realistic LM, one of the challenges is making it with the stock parts to look realistic, so just having s fully functional ascent stage is kind of...fruitless. And as far as functionality, don’t even mention it: it’s litetally useless.

On 1/19/2019 at 2:42 AM, Nebbie said:

I really think the Mk1 Lander Can needs a downsize for sure since it's basically the only 1.8m part in vanilla (and the 1.8m heatshields are in MH). Mk2 would've been great if they made it seat 3, but instead they just gave it the same dry mass as the MEM and kept it this egregiously-large tuna can like a novelty crew part.

Agreed. With 1.6, I use the mk2 lander can occasionally as a rover chassis, but if I need a small cabin for a lander ascent stage, I use the pomegranate reentrry module from making history. It’s small, seats three, and doesn’t look egregious 

.