Rover sizes compared to landing cans. (Nasa moon landing example.)

[Jeq]

Rover which Nasa used, has same wheels as KSP has, those foldable red ones.

Problem to re-create this in KSP 2 comes in dimensions:

-Nasa Rover was 2x3 meters, it was fitted under lander can which was big enought so you could fit that rover under it.

-If i wan't to recreate 2 seated rover under lander can in ksp2, it becomes very obivious this cannot be done due scale of these parts compared to eachother.

 

Could we have some solution here? I think fitting rovers into rockets are harder than in their real life counterparts, which often leads to weird shaped and funny looking concepts. 

We know that in real life this could be done without extra space in fairings, without robotics. But we don't have options to fit things correctly in KSP 2. 

 

Problem to solve 1: Should we get huge lander cans or smaller rover parts?

Problem to solve 2: Current rover parts are underperforming for their huge size i think.

Edited January 26 by Jeq

[Jeq]

This was closest thing i could create with 2 seated landercan, i think there could be some stuff to tweak.

Another thing that pops on eye, is that landing legs are quite not as sturdy as their real life counter parts. This were biggest landing legs from KSP 1.

 

Actually picture of lander i post at start was just an early design, real rover was foldable and backed into tighter space, lander wasn't that big.

Question remains, where are engines and fuel, i don't think RCS had enought  power to land on Mun

. 

Edited January 26 by Jeq

[The Aziz]

The devs weren't trying to recreate parts 1:1. The general shape is where similarities end.

[Jeq]

2 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

The devs weren't trying to recreate parts 1:1. The general shape is where similarities end.

Yes i can see it with my own eyes and that's a problem i pointed out here.

[Kerbart]

1 hour ago, Jeq said:

We know that in real life this could be done without extra space in fairings, without robotics. But we don't have options to fit things correctly in KSP 2.

And that's a problem not just for rovers. We have wonderful girders that are limited in use because a launch stack has to fit inside a fairing. Try making a Voyager probe with that long boom sticking out, the camera rail and the RTG folding out away from the craft.

Maybe we'll get it as DLC but even then it'll probably take years. It would be nice to have at least some folding parts for this.

[The Aziz]

58 minutes ago, Jeq said:

that's a problem i pointed out here.

It's not a problem, it's a design decision.

[Jeq]

1 hour ago, The Aziz said:

It's not a problem, it's a design decision.

Its a problem if i say its a problem for me, i am player. There is problem in design decision.

Edited January 26 by Jeq

[PDCWolf]

2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

It's not a problem, it's a design decision.

This argument would've destroyed a lot of discussions around KSP1 heh. "Design decision" is not a trump card against criticism: the devs made a choice? sure, but a conscious choice can still create problems, be unintuitive, or outright bad.

[steveman0]

I will admit the size and complexity of deploying even the smallest rover is likely the biggest contributor in running zero rover missions so far in my 100 hours of KSP 2. I haven't taken the time to figure out how I would reliably deploy one as a support vehicle. I've seen some one-off deployments that I'm sure I could replicate for a drone rover, but there is a huge leap in complexity to deploy one with a kerbal that can also return the kerbal home compared to a simple lander without a rover.

[byaafacehead]

Not having robotics too, that such a great system in KSP1. Though I get near term there's more pressing priorities for KSP2 development, but I hope something like that makes it in the game in the not too distant future