inline chutes

[goldenpeach]

Hi!

I think that inline chutes might have it's utility.

Why?

Because you could place other thing on them,in example,if you do a escape tower,you could the chutes below the escape tower instead of using radial chutes.

Thank you for reading this (very) short suggestion!

[Beeman]

I feel like this is something that might get added eventually. I think they've mentioned that they're going to rework a lot of the older parts soonish, just to give them a bit of a facelift and maybe reduce their polygon count. Or something like that.

Then again, the parachutes we have right now aren't really that old. Hmm...either way, I'd be down for some in-line parachutes, even if the radial chutes kind of do the job okay.

[Zeroignite]

Yes please. It always bothers me when I have to use radial chutes and I descent tilted sideways.

[Captain Sierra]

what I'd like to see is an escape tower with the parachute inegrated. Unforunately, because of how KSP functions, it isn't possible to give an object both an SRB module and a parachute module in the config. I think that is an engine limitation so I don't think I'll ever see this.

[LeadMagnet]

The Gemini and Mercury Pack have the escape tower. If you don't want all the other parts, just load this one.

Back on topic, when you say "in-line", like a seperator/decoupler? That would be a welcome addition! I second!!

[pizzaoverhead]

The Prilla Launch Escape System had the standard large parachute with the cfg modified to include a hard-point on top. It hasn't been updated in a while, but still works with some cfg edits.

[ZenithRising]

Yes please. It always bothers me when I have to use radial chutes and I descent tilted sideways.

If you use three in a symmetrical set up, you'll go down straight.

[Zeroignite]

If you use three in a symmetrical set up, you'll go down straight.

More chutes means a worse mass ratio for any stage, and I get bored with descending at 2m/s.

[ZenithRising]

More chutes means a worse mass ratio for any stage, and I get bored with descending at 2m/s.

True. But it kind of makes sense physics wise. I mean, in real life, how would you design a parachute that you could stack thing on top of and still have it function?

I guess maybe it would be nice to be able to put a seperatron on top of a chute so that by the time you get to the final stage, there's nothing on top of it, but you'd have more freedom in how you design earlier stages. Or maybe just smaller radial chutes are the answer.

I think the set up is more than workable right now though.

[goldenpeach]

[...]

Back on topic, when you say "in-line", like a seperator/decoupler? That would be a welcome addition! I second!!

Yes,by "inline" I mean like a decoupler(or a fuel tank,or an SAS module etc...)