The stock command pods drive me up the wall!

[AlternNocturn]

So I was playing the awesome KSP Multiplayer mod, and I decided to try building a Munbase. While I was coming up with cool base/lander designs, I tried out several different types of command pods to see which ones would suit my purposes. While looking through the stock selection of manned space pods, I noticed a lot of quirks with the pods that drive me up the wall and make my OCD flail around in fear. Since I love to use the Hitchhiker module whenever I can, that's usually where I run into problems with my designs. Ah, it's unbearable! So here we go.

MK1-2 (3-man) pod: I knew something was wrong with this pod the day it came out in 0.16. The hatch is at a weird angle! I like to build very spacious CSM craft, so I often add that lovely, lovely hitchhiker module as a "living quarters" for my dudes during long-duration missions. Of course, when I want to transfer them to the pod for the long journey, I have to EVA them around to the habitation module's hatch. That, however, is not really that big of an issue. What IS the issue is when I want to use this as a 3-man landing pod. I have trouble placing the ladder where it needs to go. Ah! This pod bugs the crap out of me. Sorry C7.

MK2 Lander-can: Ah, the Tuna Can! I remember being so excited for this pod when it was teased in 0.18. And when it came out, hot diggity! I found so many uses for it. Unfortuantely, a problem immediately presented itself: the pod isn't a perfect 2.5m cylinder. The base is 2.5m, yes, but then it tapers slightly inward and then goes straight up again, making it this odd diameter where, presumably due to the imitations of the collision mesh, stuff doesn't appear to stick directly to the surface of the pod. Still, it bugs me nevertheless. Also, it's really heavy. But it DOES line up with the Hitchhiker module, so props for that.

Cupola: Clara, you're a genius. This pod is very attractive looking, the IVA rocks my pants off, AND it lines up with the hitchhiker module's hatch! What more could I want? Well, more capacity for Kerbals and less weight. I know why it's like this though, considering the real Cupola on the ISS isn't exactly a very good place for three people to sit down in surrounded by equipment. And IRL, glass is really heavy, and seeing as the Cupola has 7 windows (and not Windows 7), I'm not really surprised by the weight. Still, it bugs me nonetheless.

Mk1 pod and Lander Can: I clumped these two together because I have the same issues with both of them, that being "pretty much none." Seriously, these pods are practically perfect. The hatch is in a convenient place, (for the hitchhiker, that is. Oh, also, ladders) they're lightweight, and their collision meshes are accurate enough for my tastes. The thing that bugs me about them is while they're perfect, they only hold one Kerbal. Still, if the other pods could be like these, I'd be ecstatic!

Command Seat: This isn't a pod, but there is an issue with it nonetheless: I can't add any Kerbals directly to it, I have to EVA them from a pod and manually board them. At least, I think this is still an issue, unless 0.20 made it so I can add them to the pod through the crew menu. I forgot to check. Maybe this really doesn't count...

I know there are several people already making command pod mods that fix all of my issues with these, but some of them aren't modular or stock-alike. I don't like relying on mods to fix my (very few!) issues with the game because I'll never know when the creator will abandon it, or whether an update will break it and I'll have to go and reinstall a compatible version. Ah, the wonders of indev games...

Anyway, I'm off to build a mission to Eve. Bye!

[Themohawkninja]

To be honest, I totally agree with all of this.

[maltesh]

There is another issue with the Mk2 Landercan: The Laddering doesn't go /above/ the door, so you can't climb /up/ from it to a Hitchhiker or Cupola mounted atop the landercan.

[Eric S]

MK1-2 (3-man) pod: I knew something was wrong with this pod the day it came out in 0.16. The hatch is at a weird angle! I like to build very spacious CSM craft, so I often add that lovely, lovely hitchhiker module as a "living quarters" for my dudes during long-duration missions.

Right issue, wrong solution. the hatch/ladder of the hitchhiker module needs to be rotated to match. The problem with moving the hatch/ladder on the Mk1-2 pod is that then you're giving us few choices in how to deal with the fact that the RCS quads are going to want to be "under" the ladder for efficiency. For the most part, this is just a visual thing, since the ladder can still be used with the RCS quad in a position that would appear to block the use of the ladder, but if your RCS quad placement calls for placing the quads at a height that would put them over the hatch instead of the ladder, if you try to EVA a kerbal out of the hitchhiker, you get told that the hatch is blocked.

As much as the non-symmetrical placement of the hatch/ladder on the MK1-2 command pod bothered me at first (yes, I posted forum comments about not liking it at the time), having to place RCS quads in positions that would cause inefficiency would be worse.

[Nuke]

il agree on the command seat issue. i like to build small open cockpit aircraft and dont like that i have to jump through hoops just to get a kerbal in the seat.

if you need to lign the hitchiker up to the MK1-2, you can just rotate one or the other till they line up. this is what i usually do.