Realignment of the Mk1-2 Command Pod

[Derivative]

I've noticed that the lander can, hitchhiker pod and so on all nicely line up when put together. All except the Mk1-2 Command Pod:

It has its ladder and hatch on the other side of all these other parts. I know you can just rotate the pod but even when you do do that its still doesn't quite match with the other pods. So I suggest that the Mk1-2 be realigned so it can line up with the rest.

[Amaroq]

Yes, please!

[MKI]

There should just be another 3 or 4 man large diameter Pod.

Changing the old one has a couple of issues:

1. save breaking, some ships will have their hatches covered...

2. needs new IVA view (theres still stock parts missing their IVA view anyways :/)

3. problem of where the door COULD go (under the bottom guys feet?)

4. no longer Apollo style analog.

Being the 3 man pod is my most used pod, and probably the most "general use" pod for multiple kerbals, the Dev's should make another with different parameters. I doubt they would implement a 4 man capsule as it would leave an open chair for a random kerbal with the original 3. A different 3 man design would probably make the most sense. Possibly a soyuz type (bell shaped) with minimal room, inline door and 3 kerbals all lined up directly would be a nice optional pod. Or a 3 man lander Pod, which doesn't exist so it would have gameplay implications by being light and easy to break.

[Luis]

The Mk1-2 also has windows in very awkward places that interfere with radial parachute placement. I like the looks but it's very annoying to use.

[Kasuha]

Actually I think all command pods should rather be aligned with the Mk1-2 command pod. Because that's the only pod where the hatch/ladder does not go in the way to placing RCS thrusters or stages under common symmetry settings.

[CaptRobau]

There should just be another 3 or 4 man large diameter Pod.

Changing the old one has a couple of issues:

1. save breaking, some ships will have their hatches covered...

2. needs new IVA view (theres still stock parts missing their IVA view anyways :/)

3. problem of where the door COULD go (under the bottom guys feet?)

4. no longer Apollo style analog.

Being the 3 man pod is my most used pod, and probably the most "general use" pod for multiple kerbals, the Dev's should make another with different parameters. I doubt they would implement a 4 man capsule as it would leave an open chair for a random kerbal with the original 3. A different 3 man design would probably make the most sense. Possibly a soyuz type (bell shaped) with minimal room, inline door and 3 kerbals all lined up directly would be a nice optional pod. Or a 3 man lander Pod, which doesn't exist so it would have gameplay implications by being light and easy to break.

1. There will no doubt be some update that will break saves (like one that redos planet surfaces like when they added those procedural craters to the Mun). Then they can add something like this.

2. A new external model allows for a new IVA. The current design of the Mk1-2 is horrible for an IVA as you can see nothing out of the windows.

3. Above the crew, as it was for the Apollo capsule.

4. Why couldn't a new Mk1-2 pod design also be an Apollo style analog?

[Eric S]

Actually I think all command pods should rather be aligned with the Mk1-2 command pod. Because that's the only pod where the hatch/ladder does not go in the way to placing RCS thrusters or stages under common symmetry settings.

I'll second this. It's not an issue with non-command-pod parts because you can rotate those, but if you rotate the command pod, you're rotating the controls as well, so where the RCS thrusters would go in respect to the pod orientation doesn't change.

[CaptainKipard]

I'll second this. It's not an issue with non-command-pod parts because you can rotate those, but if you rotate the command pod, you're rotating the controls as well, so where the RCS thrusters would go in respect to the pod orientation doesn't change.

I truly hate asymmetry.

OP is right.

[Paul Kingtiger]

Yes please, surely it's not that much work and well worth the effort.

[Kruleworld]

ah, yes. that would save some embarrassment (i put a few lights on with symmetry and one on the other side ended up on the hatch)

[Pockrtplanesairways]

3. problem of where the door COULD go (under the bottom guys feet?)

Above their heads like in apollo.

[Eric S]

I truly hate asymmetry.

OP is right.

I truly hate running ladders over RCS quads, or worse, accidentally placing an RCS quad over a hatch, trapping the kerbals inside.

OP is wrong.

[regex]

Actually I think all command pods should rather be aligned with the Mk1-2 command pod. Because that's the only pod where the hatch/ladder does not go in the way to placing RCS thrusters or stages under common symmetry settings.

I find myself agreeing with this sentiment. I've never really had an issue with the 3-man pod.

[Deathsoul097]

I find myself agreeing with this sentiment. I've never really had an issue with the 3-man pod.

Agreed. Never had an issue with it, and it isn't supposed to "line up" with those other parts. They all have different functions and design purposes, and at least three of those are generally used as space station modules by the common player. (In fact, I think I normally use all of those parts except for the MK1 pod on a station.) Also, what's wrong with a-symmetry? I like it.

[Mitchz95]

I'm with the OP. Asymmetry gets on my nerves most of the time.