Mk3 cargo bay

[goldenpeach]

Yeah, the idea is simple.

In the next update(0.25) we will have cargo bay for mk-2 tanks but not for the mk-3 tanks.

My suggestion is simply to make those cargo bay for the mk-3 tanks.

[Nemrav]

I suspect in 0.26 we will have them, not sure if mk3 gets totally replaced this update, but for sure they will in 0.26 and so with the mechanics in place, they should get a go ahead.

How long do you think they should be ? I'm thinking since the mk3 is larger in diameter to make them 3/4 the size of a mk2 cargo bay...

[goldenpeach]

No, I would say that should be as long as the mk-3 bomb cargo bay, and like the mk-3 it would have smaller bays to add if you want it longer.

[Alshain]

I think the entire Mk3 refit got pushed to 0.26. Only Mk1 and Mk2 in this update.

[klgraham1013]

I think the entire Mk3 refit got pushed to 0.26. Only Mk1 and Mk2 in this update.

That's unfortunate. I figured Hugo had finished up that project.

- - - Updated - - -

...and, yeah, we need Mk3 to carry 2.5m parts.

[Wanderfound]

...and, yeah, we need Mk3 to carry 2.5m parts.

I'm not particularly fussed about 2.5m bits, but it would be nice to have room for 1.25m + radial goo pods or lander legs or winglets.

Bugger the Mk3 pseudo-shuttles, just double the size of the SP+ stuff. At the very least provide an extra-large cargo bay and an adaptor to mount it to Mk2 fuselages.

[klgraham1013]

Bugger the Mk3 pseudo-shuttles...

Problem is, they already established a larger size aircraft. One that seems to universally be consider useless. (Stuck somewhere between spaceplanes and rockets) This is doubly so by the inclusion of SP+. As far as I can see, a cargo bay for 2.5m parts is the only saving grace for Mk3.

[CaptRobau]

Indeed. A Mk3 cargobay only fit for 1.25m parts would only be used for aesthethic reasons and in some fringe cases where you just need a bit more clearance on the top and bottom.

[Albert VDS]

I thought the Mk3 parts would be included in 0.25.

[Murph]

Problem is, they already established a larger size aircraft. One that seems to universally be consider useless. (Stuck somewhere between spaceplanes and rockets) This is doubly so by the inclusion of SP+. As far as I can see, a cargo bay for 2.5m parts is the only saving grace for Mk3.

I'm not convinced that stock would be suitable for 2.5m spaceplane cargo objects, with just a revamped mk 3, without also vastly increasing the choice in wing sections, gear, control surfaces, etc. Once you go bigger than 1.25m, you mostly need the other components in larger sizes as well. Stock spaceplane stuff is mostly not well suited to heavy designs right now.

[Wanderfound]

I'm not convinced that stock would be suitable for 2.5m spaceplane cargo objects, with just a revamped mk 3, without also vastly increasing the choice in wing sections, gear, control surfaces, etc. Once you go bigger than 1.25m, you mostly need the other components in larger sizes as well. Stock spaceplane stuff is mostly not well suited to heavy designs right now.

The problem with the SP+ bays is that they aren't sized for 1.25m-based spacecraft, they're sized for 1.25m-and-not-an-inch-more. You can't put lander legs on a 1.25m core and carry it in an SP+ cargo bay: the feet will clip through the floor, and you'll never get it out again. If you want legs, you have to slim down to .675m for the bit you mount the legs to. Even RCS thruster blocks are too bulky to fit without protruding (no collision mesh though, so at least those are just cosmetic).

Just a 10% boost to cargo bay size would solve most of the problems.

[Murph]

The problem with the SP+ bays is that they aren't sized for 1.25m-based spacecraft, they're sized for 1.25m-and-not-an-inch-more. You can't put lander legs on a 1.25m core and carry it in an SP+ cargo bay: the feet will clip through the floor, and you'll never get it out again. If you want legs, you have to slim down to .675m for the bit you mount the legs to. Even RCS thruster blocks are too bulky to fit without protruding (no collision mesh though, so at least those are just cosmetic).

Just a 10% boost to cargo bay size would solve most of the problems.

That's probably what a Mk 3 cargo bay should target  1.25m cargo with radial-attached legs and the like.

2.5m cargo planes should be left to part packs (e.g. B9, which has some good options for it), unless/until stock is going to get lots of new parts to make big & heavy planes properly (i.e. large wings, much bigger gear, etc).

[Alshain]

I would also like to see a Mk1 Cargo bay really. It would be nice to have a place out-of-sight to put science equipment, PB NUKs, extendable solar panels and such. Important for FAR/NEAR as well as just general appearances. Really no reason not to have a cargo bay in all the sizes.

The problem with the SP+ bays is that they aren't sized for 1.25m-based spacecraft, they're sized for 1.25m-and-not-an-inch-more. You can't put lander legs on a 1.25m core and carry it in an SP+ cargo bay: the feet will clip through the floor, and you'll never get it out again. If you want legs, you have to slim down to .675m for the bit you mount the legs to. Even RCS thruster blocks are too bulky to fit without protruding (no collision mesh though, so at least those are just cosmetic).

Just a 10% boost to cargo bay size would solve most of the problems.

Your going to get that, they made the parts symmetrical by extending the bottom to be bigger. That should mean more internal space in the cargo bays.

That's probably what a Mk 3 cargo bay should target  1.25m cargo with radial-attached legs and the like.

2.5m cargo planes should be left to part packs (e.g. B9, which has some good options for it), unless/until stock is going to get lots of new parts to make big & heavy planes properly (i.e. large wings, much bigger gear, etc).

I firmly disagree. "Just use B9" is not an answer. B9 is a rather crappy addon these days, it's too big, you have to go in and delete half the parts just to make it fit because the textures are so large. Their solution is use Active texture management, but there is no way to make that target JUST B9 and I don't want the rest of my game to look like crap. You resize the the textures yourself but that is a lot of trouble. Finally, you have to go find and undo the changes they make to parts outside their own addon now. B9 is not the answer.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Alshain

[Wanderfound]

I would also like to see a Mk1 Cargo bay really. It would be nice to have a place out-of-sight to put science equipment, PB NUKs, extendable solar panels and such. Important for FAR/NEAR as well as just general appearances. Really no reason not to have a cargo bay in all the sizes.

Seconded. A Mk1 bay should be perfect for .675m microprobes and satellites, too.

As mentioned elsewhere, a Mk3 bay has another use: fly-in fly-out hangars for small spacecraft on space stations. Leave one open end facing the surface of the station, and you can launch BSG-style...

[Murph]

I firmly disagree. "Just use B9" is not an answer. B9 is a rather crappy addon these days, it's too big, you have to go in and delete half the parts just to make it fit because the textures are so large. Their solution is use Active texture management, but there is no way to make that target JUST B9 and I don't want the rest of my game to look like crap. You resize the the textures yourself but that is a lot of trouble. Finally, you have to go find and undo the changes they make to parts outside their own addon now. B9 is not the answer.

I'm not saying "Just use B9". What I'm saying is that it would take considerably more than just 2.5m interior diameter cargo space in stock to make that viable. Without large wings, large gear, large control surfaces, etc, as well as a cargo bay, 2.5m cargo space is relatively useless in stock. The current stock wings, etc, are really not suitable for large and heavy usage.

So, what I'm arguing is that Mk3 would be a good niche for a 1.25m+legs sized cargo bay, since we don't have a stock cargo bay suitable for that, and that 2.5m should go to something else. I'm also saying that it's necessary to add a whole bunch more than just a cargo bay to give proper support to 2.5m spaceplane payloads.

So, leave 2.5m to the mods (e.g. B9), unless it's done properly in stock. A bloated-out Mk3 cargo bay alone isn't the right answer for 2.5m (frankly, it would be about as useless as the current Mk3 stuff is), and we'd still need the 1.25m+legs size.

[Wanderfound]

I'd agree that we could really use some larger wing pieces, for convenience if nothing else. You can build fairly large and effective things with the current sizes, though:

[Alshain]

I'm not saying "Just use B9". What I'm saying is that it would take considerably more than just 2.5m interior diameter cargo space in stock to make that viable. Without large wings, large gear, large control surfaces, etc, as well as a cargo bay, 2.5m cargo space is relatively useless in stock. The current stock wings, etc, are really not suitable for large and heavy usage.

So, what I'm arguing is that Mk3 would be a good niche for a 1.25m+legs sized cargo bay, since we don't have a stock cargo bay suitable for that, and that 2.5m should go to something else. I'm also saying that it's necessary to add a whole bunch more than just a cargo bay to give proper support to 2.5m spaceplane payloads.

So, leave 2.5m to the mods (e.g. B9), unless it's done properly in stock. A bloated-out Mk3 cargo bay alone isn't the right answer for 2.5m (frankly, it would be about as useless as the current Mk3 stuff is), and we'd still need the 1.25m+legs size.

I agree on the large gear but the wings are modular and can be made as large as you want.

We have a 1.25m cargo bay coming, it's in 0.25 and it is likely going to be suitable for that. The 0.25 Mk2 is not the same as the SP+ Mk2 (or even the current stock Mk2 parts), it's bigger, they made the top and bottom symmetrical by extending the bottom out. We will have to wait and see what fits, but there is a fairly good bet it's going to be more than the SP+ parts.

I have a feeling the Mk3 is going to have no purpose if not to carry 2.5m parts. Lets just assume and hope the new bigger Mk2 CAN carry 1.25 with radial parts... where does that leave the Mk3 if it can't carry 2.5m?

Edited October 3, 2014 by Alshain

[Murph]

I agree on the large gear but the wings are modular and can be made as large as you want.

We have a 1.25m cargo bay coming, it's in 0.25 and it is likely going to be suitable for that. The 0.25 Mk2 is not the same as the SP+ Mk2 (or even the current stock Mk2 parts), it's bigger, they made the top and bottom symmetrical by extending the bottom out. We will have to wait and see what fits, but there is a fairly good bet it's going to be more than the SP+ parts.

I have a feeling the Mk3 is going to have no purpose if not to carry 2.5m parts. Lets just assume and hope the new bigger Mk2 CAN carry 1.25 with radial parts... where does that leave the Mk3 if it can't carry 2.5m?

The SP+ Mk2 cargo bay certainly isn't sufficient for 1.25m payloads with legs. It will allow very small 2x symmetry stuff radially attached, but not higher symmetry levels. Maybe I'll be surprised by it when 0.25 lands, but I don't think it's going to be big enough for larger 1.25m payloads (unless Squad have super-sized it more than the impression I get from your description and the pictures I've seen). The current Mk3 profile is about right for 1.25m + legs, but too small for 2.5m.

The stock wings may be modular, but they don't scale up to 100t+ planes very well. The part count gets to be ridiculous once you have them properly strutted to be reasonably rigid. If stock is going to properly support 2.5m spaceplane payloads, much bigger wing sections are a requirement to keep the part count sane. I've built 100t+ planes with both stock and B9. It's horrible to build them with stock wings, and relatively easy with B9. Massively tedious to stitch together all the wing sections with struts, then lag from the crazy part count that you end up with.

[Wanderfound]

The main change to the SP+ parts is that they've made them all symmetrical (SP+ bits are a smidge flattened on the bottom). This should hopefully improve the usable space inside a bit.

[Alshain]

The main change to the SP+ parts is that they've made them all symmetrical (SP+ bits are a smidge flattened on the bottom). This should hopefully improve the usable space inside a bit.

I'm starting to question that now. I believed that to be true but after posting I went back and looked at the pictures again. They might have made the top smaller and the bottom bigger to make them symmetrical. The SP+ parts do appear to have a bigger arch on top. That could be optical illusion though. I guess it's going to be "wait and see".

[prophet_01]

I disagree. Srsly, why would you go through all the trouble of designing a shuttle for transport purpuses if you can't construct a station or an interplanetary ship with it? What would such a tiny shuttle be for? It's just the same dead end niche profile that space planes are stuck in.

It's only use would be looking nice and doing those rescue contracts in low kerbin orbit. it's a niche and it always will be because 1.25 m is not the relevant size. The majority of missions beyond kerbins muns is based on 2.5 m. And the orbital constriction is the area in which shuttles and big spaceplanes come in.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to put 1.25+ bays to use but the fact that it causes that many issues is the reason why it will remain impractical and unused

[Alshain]

I disagree. Srsly, why would you go through all the trouble of designing a shuttle for transport purpuses if you can't construct a station or an interplanetary ship with it? What would such a tiny shuttle be for? It's just the same dead end niche profile that space planes are stuck in.

It's only use would be looking nice and doing those rescue contracts in low kerbin orbit. it's a niche and it always will be because 1.25 m is not the relevant size. The majority of missions beyond kerbins muns is based on 2.5 m. And the orbital constriction is the area in which shuttles and big spaceplanes come in.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to put 1.25+ bays to use but the fact that it causes that many issues is the reason why it will remain impractical and unused

That's your opinion. I have plenty of 1.25m planes and I've flown them everywhere. Don't confuse your preference with everyone's preference.

[Murph]

I disagree. Srsly, why would you go through all the trouble of designing a shuttle for transport purpuses if you can't construct a station or an interplanetary ship with it? What would such a tiny shuttle be for? It's just the same dead end niche profile that space planes are stuck in.

It's only use would be looking nice and doing those rescue contracts in low kerbin orbit. it's a niche and it always will be because 1.25 m is not the relevant size. The majority of missions beyond kerbins muns is based on 2.5 m. And the orbital constriction is the area in which shuttles and big spaceplanes come in.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to put 1.25+ bays to use but the fact that it causes that many issues is the reason why it will remain impractical and unused

I for one am not saying "don't do 2.5m", and I don't think anyone else is saying that. What I'm saying is don't do a half-assed 2.5m bay, and don't do just the bay without the other parts necessary for large+heavy payloads. Either do 2.5m payloads properly, or leave them to mods for now. I don't believe that Mk3 is the correct platform for serious 2.5m payload spaceplanes. A good 2.5m bay needs to be significantly larger than the current Mk3 profile, to allow space for small radial attachments, strutting the payload into the bay, etc. Adding a new platform to stock for 2.5m payloads is the way to go, and allow Mk2 and Mk3 to work for 1.25m.

Some good bays for 1.25m do have a useful purpose, including beyond Mun and Minimus. 1.25m probes are useful in general, including interplanetary missions.

[tg626]

Touhoutorpedo made several mk3 parts inc docking port, cargo bay, bomb bay, dronecore, and even a mk3 Iva.

I think they are on Kerbal stuff.

[Wanderfound]

I disagree. Srsly, why would you go through all the trouble of designing a shuttle for transport purpuses if you can't construct a station or an interplanetary ship with it? What would such a tiny shuttle be for? It's just the same dead end niche profile that space planes are stuck in.

It's only use would be looking nice and doing those rescue contracts in low kerbin orbit. it's a niche and it always will be because 1.25 m is not the relevant size. The majority of missions beyond kerbins muns is based on 2.5 m. And the orbital constriction is the area in which shuttles and big spaceplanes come in.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to put 1.25+ bays to use but the fact that it causes that many issues is the reason why it will remain impractical and unused

Echoing Alshain.

I can fit into an SP+ bay a lander and transfer stage good enough to reach the surface of any body in the Kerbol system. Compact design is just one more constraint to deal with, and it ain't that hard.