Mk 2 Decouplers

[Red Iron Crown]

Spaceplanes are not typically staged, at least not through the primary fuselage. I don't see the need to include a decoupler in Mk2 form factor.

They make it easy to have an abort mode where the capsule separates and parachutes to safety. Or separable drop tanks. Or multistage lifters using the fuselages. No need to limit the parts to a single stage, let the players figure out the interesting non-standard uses.

[Alshain]

Just to note: SP+'s Mk2 docking port part has 75 monopropellant in it. If you pay careful attention in a few of the preview videos, it still has 75 monopropellant in it. So there you go.

Again, assumes the use of a single part to do a job that many could do. The image I posted doesn't have that docking port. But it doesn't matter because according to someone's video (I'm looking for it, I watched so many) there is an Mk2 RCS part too now. All I really want is a battery in that size to be honest and I will be happy.

EDIT: aha, it was HOCGaming that mentioned it

http://youtu.be/_fWr9AjZ7x4?t=50s

Edited October 7, 2014 by Alshain

[cantab]

I would guess it will be removed in 0.26 like some of the other old parts.

I really hope it isn't. The classic ram intake is visually very striking, even if it's a bit unrealistic, and I can see lots of people wanting to still use it.

[LethalDose]

They make it easy to have an abort mode where the capsule separates and parachutes to safety. Or separable drop tanks. Or multistage lifters using the fuselages. No need to limit the parts to a single stage, let the players figure out the interesting non-standard uses.

While I agree with the "Let the players figure out interesting non-standard uses", IMO a mk2 decoupler is just too specialized, too much of a fringe case. I see the "need" for a mk2 decoupler/separator as too similar to the "need" for 0.625m torque wheels.

I also acknowledge that counter points to the "it's too niche" include the mk55 and aerospike engines. I really just generally prefer fewer parts to more parts.

Vanguard's ejection systems are sufficient for my aircraft aborts.

[Red Iron Crown]

Mod parts aren't a satisfactory answer for players who stay stock. Basically, IMO every body profile should have a decoupler to permit the greatest flexibility.

[Franklin]

Mod parts aren't a satisfactory answer for players who stay stock. Basically, IMO every body profile should have a decoupler to permit the greatest flexibility.

Yeah, I think some standardization on Squad's part should be required moving forward when adding parts. All part sizes/shapes should have parts x y z standard. KSPX fills in some gaps, but it's not stock sadly.

[Alshain]

Yeah, I think some standardization on Squad's part should be required moving forward when adding parts. All part sizes/shapes should have parts x y z standard. KSPX fills in some gaps, but it's not stock sadly.

4GB people. I would love to have a docking port, a decoupler, a battery, and an RCS tank for all the various sizes, but really we are running out of room as it is. Decouplers for abort sequences would have to take a lower priorty for plane parts.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Alshain

[Franklin]

4GB people. I would love to have a docking port, a decoupler, a battery, and an RCS tank for all the various sizes, but really we are running out of room as it is. Decouplers for abort sequences would have to take a lower priorty for plane parts.

a half-dozen gap-filling parts with optimized textures aren't going to break the bank, and Squad has to only consider the memory cap with vanilla players, modders need to work around the cap, not Squad to accommodate mod space.

What total memory does a completely vanilla KSP run at anyway? And how much extra memory is one optimized part? It's not like we're asking for a hundred HD variants of existing parts.

[Franklin]

I mean the B9 part pack is a memory beast, and has a lot of overlapping usefulness in the parts it includes. bac waited until 5.2.3 to optimize his textures and we got gains like this:

R5.2.3

• The textures were converted to PNG for massive memory savings (usage went down approximately from 2.1Gb to 0.85Gb).

Now imagine your parts were less pretty, have less overlap, and have even lower-res/more optimization (bac can do more than just converting to PNG) like Squad's parts do.

[Alshain]

Well personally I think they just need to implement TweakScale. It would cleanup the menu and make parts universal so no matter what you have what you want. Of course they can limit it more than TweakScale does (engines for example shouldn't be tweakscaled), but all the structural parts need to have that ability, the decouplers could do that as well. Then there would be no texture impact at all and the game capacity would be nearly doubled.

Wishful thinking I guess, but I will never play stock until that happens just because the current part set basically limits you to 1.25m everything with adapters to get to 2.5m, which just increases the part count. I can't build a 2.5m station without TweakScale. I use the girders and hubmax too much and the part count would just lag me to death without it.

Edited October 7, 2014 by Alshain

[Renegrade]

What total memory does a completely vanilla KSP run at anyway? And how much extra memory is one optimized part? It's not like we're asking for a hundred HD variants of existing parts.

Pure stock runs about 1.5 gigs in DirectX mode with ships in space, or 1.0 gigs in OpenGL mode.

I do think KSP leaks memory over time though. My modded installs usually run around 2.5g and eventually get up to the 3.5g barrier.

[juanml82]

Again, assumes the use of a single part to do a job that many could do. The image I posted doesn't have that docking port. But it doesn't matter because according to someone's video (I'm looking for it, I watched so many) there is an Mk2 RCS part too now. All I really want is a battery in that size to be honest and I will be happy.

EDIT: aha, it was HOCGaming that mentioned it

http://youtu.be/_fWr9AjZ7x4?t=50s

The Mk2 Probe core stores some 250 electricity IIRC, and you can put batteries either attached to the fuselage, the wings or inside a cargo bay

[Captain Vlad]

Mod parts aren't a satisfactory answer for players who stay stock. Basically, IMO every body profile should have a decoupler to permit the greatest flexibility.

Agreed. I've been frustrated by this particular lack on several occasions, especially with Mk3 parts.

[Alshain]

The Mk2 Probe core stores some 250 electricity IIRC, and you can put batteries either attached to the fuselage, the wings or inside a cargo bay

You completely missed the point.

[Franklin]

Well personally I think they just need to implement TweakScale. It would cleanup the menu and make parts universal so no matter what you have what you want. Of course they can limit it more than TweakScale does (engines for example shouldn't be tweakscaled), but all the structural parts need to have that ability, the decouplers could do that as well. Then there would be no texture impact at all and the game capacity would be nearly doubled.

Wishful thinking I guess, but I will never play stock until that happens just because the current part set basically limits you to 1.25m everything with adapters to get to 2.5m, which just increases the part count. I can't build a 2.5m station without TweakScale. I use the girders and hubmax too much and the part count would just lag me to death without it.

With the right standardization there too I completely agree. It would lower the memory footprint, cover a lot of part desires, and lower part counts. Assuming Squad standardizes the radius options with TS to be the 0,1,2,3 we know and built engines and pods around that standardization I don't see why having a single dynamic scaling fuel tank, wing, etc. wouldn't be a win-win.

[Franklin]

Make it so the tanks have a tweakable to "Taper to size 0,1,2,3" option and those transitional parts could be eliminated as well and we would finally have transitional parts that contain fuel.

[Alshain]

With the right standardization there too I completely agree. It would lower the memory footprint, cover a lot of part desires, and lower part counts. Assuming Squad standardizes the radius options with TS to be the 0,1,2,3 we know and built engines and pods around that standardization I don't see why having a single dynamic scaling fuel tank, wing, etc. wouldn't be a win-win.

Well I'm not sure about wings. Really TweakScale is great but it goes too far. Only rudimentary things should be scalable in my opinion. Pretty much everything structural, decouplers and separators really add little visual appeal so dropping them down to one design would be fine. Same for docking ports if that is possible. Maybe fuel tanks, but I wouldn't want to remove the different colors & styles and limit design further. Engines definitely not, Wings are questionable... maybe. Some of the Utility tab can be done as well. I would want them to keep the sizes we know better (0.625, 1.25. 2.5, 3.75) but really I wouldn't care if they just added the feature.

[LethalDose]

Basically, IMO every body profile should have a decoupler to permit the greatest flexibility.

I disagree with this statement for the same reason I disagree with any blanket statement of "Every form factor should have [X part]" which, IMO, is a foolish consistency.