How important is IVA for you?

[RaptorHunterMz]

How do you classify the importance of IVAs?

[Wanderfound]

I prefer IVA to external view, but it's totally impractical without RPM. Yet another mod that should be stockified ASAP.

[Axelord FTW]

There are, of course, IVA purists and I can only consider them masochists at best but for the rest of us I think fully detailed pod environment is still important.

It has to be both functional and pleasing enough to the eye.

I've done three missions total 100% IVA and while it was certainly an interesting experience, it's not something I'd keep on doing for fun. BUt while I was doing those I really wished I had a more detailed interior. Airplanes are probably the only thing I spend flying with over 20% in IVA regularly.

Thank god for RPM.

That said, I don't think photorealism is warranted with IVA.

[RaptorHunterMz]

Anyone willing to create IVA meshes for my 3.75 6 Kerbals deep space pod?

[Axelord FTW]

Was that the point of this thread? Should have asked right-off.

You'd be better asking in Add-On Development or its sub forums.

[RaptorHunterMz]

Was that the point of this thread? Should have asked right-off.

You'd be better asking in Add-On Development or its sub forums.

This is a mod I want to publish so I wanted to know how much people care about IVAs. Although the sample so far is small I think people care about IVAs.

[Kerba Fett]

I like a nice IVA. I find it adds immersion to the game, but you don't really need one. If you've got a good forward view some people may use it for docking, but it will always be a small segment of the total users and even people that like IVA don't use it all the time. Pretty much anything you can do from IVA you can do better from the external view.

If the rest of the model is done and working properly, (hatches, ladders, nodes, ect) I'd say release it without the IVA. If people like it you should have an easier time finding someone to do the IVA for you. Or you could start working on building your own IVA and update the model when you get it done.

[maltesh]

For me, there are enough stock parts without IVAs.. If a Kerbal-containing mod part doesn't have an IVA, it would have to provide something pretty darned significant for me to want to install it.

[Justin Kerbice]

For me, I found IVA pointless and useless, it's just a costly (from memory point of view) eye candy.

Useless cause in the mk1 cockpit for example, seat is ridiculously too low, you can do nothing except waching around so this is just for 5 mins enjoyment seeing stupid smiles of kebals or sticky notes.

[Superfluous J]

The poll is poorly constructed. Of course out of the choices I'd prefer one of the last 2. If the poll was instead:

"How often do you actually use IVAs" I'd answer whatever was next after "never." Something like "To take the occasional screenshot or read the post-its once or twice."

[thylordroot]

IVA view does have at least one perk to it (which is the radar altimeter). I used to use IVA mode for landing so that I had a reasonable idea when I should start braking. Now that I have KER, I find myself not doing this so often. I certainly don't complain when a mod author includes a cockpit in a command pod, but I don't use it all that much.

I agree with 5thHorseman with respect to the poll, as it answers a subtly different question than the one you are asking. It instead asks, "How detailed should IVA mode be?". Analogously, this is like trying to answer "Do you like pizza?" by asking "What toppings do you like on your pizza?", and then assuming that "no toppings" might indicate that I do not like pizza. I think many of us have answered the question from the perspective that you were actually asking "When IVA is implemented in command pods, what level of detail do you prefer?"

Of course there is also the argument that command pods have IVA by default, and as far as I know, this is an attribute that every command pod has. I can think of a few corner cases (like the lab module), but I do not think this is technically considered a command pod by the game. I think in this light, 5thHorseman's question could be simplified to "What is the minimum level of effort you expect concerning IVA view in a command pod?", which seems to be the question you really want to know the answer to because you appear to be trying to find out whether or not implementing IVA is worth the effort for your part.

To that question, my answer is "none". I don't complain when IVA mode is available, but considering that we are still less a cockpit in some stock parts, I think it's forgivable that IVA view on your new part is a secondary concern.

[LABHOUSE]

This is in the wrong subforum.

[beabop]

I don't use IVAs often because I find them harder to use. In third person, I can glance down at the navball with my eyes. IVA, I have to hold right click, drag down, stabilize my view on the navball, look, drag up, stabilize my view again on the windows. Plus most have tiny windows.

I would like IVAs that are as good as real cockpits - all the instruments you need (no vertical speed indicator in stock!), a HUD, and a decent view.

[nli2work]

Stock IVAs and prop modules are half-baked at best. if it wasn't for RPM, I wouldn't bother making IVAs at all.

[RaptorHunterMz]

Command Pod is done, with a simple IVA, almost all objects and props are from vanilla parts. Give it a try.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/101836-Raptor-AeroEspacial-Kerbal-Transportation-System?p=1574057#post1574057

[Sli 41]

Stock IVAs and prop modules are half-baked at best. if it wasn't for RPM, I wouldn't bother making IVAs at all.

Basically this, RPM and external cameras RADICALLY change the IVA experience, but it's still not quite what it could be. I'll just say if there was a really easy way to play in first person, with fully functional IVAs I don't think I would go back to 3rd person. Right now third person is still a lot more convenient.