New Mk3 Parts Partially Unveiled

[Frozen_Heart]

I'd be happy to wait a bit longer for cargo bays to be added.

[CaptRobau]

How is it that the cargo bags may not be ready for 0.90!? If the code is already implemented and everyone at SQUAD is way more interested in generating pretty 3d models than coding... What's the hold up!? This is stuff that was supposed to be ready for 0.25!

Seriously, this is getting nuts.

These parts were not the parts in development for 0.25, so it's only been Porkjet and he's only worked on it for a single update worth of time. With the amount of models and textures he's had to make, that's not a lot of time. I can see why some things might miss the deadline by an inch.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I can see why some things might miss the deadline by an inch.

So move the deadline by an inch. Without cargo bays and bigger gear, they're about as useful as the current Mk3 system i.e. not very.

[wasmic]

Also, less of the "entitled" talk please, concerns about the game are not the same as being entitled.

Thank you. Some people on this forum are suffering from Entitlement Syndrome Syndrome, where you label all critical comments as Entitlement Syndrome.

[Guest]

Indeed. There are too many worshippers and not enough critics here (though with the way they treat critics here, it's no surprise... ).

No. I entirely disagree. Without cargo bays spaceplanes are worthless. Those parts give spaceplanes purpose; they are what makes them unique from rockets. Please, don't release this update without cargo bays! I can only speak for myself, but I would be very disappointed.

They wouldn't be worthless. As far as I'm concerned, those are B9 HL parts with different textures. You can get your bays from B9, along with lots of other nice parts. That said, I wouldn't mind a bit longer wait if that means the new parts are better rounded out. A good thing is, parts is not something you'd be bugfixing for long, so I suppose that they can get worked on while QA/testing goes on with other, more complex features.

[J.Random]

So, will we see four-wheel landing gear carts for these parts?

[Richy teh space man]

Personally, I'd prefer to wait a bit longer for the update and have the SP3 parts fully fleshed out with cargo bays and IVAs then have them a little earlier but incomplete.

[Wanderfound]

Personally, I'd prefer to wait a bit longer for the update and have the SP3 parts fully fleshed out with cargo bays and IVAs then have them a little earlier but incomplete.

Ditto. I think there's something of a consensus on that point.

[Overfloater]

Personally, I'd prefer to wait a bit longer for the update and have the SP3 parts fully fleshed out with cargo bays and IVAs then have them a little earlier but incomplete.

I never wanted to use the old mk-3 and the inline cockpits just for that reason (no IVA).

I'm willing to wait as long as it takes to complete these parts!

[BudgetHedgehog]

I'd like for there to be a poll added to the OP. "Should 0.90.0 be delayed until the Mk3 parts and landing gear are finished?" with "yes, I would like a complete set even though it may take longer than anticipated" and "no, I would like the update first and the extra content not critical to 0.90.0 to be in a later update" or something.

One thing I don't want to happen is for Squad to not see that there seems to be a majority of people who would check the first option, especially seeing as words like 'might not be ready in time' are being bandied about. It's not like Squad has a deadline to meet, after all - they're the ones who decide on the release date.

[cantab]

I'd rather see cargo bays included, but I guess it's not the end of the world if they aren't. They'll still be great parts for making passenger airliners/spaceliners and the crew compartment will make a good hitchhiker alternative just about anywhere.

When we do have the cargo bays in, one of the coolest implications to me is that large payloads can now be streamlined for FAR without needing an additional fairings mod. In turn, this might mark a step towards the expected aerodynamics revamp in stock.

[prophet_01]

I would not touch those parts without cargobays and the landing gears. I would have to rebuild, testfly and fix all the shuttles. Although I guess it would be interesting to build shuttle with an external cargo fairing mounted on the belly instead of the external tank another stupid idea I have to try out... anyway I would prefer the delay to get the full set of parts, but I don't care about having IVA right now as long as it gets included before 1.0

[mike9606]

I have to agree with previous posters - please delay release a bit if its necessary to get cargo bays done. Large spaceplanes major function is to carry payload. Without bays they will be limited to carry crew (mk2/mk1 much more economical for that) and fuel.

They won't be limited to fuel and crew. Cargo bays would be nice, but radially attaching stuff to the top is always an option.

[White Owl]

I've done several spaceplane designs that launch like a Shuttle, with the SRBs and big external fuel tank. But unlike the Shuttle, I placed the payload on top of the stack, in front of the plane's nose. Actually came to prefer that style so much, now I generally view internal cargo bays as too much mass, complication, and just plain wasted space on a vertical launch arrangement. My only point being that the lack of cargo bays doesn't immediately render these parts useless.

But I understand the desire to replicate the Shuttle and Buran. Patience; the parts will come sooner or later.

[CaptRobau]

Ditto. I think there's something of a consensus on that point.

Cargo bays, probably. But I think IVAs are different. Some people care a lot, others don't care at all. Seeing as IVAs are very time consuming to make, I'd rather just have 0.90 without the IVAs, than wait another week for the IVAs to be complete. There's so much interesting stuff in 0.90 that it'd be a shame to delay those features to get access to a few, in my eyes, superfluous IVAs.

[LABHOUSE]

Is it sad I still won't use these parts for a shuttle because they aren't big enough/ close enough to the real deal to satisfy my ocd.

[Fiddlestyx]

Is it sad I still won't use these parts for a shuttle because they aren't big enough/ close enough to the real deal to satisfy my ocd.

Nope.

My main problem is that there isn't a proper tail section. I'm sure if it's not in stock, modders will make it though. Hopefully wings too.

[Arctodus]

They won't be limited to fuel and crew. Cargo bays would be nice, but radially attaching stuff to the top is always an option.

I quite like the idea of building the Mk2 bays into 'nacelles' into the wing, one either side the same way some people set up engines

[Damien_The_Unbeliever]

I hate to be the voice of dissent, but a) MK3 parts aren't the entirety of 0.90, and 0.90 isn't 1.0. I'd rather have a new version to play with, because I know it's incomplete but still closer to what the final version will be. So in any poll, I'd be voting for "keep the schedule you're currently on, if MK3 isn't 'perfect' for 0.90 but some people have to wait for 0.91 or 0.90.1, I'm good with that". Hey, who knows? Maybe the "delay 0.90 until MK3 is perfect" and the "release 0.90 earlier and the complete MK3 as part of a later release" schedules both put the complete MK3 parts into your hands at the same time? The difference being that those who aren't waiting for the "complete" MK3 parts get other improvements earlier rather than later.

[Dooz]

Fancy!

very fancy

[Higgs]

They need cargo bays with the new mk3 parts or its 100% useless to give us them

[Lunaran]

I wonder if we can get the measurements for the cross sections of those parts in advance. The community could probably have compatible cargo bays released before 0.90 actually comes out.

The Mk2 profile is 2.5m wide, 1.5m high, the flat side bits are 0.3m wide, and the sloped sides come up at exactly 60 degrees so they match the rotation snap. It looks like the Mk3 is a 3.75m circle, clipped on the sides to 2.5m, but that gives me this:

which looks awful high and thin compared to the images in the OP.

[Parkaboy]

The Mk2 profile is 2.5m wide, 1.5m high, the flat side bits are 0.3m wide, and the sloped sides come up at exactly 60 degrees so they match the rotation snap. It looks like the Mk3 is a 3.75m circle, clipped on the sides to 2.5m, but that gives me this:

http://i.imgur.com/HewErQJ.png

which looks awful high and thin compared to the images in the OP.

Check the texture on the cap end of the parts. You can see a smaller circle inside that looks like the circumference of a 2,5m tank. Also, pay attention to the adaptors. If you look closely you'll see that the width of the pieces is larger than your estimation, meaning a cargo bay of this size could fit a 2,5m tank easily inside it.

[Dreamixpl]

But why do we need LFO and LF fuselages separately, can't they be one part, but with ability to tweak for your needs, like in B9? Squad gamedata folders always were weighting the most <900 mb. People who like mods, would be thankfull for things like that...

[NecroBones]

I wonder if we can get the measurements for the cross sections of those parts in advance. The community could probably have compatible cargo bays released before 0.90 actually comes out.

The Mk2 profile is 2.5m wide, 1.5m high, the flat side bits are 0.3m wide, and the sloped sides come up at exactly 60 degrees so they match the rotation snap. It looks like the Mk3 is a 3.75m circle, clipped on the sides to 2.5m, but that gives me this:

http://i.imgur.com/HewErQJ.png

which looks awful high and thin compared to the images in the OP.

Thanks for the quick rundown on the Mk2 dimensions. You just saved me a bunch of time.

Check the texture on the cap end of the parts. You can see a smaller circle inside that looks like the circumference of a 2,5m tank. Also, pay attention to the adaptors. If you look closely you'll see that the width of the pieces is larger than your estimation, meaning a cargo bay of this size could fit a 2,5m tank easily inside it.

Agreed, it looks like the clipping is wider than 2.5m, to accommodate 2.5m payloads. But how much wider? That might be hard to determine without getting our hands on the models.