Should stock include 5m or larger parts?

[sgt_flyer]

Maybe not 5m parts, but more SRB sizes (2meters instead of 2.5m) to go with the 3.75m tanks. (Or rescale at least the tallest SRB - with adapters and nosecones of course)

[Whirligig Girl]

5m parts represent the Saturn V much better than 3.75m parts. In fact, they represent the Space Launch system better than 3.75m parts. The Mk1-2 pod is a three-man capsule, based more on Apollo than Orion, but since we didn't get a new capsule in 0.23.5, the Mk1-2 had to fill in, and the scale would make the SLS be 3.75m instead of 5 or 6.4m (6.4m is actually more in scale with the Apollo capsule for SLS and Saturn V)

[Whirligig Girl]

5m parts aren't necessary unless they change the scale of the planets. With only 4.5km/s required to orbit the 3.75m parts already make it incredibly easy to get heavy payloads into orbit.

I actually forgot that stock isn't using 3.2x scale [facepalms]

[Torquemadus]

Maybe not 5m parts, but more SRB sizes

As a career mode player, I'd get a lot of use out of a larger SRB. I don't use liquid fuel parts for a first stage, since on the difficulty settings I use I can't afford not to recover them. At the moment, I cluster large numbers of solids as a first stage even for fairly modest sized launches.

On the rare occasions when I want to launch something really big, I use a bigger fly-back booster. However, the number of SRBs required for the first stage can make for very fiddly construction. A big SRB would be very helpful for these!

[megatiger78]

I tired to make a 3.75 m lander once. I want to do a 5 m one now!

[KerikBalm]

I want 3 new parts:

1) a 3.75 m to 5 meter adaptor

2) a 5m short cargo bay

3) a 5m long cargo bay

[Darnok]

Five meter orange tank for shuttles would be great, not sure about 5m engines... imo more 2.5m and 3.75m engines should be more fun, as for SRBs agreed we need more sizes.

Also before more 5m parts we need 3.75m capsule for 5 kerbals or with build in cargo bay?

In general more structural parts

- larger m-beams - largest should have length of orange tank,

- larger structural panels - 2x2 is far too small, imo 4x4 and 8x8 would help a lot,

- larger wings - to lift even 20t you need a lot of parts,

- heavier landing legs - heaviest right now can support 10-15 tons after that you have to spam it,

- more nose cones and more adapters for 3.75m.

[worir4]

Bigger rockets!!!!!!!!! Who would say no!!!!! Maybe my Kerbals?

[FlyingPete]

I rarely use anything bigger than 2.5m as it is, so IMO there's no need for 5m parts. Orbital assembly seems much more sensible to me than trying to launch everything with one behemoth of a launcher.

[Wallygator]

Until we improve and optimise (via Unity upgrade, code improvements, etc.) then by all means yes. Anything which can help reduce part count is beneficial at the current state of release. Same as Red Crown here - also experimenting with spaceY pack.

[theend3r]

We still need a stock 3.5m command pod/lab/hitchhiker. If we got some other parts alongside the 5m ones I'd gladly use them. Well, I'd probably use them anyway as it would save me fps when lifting kT to LKO.

[Frozen_Heart]

KSP rockets seem to be roughly half the size of their RL versions. As the Saturn V was 10m and the SpaceX BFR is rumoured to be up to 15m, I think that 5m and possibly 7.5m parts should be included.

5m for sure as the Saturn V is one of the most well known rockets of all time.

However the 3.75m line really needs some filling out!

Edited November 30, 2014 by Frozen_Heart

[Ravenchant]

I'd like to see a 1.875 or 2.5m SRB more than 5m parts; however, once the asset loading system is improved, by all means yes! Getting heavy payloads to orbit with 3.75 parts is only easy if you use boosters

[sedativechunk]

I wanted to add into this topic the other night but it got too late. I absolutely, 110% feel that 5mm parts should be included in Kerbal Space Program as stock parts. I'm personally a big advocate of "KW Rocketry" because I feel it adds ALOT of parts that I believe should be part of the game already, including 5mm parts and main engines that use RCS fuel. Not getting too off topic, here is the overall reasons why 5mm parts should be in the game:

1) Scott Manley even said this, the rockets in KSP are severely underpowered compared to real rockets. 5mm parts closes the gap between the game and reality.

2) For missions to Jool, Eve, and beyond, sometimes you need massive interstellar ships with lots of fuel. 5mm parts are great for getting these parts into orbit. I know people have done these missions stock, but it is a huge time consuming pain in the rear end. I would rather build something powerful and efficient to save time on those lift offs.

3) Back to point 1 - some people here absolutely love playing with the "real solar system" mod(s). I personally don't because it's kind of buggy, but for those that do, the stock rockets are extremely underpowered for this.

4) realistic aerodynamics - if and when SQUAD ever decides to fix the aerodynamics, 5mm parts may become absolutely necessary to compensate for drag.By fixing, I mean you don't really have to use fairings/nose cones on anything because other than extra mass, they don't have an effect on lift.

I'm surprised at you naysayers against 5mm parts. It's absolutely needed. No, we don't need bigger than 5mm, but we definitely need 5mm as the heavy lift rocket.

[Vectura]

5mm? That only half a centimeter! Are you sure you didn't mean 5m?!

[KasperVld]

Thread moved to the Development Discussions forum.