Can we please bring the SP+ Mk2 Clampo format back?

[Bomoo]

Yeah, can we? This is what I'm talking about. It looks awful for the clampo bay doors not to be inline with the payload bays as they were in the SP+ mod. Not only is it a matter of looks, but, realistically, a spacecraft like this would want to maximize the waste heat radiation area on its payload bay doors, not reduce it pointlessly (see: space shuttle). In addition, you can barely see the little monoprop tanks in the new version. Why hide them? It also always seemed to me that the clampo was meant as an expansion module to the payload bay, and I'd request you guys consider reverting it to earlier format and away from making it seem like it comes from some other parts kit. Otherwise, and yes I hate the change that much, I'm simply going to delete the Mk2 parts and go back to primarily using rockets - just not that useful without a docking port.

vs.

[Anquietas314]

Wow. I never used the SP+ mod before it was added to stock, but I have to say I prefer the old style too. Uniform bay doors ftw!

[Bill Phil]

When I saw this in 0.25 I was very disappointed in Squad. Why make it a different shape? It makes no sense. It made the Clamp-o-tron for the Mk2 useless to me. And I never used SP+.

[Bomoo]

Thanks for the support, dudes.

[Arugela]

I would prefer they had both forms. I use wing setups where I have wings on top and bottom like old japanese sci fi planes or the 3 wing x/y wing varients and the more inward facing door helps when finding the correct wing position. The cargo bay stops those wings from being movable to where that cargo bay is where as the new docking port doesn't. So it would be nice to have both options. How about a new cargo bay with smaller doors lined up to the new docking port also. then we can pick which sized width cargo/docking bay we want for different uses. I would use both. One back cargo for extra fuel/batteries that is smaller near the wings for weight and a wider one for rover/probe deploying drops(AKA wider cargo) in the front or middle. Would be perfect actually!

So, I think having the old one and a new set of cargos with doors shrunk to the new docking bay would be better! The more the merrier! Maybe if the new smaller cargo had the inner walls shrunk aslo potentially for more contact point to increase stability of the ship. I like long planes and those things make the planes wobble like crazy whereever you put them. I would think a little more structure in the sides might help that tremendously potentially. What makes them likely to wobble like that anyway? I'm not sure what logic in the code is making that happen.

Maybe the smaller cargo bay could be specialized to let you put in batterie sections and extra fuel and have it contact on both ends so you don't need struts to hold it in in flight. Or also an added empty section that can be used to contact them on both ends for stability and even potentially weight distrabution. They could have and adjustable mass and be like water filled or something. Or once you make it contact on both ends you could use fuel bays like that for fine mass adjustment!

I know! the filler pod would be extendable to meet the stuff on the other side(it's unique point). and could be filled with fuels or other liquids. There could be a varient for the 3 fuel types. Mono,liquid, and rocket(liquid,oxydizer), also a new water for pure mass. It could even extend liquid capacity as it's extended. And obviously you should be able to limit that fuel ammount (evenly potentialy for rocket so you don't run out of one type) for ballast! It could be another cool option to those docking clamps(which I never thought of until I just saw that pic after writing this! 8p) The ballast version should be very thin to start and then you extend them after placing them on one side until it meats another point and connects. It should be able to get past the logic stopping you from doing this currently with long arrays of batteries etc. (Maybe it's really an inflatable shaft designed to fill up with air and liquids to look like a cylinder but with strong materials... Maybe not..)

The smaller cargo bay could be slightly heavier also becuase of the extra sturcuture. Maybe a little fuel in the sides as well. I guess one could have more mass and be solid medal for stability and one set could be fuel based. The fuel one could be filled on each side with custom fuel from a dropdown. All liquid, all mono, or liquid on one side and oxidizer on the other. That would simplify it's implimentation potentially. Then the small fuel cargo could be ballast also and the solid one possibly more stable under pressure but more assured mass addition! Call them the fuel bays instead of cargo bays. (Do they count fuel as mass in this?)

The one other difference in the fuel bay to the cargo bay could be the fuel bays could have solid ends. This means, again, more contact surface! That and a smaller cargo are fitted more to round fuel bays of a specific size and contactable end on both sides mean more functional fuel bay for those specific none removable cargos for missions. Maybe the Fuel bays have the adjustable cylinders built in the ends and can be adjusted with the items attached to fine tune the center of mass! Then an individual form of the ballast cylinders could exist to put in the traditional cargo bay for special uses. That would be the perfect set of Ballast tools for any use!

Ballast Cylinders:

"Ballast Cylinders are inflatable extendable Cylinders with extensive telescopic structures inside that can be filled with any liquid for ballast. They are connectable on both ends like a docking clamp and be used nearly anywhere. These adjustable mass bags are perfect for filling those unfilled places in your space ship where ever and whenever needed!

Still under testing for further development these are used extensivily during Kerbalnaught training! They are filled with liquid(and kerbals) to simulate 0g environments(who needs those big expensive pools anyhow!). It was even originally intended to have the option to fill them kerbals for extra live crew storage and ballast during flights. But, sadly, we found kerbals didn't have enough mass. And if held long enough in live cargo storage the mass oddly shrunk over time compared to other more predictable materials. There also seems to a weird green hue to the other fuel in those ships after these missions and the kerbals became as thin as a strut and white. Such kerbals have been put in special confinement areas for further analysis. We are still studying this condition extensivley and when finished we will get back to these kerbals on their condition!"

Fuel Bays:

"Fuel bays are cargo bays that have a smaller door. They have a Ballast Cylinder built in on one ends of the bay that can be extended to hold in any fuels needed in the extra space they fill. These specialized cargo bays are fit to the standard for fuel and utility sized objects fit for inside mk2 sized body parts. They can hold everything you could want to esnure your trip has the needed utlities! No MK2 ship should go without one. Fuel bays come in 2 forms. "Solid" for extra structural integrity and "Fuel" for a little extra fuel in the sides and for additional extra fine adjustment of ballast that can be useful for any trip! Special nozzle and design allow the "Fuel" varient to be filled with a varriety of fuels. Currently our advanced nozzles permit monopropellent, Liquid fuel, and a feature to add Oxidizer in appropriate proportions automatically with liquid fuel for those who need it! The "Solid" varient is the same as the fuel but with less features and a little more mass. It's also a little cheaper! What more could you ask for!"

I would think ballast cylinders minimum size would be the same as docking clamps or a little bigger(or more interestingly similar to the length of the telescopic mobliity devices but cylindrical!). This extra space would exist in the fuel bays and would slightly limit the length of things that can fit in it but with the added varient of fuel capacity in the ballast cylinders. But they should be the extact same length as the small and large cargo bay. And maybe to simplify the Fuel bay has one Ballast cylinder on one end and a small and large variant. If a Ballast cylinder is on one side only the other side should still have a solid wall for structral stability! This would hopefuly give it a little more strenght than the cargo bay and depict it's function a little. It would also have an inside joint for batteries on the side opposing the built in ballast cylinder.

But then again if it has a ballast cylinder can be filled with any fuel it could all be the "solid" form and just use the ballast cylinder. I was thinking the extra fuel would help keep it in line with the fuel capacity per lenght/mass of the other fuel comparements. But it might not matter. These items should both go into the fuel or utility section.

Extra note: Maybe the ballast cylinders can also only be filled with a single fuel type. Liquid or mono(maybe xenon gas) then it's not good for rockets but is good for extra stuff or Rapier type engines. Then it's simplified a bit. Or if desired this coud be used to add mroe variants of the devices for different mass/prices.

Sorry if this is a little stream of thought and rambly. To tired to shorten it up. Added highlights and descriptions for simplification! 8)

Edited December 29, 2014 by Arugela

[Bomoo]

Some good ideas, Arugela, and sorry for the late reply. Yes, I'd be down for having two options - I just want my Mk2 spaceplanes looking like they've got one large payload bay instead of whatever the stock implementation is. For smaller planes with no payload bay, sure, I think the smaller clampo door does look okay.

[shoe7ess]

I fully support this idea as well.

I had an idea, would it be possible to take a previous version of SP+, and replace the parts in Squad with the parts from the original mod?

Edited January 5, 2015 by shoe7ess

[BudgetHedgehog]

I had an idea, would it be possible to take a previous version of SP+, and replace the parts in Squad with the parts from the original mod?

Good idea and in practice, would be fine, but the Mk2 shape differs between SP+ and stock SPP.

Adding my support for uniform docking ports as well. It looks awful currently.

[FishInferno]

I really don't care, but i prefer the new one. It looks better if you have a space plane without a cargo bay (i.e. a crew shuttle)

[Bomoo]

I really don't care, but i prefer the new one. It looks better if you have a space plane without a cargo bay (i.e. a crew shuttle)

I'd agree with you there, but that's just about the only usage scenario in which it looks better. I'd be good with having both options available.

Thanks for all the fresh support, guys. There are dozens of us! Dozens!

I fully support this idea as well.

I had an idea, would it be possible to take a previous version of SP+, and replace the parts in Squad with the parts from the original mod?

Sadly, no. I've tried, and the size formats and attachment nodes are incompatible.

Edited January 18, 2015 by Bomoo

[Captain Sierra]

I endorse this suggestion. I also would like Squad to look at a stock texture-switch option so we can bring back Porkjet's drop-dead fantastic heat tiling.

[Bomoo]

I endorse this suggestion. I also would like Squad to look at a stock texture-switch option so we can bring back Porkjet's drop-dead fantastic heat tiling.

Sounds good to me! And the tiled fuselage not matching the wings shouldn't be an issue now that bac9 is working on those procedural wings of his.