Jump to content
  • 0

Any trick to getting a Tri Coupler on top AND bottom of a stack of FL fuel tanks ?


ASnogarD
 Share

Question

I wanted to put a Tri Coupler on top of 3 FL T800 tanks, then put another Tri Coupler at the bottom of the tanks to merge them to one to feed a engine, however in this configuration the fuel doesnt get to the engine. It slots together with no apparent issues (I suspect that 1 tank is connected to the top coupler and the other 2 are connected to the bottom one) but does not route the fuel at all.

I could route fuel lines but that shouldnt be needed and ruins the lines of the craft.

I tried putting only 1 tank on the 1st Tri Couple then putting on the bottom Tri Coupler, then the other 2 tanks of fuel (not using symmetry)...same result.

I even tried only 1 tank (so only 1 point of the tri couplers was used), but even that failed.

I would of thought that was a natural design... going from a small to 3 tanks then slimming back to a single engine. -<EE>{ OoOo

Squad really need to rethink the part connection system.. this 1 parent to a child limit is infuriating .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

Yes, i know this from experiance. You cannot create a perfect 1-3-1 ship, as the coupler used at the bottom to merge the 3 tanks back into one, only actually couples onto one of the tanks and not all 3. Shame really as i like the look of 3 tank in Tri formation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I had tried that trick (without docking ports), the tanks connected easy enough (though at least one tank will be connected to the opposite coupler the other tanks are attached to) , just the fuel is not routed, and fuel lines just mess up the whole ships looks.

May as well just slap on the orange tank in that case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

It doesn't work without docking ports. It simply can't, because they are the only way to make things stick together outside of the VAB. And you can install the fuel lines Inside other parts so you can't see them from any angle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
It doesn't work without docking ports. It simply can't, because they are the only way to make things stick together outside of the VAB. And you can install the fuel lines Inside other parts so you can't see them from any angle

Does this not provoke evil clipping booboos?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

You can put the fuel lines facing inward of the tristack, or even hide them inside the tricoupler. Zoom in and rotate your camera to where you're looking at the tanks from the bottom, attach fuel lines, zoom out, click the tricoupler and the fuel lines will be on the inside. I tested the tricoupler cause I haven't run into the issue myself (as I don't fancy that particular design) and it's actually the upside down tricoupler that won't feed fuel 'the wrong way'.

I tested all this just to be able to reply to this post, and to learn how it works since I hadn't run into it myself. Why couldn't you?

You've brought up two issues that both that can be worked around very effectively when knowing about the issue and a bit of design testing. Single parent assembly is what it is, work around it or don't build, I don't see the point of beating the dark spot of dried blood where a horse used to lay. Yes it's not ideal, but KSP is still in alpha, we're effectively testers and just repeatedly whinging about the same things rather than learning to work around them or avoiding the issues alltogether so we can enjoy this awesome game is getting tedious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Johnno - I was asking for assistance not your particular blend of 'fanboism' thank you, take a hint from HoY and the others in here, they seemed to be able to post without being a sarky sod.

If you despise helping whiny entitled players, why hang around in here advising others to learn to cope and deal with issues... leave that to others who are happy to help out the whiners.

Hoy and others, thanks for your contributions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Johnno - I was asking for assistance not your particular blend of 'fanboism' thank you

By all means ask, your opening post read more than a rant than a request for assistance though, I've tried helping you in previous threads that've been just as ranty. I don't think it's a problem with the game, but with your approach. When you say stuff like "shouldn't be needed" and "would've thought it was a natural design", you're expecting stuff rather than working with what's available. Instead of finding the simple workarounds you just seem to get stuck in your criticism filled mindset huffing and puffing about why stuff isn't the way you expect it to be.

It's not Squad's or the game's fault if you can't figure things out on your own, by all means come and ask on the forums but not all of us fanboys take it lightly when someone's dissing the game nonstop and ranting about the simplest things a lot of players have no issues with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Dissing the game ? Man you havent been online very long, or had a very sheltered online existence... you havent seen 'dissing a game' if you think thats what I am doing.

I am commenting on what I see are issues, I am showing interest in the title and as an interested individual I am providing feedback... if I was 'dissing' the title, I would be demanding my cash back and calling Squad everything under the sun, and telling my mates and fellow gamers to stay the [beep] away... nah, I am cautiously optimistic about the title and I let others know its a fun title with tonnes of potential but has issues and can be frustrating.

... if you want others to post as YOU see fit, hand out scripts for us to read...and start your own forum to rule over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
I have just release a set of parts which does that (without the docking port)

All the parts use stock parts/stats/graphics, I just welded them together so we can have reduced part count.

It's on Spaceport: http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/ubioweldingltd/

I like!

Heat dissipation has to be considered though, but that shouldnt be a big problem with the small engines that would fit under this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Agree for heat dissipation, and this is why I will not build tank bigger than 2 Jumbo-64 equivalent.

It would be possible to change the center of mass to improve heat dissipation but that would clearly change the gameplay too much (to my taste)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

The tricouplers can be pretty fun!

I once attempted a concept rocket called trifecta which was a single occupant probe core. on 4 sides were the support boxes and 4 fuel tanks outside of that. I then added tricoupler and three fuel tanks below that. I added side-mount engines and landing struts on the trifecta fuel tanks themselves (no landing gear on the probe).

I have a screenshot which proves it is possible to land on the mun with this configuration too!

I imagine I could also add a tank on top of the probe with side mounts and use that for return only.

Using Tricoupler-mounted tanks to mount your landing struts on gives you multiple balanced points of contact and a really wide landing base which is good.

The configuration is a bit top-heavy though so you have to be sure not to land on the edge of a crater or something!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...