legolegs

For those who have issues with MJ not able to rotate the vessel without setting "use stock SAS" turned on: remove MechJebFARExt, it does not work at all.

For those who likes old TAC Life Support "Kerbal Daily Meal" measurements (as opposite for "liters") and does not uses interstellar or other liters-based mod I performed easy but tedious operation of converting CELSS Greenhouses from liters to Kerbal Daily Meals. LacunaGreenhouse-0.4-TACLS-not-liters.zip I appreciate modders efforts to provide me better game experience and do understand reasons of inventing "liters" but for now Kerbal days work fine for me.

Right. I have found some engineering books about cylindric tanks a they gave skin thickness formula like Ä = Pri/ÃÆ’ (with some coefficients and margins of safety). Wrong. ...after doing math... Also true When I said "larger tanks must be more efficient" I was wrong but thats because I was thinking about storing liquids. For storing liquids P=0 and Ä is constant. If we neglect weight, which we shouldn't. How much math may involve rocket science, anyway? Well, here I disagree with you. You can use ropes, they're very capable if you need to support something heavy.

I still do not understand why you're using wet/dry ratio instead of more illustrative contents/dry ratio, but whatever, let it be. Do not forget the old good toroidal tank from vanilla KSP: Name Wet Dry Ratio round 8 0.136, 0.025, 5.44 Of course larger tanks must be more efficient because they have better surface/volume ratio while material thickness remains the same. Thats why I expected toroidal tanks to be not worse than Round 8. Do not forget that most tanks in game also carry all weight of upper stages of rocket even under acceleration while toroidal tanks only carry up themselves. As a summary: 1) real life tanks have better dry/contents ratio than TO-M-1 and TO-S-1 2) theoretical calculation performed by yourself predicts better dry/contents ratio 3) Existing tank in KSP has better dry/contents ratio than all tanks except TO-XL-1 taniwha, why are you still disagree with me? Did I spoke unclear (which may be case because English is not my native language) or did I some miscalculations?

taniwha, thanks for supporting my point Your tanks have q = dry mass / fuel = 0.04 and 0.06 and thus both are way better than all of KSP tanks. Imagine if your toroidal tanks had dry mass 863 tons which would happened if it had dry mass / fuel ratio of 7.46, just like TO-S-1 does!

There are propane tanks for automobiles:first link from search engine Yes, they are heavy (dry mass / contents = 0.86) for reasons: 1) liquid propane has low density, 2) the contents is pressurized, 3) the tank must sustain car accidents and 4) actually nobody cares about weight because cars do not fly into space. And super advanced space tanks made from superkerbal metal are heavier than cheap ones humans use on the ground? Really? Also: when toroidal tanks are better than spherical ones? When height is restricted.

You have a point. However it is hard to believe someone makes a tank which have SEVEN TIMES MORE METAL THAN FUEL. Even 1:1 ratio seems silly.

Hello. I am pretty much sure those nice looking parts are not properly balanced. Spherical tanks are tiny bit OP and toroidal tanks are TOO MUCH HEAVY. I suggest to change masses to some more sane values. Here I did some math about existing vanilla tanks and default settings from Talisar: [table=width: 500, class: grid] [tr][td]tank[/td][td]mass[/td][td]fuel+oxy mass[/td][td]dry mass[/td][td]q[/td][/tr] [tr][td]oscar[/td][td]0.079[/td][td]0.064[/td][td]0.015[/td][td]0.235[/td][/tr] [tr][td]round 8[/td][td]0.136[/td][td]0.111[/td][td]0.025[/td][td]0.225[/td][/tr] [tr][td]fl-t100[/td][td]0.563[/td][td]0.5[/td][td]0.063[/td][td]0.126[/td][/tr] [tr][td]fl-t800[/td][td]4.5[/td][td]4[/td][td]0.5[/td][td]0.125[/td][/tr] [tr][td]rockomax x200[/td][td]9[/td][td]8[/td][td]1[/td][td]0.125[/td][/tr] [tr][td]TO-S-1[/td][td]1.701[/td][td]0.201[/td][td]1.5[/td][td]7.463[/td][/tr] [tr][td]TO-M-1[/td][td]6.892[/td][td]3.142[/td][td]3.75[/td][td]1.194[/td][/tr] [tr][td]HSP-S-1[/td][td]3.856[/td][td]3.556[/td][td]0.3[/td][td]0.084[/td][/tr] [tr][td]SP-S-1[/td][td]7.613[/td][td]7.113[/td][td]0.5[/td][td]0.07[/td][/tr] [/table] The q = dry mass / fuel+oxy mass and means "how bad tank is". Toroidal tanks are awful, the small one is pure dead weight. My proposal is to change dry mass of toroidal (and maybe spherical) tanks (see the 4th col) [table=width: 500, class: grid] [tr][td]tank[/td][td]mass[/td][td]fuel+oxy mass[/td][td]dry mass[/td][td]q[/td][/tr] [tr][td]TO-S-1[/td][td]0.225[/td][td]0.2[/td][td]0.025[/td][td]0.125[/td][/tr] [tr][td]TO-M-1[/td][td]3.533[/td][td]3.14[/td][td]0.393[/td][td]0.125[/td][/tr] [tr][td]HSP-S-1[/td][td]4.005[/td][td]3.56[/td][td]0.445[/td][td]0.125[/td][/tr] [tr][td]SP-S-1[/td][td]7.999[/td][td]7.11[/td][td]0.889[/td][td]0.125[/td][/tr] [/table] The spherical tanks may be left as is. They are lighter than vanilla tanks but it is not a huge difference. Hubs also need some tweaking. I believe the small hub needs to be 0.01 and medium 0.03.

Hello everyone and Cilph! I come to post a bug but I have it posted to github instead: FC does not respond to Enter key (KSP 0.22 Linux). Now I have another question: isn't KR-7 too damn heavy compared to vanilla DTS-M1? Being made from depleted uranium and having weight 0.5 it should have at least 80 impact tolerance!