Which radial decoupler do you use?

[cicatrix]

Over the time I noticed that I always use TT-38K:

no matter what the size of the attached part is. I just add moar struts.

However we also have these:

The question is - do you use them often? What are the pros and cons of them?

I can probably agree that TT-70 and structural pylon offer a bit more space between the parts but what about the hydraulic detachment manifold? Does it offer ANY advantage?

[TimePeriod]

I use the pylon for bracing any object ducktaped onto the top of a rocket. Works great.

(Hint hint, it also prevents any ducktape sticking to the payload, thus making it look prettier)

Edited April 13, 2015 by TimePeriod

[Red Iron Crown]

TT-38K almost always, TT-70 when I need a bit more space between stacks. I never use the other two.

[RainDreamer]

The advantage of the hydraulic detachment manifold is that you can now boast that your rocket has a part with the fancy word "manifold" on it.

Also it shoot stuff quite powerfully off your rocket.

[regex]

I use the AIES AS decoupler pretty much exclusively, although I had to adjust the max temperature value for it because they're really wimpy in the lower atmosphere when they shouldn't be.

[Kerbart]

Also it shoot stuff quite powerfully off your rocket.

To the level where most of the parts, except for the very large Kerbodyne stuff, spontaneously rapidly disassembled (unplanned). I'll use the TT-38 and the TT-70 when I need the space. The Hydrolic Manyfold only in combinations with Kerbodyne tanks. The Pylon? Pretty much never.

[Hotblack Desiato]

the tt-70 is nice for having a bit more space between side-booster and main rocket.

and the hydraulic detachment manifold is nice because it is stable even with really big boosters, which otherwise require struiting.

[impyre]

I use them all for various purposes. Pylon for planes, detachment manifold for large radial stages (2.5 and above) that are to be ejected in space (most of my launch stages)... the higher decoupling force makes it safer (it's also more structurally rigid). TT-38k for small stages and combination lander/return vessels (used for ditching side tanks). TT70 for 2.5m crew launchers with 1.25m side tanks (or where more clearance is needed). But honestly I use *no* radial de-couplers just as often (if not more often). I just add a tank under the stage above it, then attach side-mounted tanks directly to the central tank and add fuel lines. This is much more rigid (while not as efficient from a staging perspective) and offers the advantage that the resulting ditched stage is in one piece, and can thus be easily recovered.

Edited April 13, 2015 by impyre

[Renegrade]

TT-38K almost always, TT-70 when I need a bit more space between stacks. I never use the other two.

^ Pretty much this. Anything that needs more force than what those provide is better served with seps anyhow.

The structural pylon is a bit weird in the icon department, so I become a bit doge around it. wow. much weird icon. so bugs. not using.

(I use Claw's decoupler fix to get rid of that fatal torque bug that happens between 200 and 750m/s)

[OhioBob]

I use the TT-38K whenever I can because it is cheaper and lighter than the others. In cases where I need more room, or I want to extend my footprint for greater stability, I use the TT70. In the past I used the Hydraulic Detachment Manifold for heavy attachments, but I've found that using the TT-38K or TT70 with Separatrons and extra struts is usually lighter and can even be cheaper in some cases. (I think the mass of the Hydraulic Detachment Manifold needs to be rebalanced to make it more viable.) I've never used the Structural Pylon.

[Starhawk]

With the ability to abuse the offset gizmo, the TT-70 no longer offers an advantage over the TT-38K.

Unless you hate the look of your radially attached tanks floating in the air next to the core of the craft.

Happy landings!

[Francois424]

I usually put these ones... And will often put 2 of them, one on top of the other.

It looks less elegant but for some reason with the other type of Decouplers, engines always slams into my craft, destroying it.

Unless this is fixed in 1.0, I don't see myself changing habits.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Francois424

[sgt_flyer]

i generally use 0.625m or 1.25m axial decouplers for my radial boosters (basically, a cubic strut, and a decoupler on it, the fuel tank radially attached on the side of the decoupler closest to the rocket) no torque bug, and very closely fitting boosters

[panzer1b]

For almost all conventional rockets i use TT-70s (the large offset one). Its lightweight, and has just enough clearance to fit a asparagus of nasa tanks (7 tanks, one center 6 around it). The smaller ones just do not offer needed clearance. Now the reason i dont use the smaller ones, is that i use vertical staging for loads below 100t, and i use the 3.5m super massives for stuff above 100t. basically for my playstyle, there is no use for any of the other radial ecouplers.

Now as for weapons, i use the structural pylon thingy as it has a 999m/s impact tolerance (i really am afraid to ask why on earth it has this), and makes a nice warhead for some of my high performance missiles.

[RainDreamer]

The pylons are pretty nice for space planes when you get to orbit and dump the rest of the wings + jet engines while keeping it looking aerodynamic. No need for those for the rest of your travel in space.

[maltesh]

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/images/thumb/3/3c/TT-70.png/55px-TT-70.png

I usually put these ones... And will often put 2 of them, one on top of the other.

It looks less elegant but for some reason with the other type of Decouplers, engines always slams into my craft, destroying it.

Unless this is fixed in 1.0, I don't see myself changing habits.

I also use the TT-70 exclusively. Even on my largest radially-staged spacecraft, it has always provided enough standoff distance (possibly aided by the steering fins that I routinely put at the bottom of the radial stages) that I have never had to use separatrons for stage separation since 0.16.

[Slam_Jones]

I also use the TT-70 exclusively. -snip-

Same here. I like the extra room between the rocket and the radial tanks, as it makes it easier to connect fuel lines, struts, etc.

Plus that little gap is a nice buffer for separation events.

[Rath]

The only thing I use the pylon for is attaching wheels and parachutes to base modules because when they decouple it doesn't leave a mark

[Bill Phil]

Depends...

[Asharad]

I use all of them.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

I use the ones from AIES, they're far prettier.

[Alshain]

This one

[Basilo1146]

I've only really used the pylons, and with the introduction of cargo bays, docking ports. i don't like useless things left around my ships.

[NoMrBond]

Usually the TT-70 for lower stages (for spacing, tweakscaled up depending on application) and the TT-38K for more compact upper stage (usually lander/return, tweakscaled down depending on application) applications.

I never use the HDM though because of its high mass.

I liked the look of the AIES decouplers, and the NP2 offset cone top ones which look like the tops of the proton 1st stage external strapons. Unfortunately I had to be really harsh with duplicate functionality parts due to the present memory limitations.

[Vanamonde]

I rarely use anything but the TT-70. The fact that it adds some distance even before separating helps avoid colliding with discarded boosters.