The ROUND8 memorial thread - UPDATE: It's alive!

[Guest]

Here´s my Round-8 craft ... well, its not really a craft. But it is the first thing I thought of when I saw the tank.

And, hey, it flies! And has 1300 m/s of Delta-v!

May you rest in peace, ROUND-8

[Scotius]

Yyyyyyyy-yeah. Refuelling a reuseable lander that carries its fuel in ten to fifteen golden donuts must be fun. Thanks, but no - i will stick to my hefty, sturdy and trusty landers able to do the same job with half of the part count.

[ShadowZone]

Yyyyyyyy-yeah. Refuelling a reuseable lander that carries its fuel in ten to fifteen golden donuts must be fun. Thanks, but no - i will stick to my hefty, sturdy and trusty landers able to do the same job with half of the part count.

ALT+Right Click all of them plus the fuel source and then just press "out" on that. Not a big deal. Despite that: That's no reason do deprive players who like that tank of that option

[impwarhamer]

I hope someone mods them back to LFO tanks, they're really good for adding detail to crafts while also adding fuel, especially good for landers

Screenshot tax: lander I built ages ago

[Hobbes Novakoff]

The torodial tank is great, and I hope SQUAD goes back on this and decides to instead repurpose the Oscar. Although, what would be even better would be an entire line of torodial tanks, for LFO, Monoprop, EC, and Xenon. The torodial form factor is great and I can't imagine good-looking probes without it.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Hobbes Novakoff

[n.b.z.]

Yyyyyyyy-yeah. Refuelling a reuseable lander that carries its fuel in ten to fifteen golden donuts must be fun.

As the only lander presented here that "carries its fuel in ten to fifteen golden donuts" seems to be mine, I should maybe clarify that it's part of a fully expendable, apolloesque Mun mission stack that returns only the 3-place capsule to Kerbin. The lander is never refuelled. (That docking port carries a payload not seen in the image, and can be used to supply monoprop. to the rover.)

And it admittedly does not make a very convincing case for the ROUND-8. For a more reasonable and practical example see ddenis' post on the previous page.

The point I wanted to make is that the Round-8, especially in combination with the Oscar, allows for very creative use of limited space, and can sometimes be a fix for a craft that just needs a little bit more fuel. This actually WAS the case with my lander, the bottom 4 tanks were added later after two missions almost failed due to running out of descent fuel, and it would have been difficult to add that amount anywhere else without a major rework of the lander and/or its fairing.

[Alshain]

In addition to the poll (Vote here!) I would like to open this thread to enable all of you to show your crafts using the ROUND8 tank before 1.0 hits and all of our designs become useless.

I would like to start with this lander that visited all 5 Jool moons.

http://i.imgur.com/MdmXAWjh.jpg

Thanks for linking the poll. I guess the suggestion forum was a better place for it, but having a link here will help get it more attention.

[Bloody_looser]

So, new players won't be able to enjoy bliss of flaccid rocketry. It's a shame, really.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Being more serious, why don't just make a xenon version of this tank instead of removing it?

Though a soft kind of tank, with pressurised gas, for usage in vacuum ... ee ... Xenon version of Oscar-b would be better IMO.

[Renegrade]

Being more serious, why don't just make a xenon version of this tank instead of removing it?

Actually, I'd prefer an FL-T200-sized Xenon tank instead. It could be used on stations to re-fuel xenon-based craft (like #lolxenonlanders).

[GloriousWater]

I use this tank on practically all of my probes, it's really useful. My most notable use for it would be in my 0.25 career, where I did a 45k fund Jool moons mission on the coalputer that died when the part count went over 50.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

It was also used on my first Duna lander and for laughs I had about 150 of them on a nuclear tug. Good times.

[LostOblivion]

The torodial tank is great, and I hope SQUAD goes back on this and decides to instead repurpose the Oscar. Although, what would be even better would be an entire line of torodial tanks, for LFO, Monoprop, EC, and Xenon. The torodial form factor is great and I can't imagine good-looking probes without it.

I agree completely. I think Squad would mess up if they repurposed it. The great thing about the Round-8 in my opinion is that it is such a fantastic adapter for 1.25 - 0.625 for things that on purpose should not look very rigid--like landers. There would be no replacement for it.

And this would make no sense for ion sats since they usually don't have 1.25 parts.

Edited April 15, 2015 by LostOblivion

[merendel]

I've used them for small probes plenty of times just cause I dont like the oscarB. That said I dont mind too much if they are just changeing it to a xenon tank. Since the assets will still be there it will take me all of a minute to copy it right back and revert it to its LFO glory.

[Engineer of Stuff]

Honestly, this whole thing reminds me of removing reaction wheels from some probe cores during the last update. Community got up in arms about broken craft for a week or two, then we just reworked our craft and moved on.

This is different, an entire part is being removed.

The reaction wheel thing was worth it in the end.

[Gerandar]

Couldnt you just mod the part to be like the old part? thus making this thread pointless?

[Quote]

You know, I've never used this part. Not out of hate, but always because I was making larger space craft. After seeing some of the designs on this page, I really feel like I need to give it a go before it's gone.

[TMS]

This part is a buggy mess anyway. Trying to get fuel lines to attach to it is a nightmare. Maybe that's why they're changing it to xenon?

[ddenis]

This part is a buggy mess anyway. Trying to get fuel lines to attach to it is a nightmare. Maybe that's why they're changing it to xenon?

No problems for crafts without fuel lines. Personaly I've never tried to attach fuel line to it so didn't know about such issue.

[r_rolo1]

Well , all of the smaller tanks are iffy in terms of boundaries and attachments and the doughnut tank is not even the worse, that is clearly the Oscar ( the thing doesn't even have lateral colliders, so you can't even attach stuff laterally or to attach it laterally to something ). So, if bugginess was a factor, the Oscar would be the first to go , without any doubt :/

[Frybert]

This part is a buggy mess anyway. Trying to get fuel lines to attach to it is a nightmare. Maybe that's why they're changing it to xenon?

I've never noticed any bugs with it.

[Red Iron Crown]

Well , all of the smaller tanks are iffy in terms of boundaries and attachments and the doughnut tank is not even the worse, that is clearly the Oscar ( the thing doesn't even have lateral colliders, so you can't even attach stuff laterally or to attach it laterally to something ). So, if bugginess was a factor, the Oscar would be the first to go , without any doubt :/

Those aren't bugs or lack of colliders, those are deliberate choices in the .cfg file. (You could certainly argue that they are poor choices, though.)

[Musil]

It's being removed? Nooooooooo...! I loved this tank!

[PlonioFludrasco]

Nooo, poor ROUND8!

It's a good part to make tiny liquid fueled craft, and the Oscar sucks at that! (No lateral attachement and wrong proportion between LF and OX).

I hope they fix the oscar, because without ROUND8 we lack tiny, low capacity and light liquid fuel tank.

If not, expect a ROUND8 Revival mod! XD

[Mister Dilsby]

Some of us are saying goodbye with a challenge: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/115659-The-I

Edited April 15, 2015 by Kuzzter

[Tetragon213]

Knowing the community, there will be a whole mod-pack on toroidal tanks...

[r_rolo1]

Those aren't bugs or lack of colliders, those are deliberate choices in the .cfg file. (You could certainly argue that they are poor choices, though.)

A part that display sides but does not really have them is buggy, period. It can be buggy for a good reason, but it is buggy in the same way, especially when normally the other parts have their colliders well done ( with some exceptions , as you know ).