Stock Kerbodyne ADTP 2-3 adaptor needs some TLC

[Tyko]

Has anyone else noticed the issues with this stock part? The top looks too big and the texture is more green and purple than white

Edited September 25, 2018 by Tyko

[The Aziz]

In case you didn't notice, Squad is already revamping old parts for future update, so I guess they're gonna work on that one too.

[Tyko]

10 hours ago, The Aziz said:

In case you didn't notice, Squad is already revamping old parts for future update, so I guess they're gonna work on that one too.

They have said, in case you didn't notice, that they're working on early tech parts and probe cores for this release. So if you "guessed" this part was going to be part of 1.5, it's probably wrong.

[Snark]

Moving to Suggestions.

10 hours ago, The Aziz said:

In case you didn't notice, Squad is already revamping old parts for future update, so I guess they're gonna work on that one too.

Well, they're certainly revamping some old parts.  I'd be careful assuming that they'll be revamping any particular part unless they've actually said they're doing so.

I've never cared for this particular part myself, mainly because it bugs the heck out of me that it doesn't contain fuel.  It's just a huge, empty structural part, which I have zero use for-- every single time I've ever used this part in a rocket, it's been in a place where I would much rather have had a conical fuel tank instead.

What I'd really like to see is not "make this part prettier", but rather, "give us a new stock part which is a conical fuel tank in this size".

In my own gameplay I cope with this by just running the MissingHistory mod, which provides a part that has the same form factor but does contain fuel-- and, by the way, looks a lot nicer, because it's a rescaled Making History part, meaning it was modeled more recently and is therefore prettier.

[FinalFan]

2 minutes ago, Snark said:

Moving to Suggestions.

Well, they're certainly revamping some old parts.  I'd be careful assuming that they'll be revamping any particular part unless they've actually said they're doing so.

I've never cared for this particular part myself, mainly because it bugs the heck out of me that it doesn't contain fuel.  It's just a huge, empty structural part, which I have zero use for-- every single time I've ever used this part in a rocket, it's been in a place where I would much rather have had a conical fuel tank instead.

What I'd really like to see is not "make this part prettier", but rather, "give us a new stock part which is a conical fuel tank in this size".

In my own gameplay I cope with this by just running the MissingHistory mod, which provides a part that has the same form factor but does contain fuel-- and, by the way, looks a lot nicer, because it's a rescaled Making History part, meaning it was modeled more recently and is therefore prettier.

I used to feel this way, until I realized that the double Mk3 adapter workaround that many people use has more "dead weight" (in addition to the normal wet dry ratio) than the structural part, and you can fit the ADTP adapter AND a 7200 tank in less space.  You obviously get fuel with the Mk3 adapters which almost certainly improves the ship's ratio overall.  But the 7200+adapter option has less extra dead weight, while also being smaller, and has MUCH less extra dead weight, proportionally, than the C7 stock fueled size adapter.  So really, it seems to me that there is already a stock way to do what you want while the structural adapter also has a use (space efficiency).  There's just no penalty-free way to adapt sizes and I think I'm actually okay with that.  

But I'm more than open to being shown that all of the above is stupid and wrong.  

[Snark]

30 minutes ago, FinalFan said:

So really, it seems to me that there is already a stock way to do what you want while the structural adapter also has a use (space efficiency).

No, there really isn't.  Because "big empty structural adapter sitting on top of a fuel tank" is bigger and wastes space.  I want a conical fuel tank adapter from 2.5m to 3.75m.

It's a glaring omission from the game, IMO.  We've got conical fuel tanks for pretty much every other size transition in the game:

• 1.25m-to-1.875m (two of these!)
• 1.25m-to-2.5m
• 1.875m-to-2.5m
• 3.75m-to-5m

...the only major size transition that we don't have a fueled adapter for is 2.5m-to-3.75m.  Fortunately, it's easily remedied with a mod, which is what I've done, and so now it does exactly what I want and I never have a reason to use that (to me) utterly useless unfueled adapter.  Used a MM patch to mod it right out of my game so that it won't be cluttering up the parts panel in the VAB.

[FinalFan]

9 minutes ago, Snark said:

No, there really isn't.  Because "big empty structural adapter sitting on top of a fuel tank" is bigger and wastes space.  I want a conical fuel tank adapter from 2.5m to 3.75m.

It's a glaring omission from the game, IMO.  We've got conical fuel tanks for pretty much every other size transition in the game:

• 1.25m-to-1.875m (two of these!)
• 1.25m-to-2.5m
• 1.875m-to-2.5m
• 3.75m-to-5m
• 2.5m-to-Mk.3
• Mk.3-to-3.75m

Fixed that for you

[Snark]

2 minutes ago, FinalFan said:

Fixed that for you

Nope, I didn't include those because I have no use for the Mk3 parts.  They're for spaceplanes.  For me, all they accomplish is to clutter up the parts pane.  Using a 2.5m-to-Mk3-to-3.75m assembly means it's way overkill, too big a tank for the purpose I want it, ugly, awkward, too many vertical parts so that it makes the rocket wobblier.  It's a non-solution.  I'd use the useless S2-S3 empty adapter before I'd use that one.

If it works for other people, then great, more power to 'em.    But it's completely useless to me.  Except on those very rare occasions when I fly spaceplanes, basically all of the Mk2 and Mk3 parts, and their associated adapters, are just parts-panel clutter to me.

[FinalFan]

20 minutes ago, Snark said:

...the only major size transition that we don't have a fueled adapter for is 2.5m-to-3.75m.  Fortunately, it's easily remedied with a mod, which is what I've done, and so now it does exactly what I want and I never have a reason to use that (to me) utterly useless unfueled adapter.  Used a MM patch to mod it right out of my game so that it won't be cluttering up the parts panel in the VAB.

Out of curiosity, how much extra dead weight did you build into your fuel adapter?

[Snark]

16 minutes ago, FinalFan said:

Out of curiosity, how much extra dead weight did you build into your fuel adapter?

Gave it a 9:1 wet/dry ratio, same as all the other LFO tanks.  Stats visible here:

[FinalFan]

1 hour ago, Snark said:

Gave it a 9:1 wet/dry ratio, same as all the other LFO tanks.  Stats visible here:

I was about to object on the basis of all the classic fuel tank size adapters having extra dead weight (e.g. C7 1.25-2.5 weighs 4.57t for 0.07t extra dead weight), but then I double checked the wiki for stats on the Making History stuff I do not yet have.  They are the same as regular tanks.  Interesting!

[Snark]

1 hour ago, FinalFan said:

I was about to object on the basis of all the classic fuel tank size adapters having extra dead weight (e.g. C7 1.25-2.5 weighs 4.57t for 0.07t extra dead weight), but then I double checked the wiki for stats on the Making History stuff I do not yet have.  They are the same as regular tanks.  Interesting!

(And if you had objected, my response would have been "not my fault that the C7 is wrong"...)

[FinalFan]

32 minutes ago, Snark said:

(And if you had objected, my response would have been "not my fault that the C7 is wrong"...)

I never said I had a big sample size

[AVaughan]

11 hours ago, Snark said:

've never cared for this particular part myself, mainly because it bugs the heck out of me that it doesn't contain fuel.  It's just a huge, empty structural part, which I have zero use for-- every single time I've ever used this part in a rocket, it's been in a place where I would much rather have had a conical fuel tank instead.

Personally, most times I use an adaptor part like that, it is just under a decoupler and an engine.  Rather than a fuel tank adaptor, I'd prefer to have an interstage with built in decoupler that automatically adjusted to the diameter of whatever tank is above the engine, and the diameter of whatever tank is below the interstage.  Since I sometimes use a spark engine below a 1.25m tank, I really do want it to look at the tank above the engine, and not just the engine itself.

Personally, I think that that sort of conical interstage is more common than a conical fuel tank, at least in historical rockets.

(I can build this with procedural fairing, but feel free to suggest other mod that add something similar).

[Tyko]

18 hours ago, AVaughan said:

Personally, most times I use an adaptor part like that, it is just under a decoupler and an engine.  Rather than a fuel tank adaptor, I'd prefer to have an interstage with built in decoupler that automatically adjusted to the diameter of whatever tank is above the engine, and the diameter of whatever tank is below the interstage.  Since I sometimes use a spark engine below a 1.25m tank, I really do want it to look at the tank above the engine, and not just the engine itself.

Personally, I think that that sort of conical interstage is more common than a conical fuel tank, at least in historical rockets.

(I can build this with procedural fairing, but feel free to suggest other mod that add something similar).

If you're looking for a decoupler with an interstage check out Decoupler Shroud. It does a great job and the interstage shape is highly customizable.

 

[sumghai]

On 9/25/2018 at 10:07 AM, Tyko said:

Has anyone else noticed the issues with this stock part? The top looks too big

Most likely because the top diameter was sized to match the old, slightly larger Rockmax decouplers, instead of the new OMB ones that observe strict fuselage diameters.

On 9/26/2018 at 2:05 AM, Snark said:

I've never cared for this particular part myself, mainly because it bugs the heck out of me that it doesn't contain fuel.  It's just a huge, empty structural part, which I have zero use for-- every single time I've ever used this part in a rocket, it's been in a place where I would much rather have had a conical fuel tank instead.

My understanding is that it was based on the real-life Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter from the Space Launch System, which doesn't contain fuel.

I personally have no strong opinions one way or the other regarding the addition of a conical fuel tank variant.