[0.23.5] Spherical and Toroidal Tank Pack (Updated 05/02/14) (New download link)

[Boamere]

Hope this gets updated soon

[Talisar]

Hope this gets updated soon

I can't give you an exact timeframe, as the update depends on when MFS is updated. Once NathanKell and ialdabaoth get that ironed out, these tanks should fall right in line. Judging by the MFS thread, you're probably looking at a couple of days, but they do great work, so I'm patiently looking forward to it as much as you

[Boamere]

I can't give you an exact timeframe, as the update depends on when MFS is updated. Once NathanKell and ialdabaoth get that ironed out, these tanks should fall right in line. Judging by the MFS thread, you're probably looking at a couple of days, but they do great work, so I'm patiently looking forward to it as much as you

Coolio!

[Rayder]

Just a heads up, a testing update for MFS has been released.

[Talisar]

Just a heads up, a testing update for MFS has been released.

Yep, I saw that this morning. Once I get home from work, I'll see about updating this pack. I'm not sure what will be involved yet, but I don't expect it will be difficult. Worse case scenario, I'll just have to take out the custom definitions for the time being and let his plugin do all the hard work . I know that he's switching from (1 unit = 5 liters) to (1 unit = 1 liter), so I expect I'll have to make some changes due to that too.

Which brings to mind that I need to check and see if the other plugin that allows the texture switching is working. I'll do that at the same time.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Talisar

[Rayder]

Everything pretty much still works with the current version. As you said maybe fiddling with the values but it still works properly. Also still works properly with TAC Life Support.

The only issue with MFS so far is that it allows you to override the volume limits on tanks and you can put an unlimited amount of a resource into it.

[Talisar]

That's good to hear. I'll play around with it and the experimental version of MFS today, but if it's (mostly) still working, I will wait until NathanKell finalizes the update before I push mine out.

I'm currently working on a new save using Ackander's Vertical Tech Tree, and I am finally just about to unlock my own tanks, so the timing is serendipitous.

[Kokanee]

Glad to hear an update is forth coming; 0.23 broke my favourite creation, the "Orbnauticus" fuel hauler;

http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/mighty-orbnauticus/

[Talisar]

Lol, that is a great ship. I've been following the discussion in the MFS thread and it appears that he has an experimental version HERE that (if I am reading it correctly) will allow the current tanks to work with stock resources. I haven't tried it out yet, so if you try it out before I get home from work please let me know if I'm right. I doubt the realfuels version will work unless he's taken the time to make up modulemanager configs to change the volumes for my tanks (he is busy enough as it is, I'm sure )

As for an official update for this pack, I'm going to hold off until NathanKell has an official release before I make any changes, that way I can (hopefully) only make one instead of my usual flurry of several.

[Talisar]

So, while I've been waiting, I've been playing around with alternate designs for the spherical tanks...

That is a 2.5m diameter tank (current medium size) with 1.25 and 0.625m mounts. What I'm thinking is splitting these up in much the same way that I did the toroidal tanks, where you place the tank and mounts separately. This would allow more choice in what is used. Also, it would mean just 1 tank for each size, and 2 (or 3, depending on demand) choices of mounts for each size. It also allows for having different sized mounts on the same tank (for example a 2.5m mount on the bottom for an engine and a 1.25m mount on top for a 1-kerbal capsule). My major concern with this will be the joint strength. If it's too wobbly, it'll be useless.

Anyhow, nothing for sure yet, just playing around. Anyone have thoughts on the design?

[jrandom]

I like this idea of separating the mounts from the tanks. (Of course, all I want is one or two procedural tanks and mounts. Cut down on the clutter, increase in the flexibility!)

[Rayder]

Are we able to get an extra small tank? I've found that for some designs that even the smallest tank is way too large. I have no idea when or how I'll be using the giant spherical tank lol

[Talisar]

I like this idea of separating the mounts from the tanks. (Of course, all I want is one or two procedural tanks and mounts. Cut down on the clutter, increase in the flexibility!)

I have no idea how to do procedural tanks, but a certain someone asked me a while ago if I minded if they tried to stretchify mine. I told them to have at it, but I don't know how it went. I'll inquire about it after the flurry of compatibility upgrades dies down.

Are we able to get an extra small tank? I've found that for some designs that even the smallest tank is way too large. I have no idea when or how I'll be using the giant spherical tank lol

I could probably make one that is one step smaller if I go with this new model design. Sticking to the scheme that I've (tried to) use, that would make it 1.25m in diameter with a 0.625 attachment point. Any smaller than that and you'd be better off with a cylindrical one.

As for the largest one, I actually agreed with you when I first made them, but there were so many people asking for it that I made one. It appears to get a lot of use in station building, and I actually use it with some of the biggest KW Rocketry engines as a first stage for really heavy lifts.

[NathanKell]

Talisar, FYI, "stock" MFS is almost done. Sorry for the long wait!

[Talisar]

No worries I'm being patient. Thanks for the update!

[wasmic]

If it's too wobbly, it'll be useless.

KJR can always help. I think that design scheme looks amazing.

[Patupi]

That is a 2.5m diameter tank (current medium size) with 1.25 and 0.625m mounts. What I'm thinking is splitting these up in much the same way that I did the toroidal tanks, where you place the tank and mounts separately. This would allow more choice in what is used. Also, it would mean just 1 tank for each size, and 2 (or 3, depending on demand) choices of mounts for each size. It also allows for having different sized mounts on the same tank (for example a 2.5m mount on the bottom for an engine and a 1.25m mount on top for a 1-kerbal capsule). My major concern with this will be the joint strength. If it's too wobbly, it'll be useless.

Anyhow, nothing for sure yet, just playing around. Anyone have thoughts on the design?

If the actual contact point was a ring rather than a dome that matches the diameter of the tank you might be able to use the same connector for different sized tanks by just adjusting the distance between them so the surface of the tank touches both that ring and the outside ring you show above. Thus you'd have the same situation you have with the toroidal tanks now. One set of tanks and one set of connectors, rather than a set of connectors per size of tank.

As to the design I like the look and the functionality. The ability to change connections from top to bottom is nice. The only down side with this method is that ships will have higher parts counts with this compared to the standard spherical tanks.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Patupi

[Talisar]

If the actual contact point was a ring rather than a dome that matches the diameter of the tank you might be able to use the same connector for different sized tanks by just adjusting the distance between them so the surface of the tank touches both that ring and the outside ring you show above. Thus you'd have the same situation you have with the toroidal tanks now. One set of tanks and one set of connectors, rather than a set of connectors per size of tank.

This is something I've been playing with. With the current design, if I try one of the mounts on a larger diameter tank, then the center connection hovers above the tank. I can change that connection to a cylinder that is long enough to just clip into the smaller tanks if used on them, but it doesn't look as nice. I may be able to come up with something as I play around with the design though.

-edit- No, that wouldn't work either, because the stack node would have to be in a different place for each size of tank. I could maybe do the same clipping idea with the ring as well to make it work, but it'll probably look odd. I'll try it out and see though.

As to the design I like the look and the functionality. The ability to change connections from top to bottom is nice.

They also work well as radial connections, which is another point on the positive side for that particular design choice.

The only down side with this method is that ships will have higher parts counts with this compared to the standard spherical tanks.

This is definitely something to consider as well. My initial feeling was that the increased versatility would more than make up for a relatively minor increase in part count... But then again, if you are using a bunch of the tanks, the part count increase quickly becomes non-minor. Hmmm...

I also don't see an easy way to do half-spheres that would look believable with this style. The man reason I made them was so that you could stack two different types of tank into one sphere, but that's not really necessary since I started adding the MFS functionality. I hesitate to get rid of them though, as they seem to get pretty heavy use in the pics I've seen of peoples' builds. Maybe just a "base" that could be added to the bottom? (thus increasing the part count again, grrr)

Edited December 22, 2013 by Talisar

[Kokanee]

Would love to see some smaller tanks for things like OTVS and probes.

[Kokanee]

Also your half sphere tanks are perfect for building fuel depots, please don't get rid of them.

[Talisar]

Would love to see some smaller tanks for things like OTVS and probes.

This is absolutely something I'll shoot for. It seems to be in demand

Also your half sphere tanks are perfect for building fuel depots, please don't get rid of them.

I'll find some way to make them work. Probably a separate tank model that has an attached base so it doesn't just look like the bottom half is simply chopped off.

[Rayder]

Issue with the trusses,

The cubic truss hub doesn't work with symmetry in the VAB or SPH. When trying to attach trusses to the nodes on the hub it just reverts back to one.

[Talisar]

That's an issue with all the hubs, as far as I know. The stock hubs act in the same manner. I think it has something to do with the fact that you are using actual stack nodes to attach there rather than just surface attaching.

[Rayder]

Yeah that's how I had to do it instead. Zoomed in close and just sliding the truss along the axis until it lines up.

[taniwha]

Rayder: that's normal for parts like that. In general, symmetry works only for surface attachments.