Why does evryone use Rockomax Jumbo 64 instead of Kerbodyne-1400

[LABHOUSE]

Kerbodyne is bigger and stronger so why not use it instead?

[Deathsoul097]

For one, many people do not like the OP-ness of the new Kerbodyne parts, which is funny, because the tank you are quoting is actually worse than the Jumbo. The Jumbo has a 1:9 ratio of dry mass to fuel mass, wheras the new parts are less efficient, with only 1:8 ratio of dry mass to fuel.

Troll post is troll.

[Red Iron Crown]

Mass fraction is better. Orange tanks are iconic. Rockomax does not test their tanks on animals like Kerbodyne does. Do you hate animals?*

* Kidding. Rockets don't require animal testing, but we do send some into space. Your choice of fuel tank says nothing about your feelings about humane treatment of animals. No animals were harmed in the making of KSP aside from all the bugs Squad has squashed.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Red Iron Crown
Less offensive, I hope.

[r4pt0r]

Mass fraction is better. Orange tanks are iconic. Rockomax does not test their tanks on animals like Kerbodyne does. Do you hate animals?

that about sums it up actually. do you hate animals OP?

[Tortoise]

I use them both, depending on the fuel I need

[Madrias]

Orange tanks have been around longer and most of us old-folks use a lot of 'em. All of my space stations in current operation are designed around orange tanks, my spaceplanes are sized to cradle an orange tank under them, my SSTO carries an orange tank in the cargo hold. Everything about these new 3.75m parts requires relearning while the 2.5m orange tank still works.

[ArmchairGravy]

I put an orange tank on top of the K-1400. What do I win?

[problemecium]

Haven't unlocked the 14400 in Career yet.

[LethalDose]

Also, there's no 3.75 docking port.

[cantab]

Not everyone does. I used the 14400 on my space station and tend to use the Kerbodyne tanks on my launchers' lower stages. The part count is what counts for me, that and reducing rocket length helps the stability.

However, there are still issues. The Kerbodyne tank ends look more realistic but it means it looks bad if you attach smaller stuff to it, and there's no single part you can use to "cap" the tanks because the 2.5m-3.75m adapter's own ends aren't solid. To be honest there's a general paucity of extra-large parts at present; no RGU, no docking port, not even a proper nosecone.

[FenrirWolf]

The Kerbodyne tanks are great for launches. But once I'm out in orbit I still tend to use orange tanks as the standard, since docking ports and adapters and things all play nicely with it.

[Lunaran]

op has not satisfactorily explained why he hates animals

[LABHOUSE]

That offended me I am a vegetarian and love animals.

Also you can still use docking ports on the Kerbodyne parts if you use adapters and stuff.

[Superfluous J]

I use the fuel tanks that I need to get stuff to their destinations.

And I love animals. Especially when served with complimentary side dishes.

[Killerdude8]

Rockomax Jumbos are good for Orbital installations, and Kerbodyne 14ks are good for Lifters.

[Red Iron Crown]

That offended me I am a vegetarian and love animals.

Also you can still use docking ports on the Kerbodyne parts if you use adapters and stuff.

Sorry, I was going for practical reason, aesthetic reason, and funny reason, but I can see how that could be seen as in bad taste. No offense intended, I love animals, too.

On topic, I generally use 2.5m tanks when I'm trying to be most mass-efficient on larger craft, their better fuel:tank ratio makes them better for this. They look better with the service parts because no adaptors are required. I use the Kerbodynes when I'm making a large lifter or some bigger contraption where I'm starting to feel the part count. They look better with the new engines, too. Different tools for different jobs, all in the toolbox.

[MaverickSawyer]

No animals were harmed in the making of KSP aside from all the bugs Squad has squashed.

Nice. I think I just found my new sig.

[bsalis]

Other than The Claw, I'm not using the ARM parts, since I consider ARM to be a type of mod.

[TerLoki]

Pretty much what most people have been saying. The Rockomaxes are iconic, their smaller diameter makes them easier to handle in orbit as modular tanks, they fit in that sweet spot where they work great for core stages as well as boosters, and I only recently unlocked 3.75 meter parts in career. That's why I'm still rocking the Rockomax.

[InterCity]

I use the behemoth kerbodyne tanks just for my booster stages.

And also, although it may sound ridiculous, Mainsails are more efficient than kerbodyne engines (i guess).

[lajoswinkler]

I use the new parts as central engines, and strap them with orange tank boosters if I need to. Does the work and looks good.

If you want to cap a 3.75 m part with a nose cone, just use the adapter.

[RW-1]

Mmmmm Animals on the Grill .....

[pxi]

I'm in the process of switching my fuel tugs to use the kerbodyne tanks, and a couple of my larger asteroid tugs use them too, but thats it at the moment.

[Bishop149]

Apart from their obvious role in launch systems I use Kerbodyne tanks as the cores of some of my larger craft, but much most frequently as drop tanks. . . I prefer the flatter profile of Kerbodyne rather than having towering unstable things or long sausages. . . my standard fuel pod is now the below (the bit being winched up)

The new big part set BADLY needs one of these, the current adapter is fine for some purposes but for most is just WAY too long.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Bishop149

[Travisfv]

I'm not for or against any type of fuel tank or rocket motor. Kinda silly if you ask me. These aren't political parties or ideologies. It's not coke and pepsi.

It's literally a 12 oz can vs a 2 liter bottle of your favorite soda. Just depends on what you need. One is a personal size, the other is party size.

It's up to you to use what you need in that situation, unless you drink a 2 liter yourself and bring a 12 ounce can to a party. But, to each their own.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Travisfv
Typo