What radial size do you prefer?

[Qwotty]

I personally think that the

1.25 m and 2.5 m parts are more than enough, but the 3.75 are just overkill.

[Cochonrambo31]

1.25m for Mun / Minmus (and sometimes Duna and Eve)

2.25 for low DeltaV missions (send a Koyouz spaceship to dock to a station)

3.75 for Jool space station refuel / life support / kerbal recovery

0.65 for KSP Interstellar nuclear probes

Edited June 15, 2014 by Cochonrambo31

[cantab]

All of them. But my ships most commonly use a 2.5m main body, simply because that's the size of all the parts that hold multiple Kerbals. (Well, apart from the Mk3 cockpit).

[Cochonrambo31]

Any tutorial on 2.5m rocket design?

the max deltaV i can get with 2 booster stages and a mainsail body is 4500m/s --'

i remember i landed a 2.5m lander on Mun, but then i stopped KSP for 1 week or so, so i forgot how to build good 2.5 rockets

[Guest]

The radials aren't really that important since you generally use boosters to help with low launch TWR. I prefer a 5m lower stage with a 3.75m upper but I have gone for 7.25m and 8.5m cores if the payload is bigger than 75 tons.. For lighter payloads a straight 2.5m upper and lower usually does the job.

[asheft]

Generally 2.5 meters for the upper stage, sometimes with a 3.75 meter lower stage, because there are no crew capsules larger than the 2.5 meter Kerbal command pod. Because of that, I think that it is somewhat impractical to use the 3.75 meter parts beyond the first two stages. If I'm launching one Kerbal I'll use 1.25 meter parts, sometimes with a 2.5 meter first stage. Regex, what mod adds 7 and 8 meter parts?

[CalculusWarrior]

Nearly all of my spacecraft are 2.5m, as most of my favourite parts are this size. I will use 3.75m parts for lower stages though, but I almost never build a craft solely out of 1.25m or 0.625m parts (unless its a probe, of course).

[problemecium]

Regex, what mod adds 7 and 8 meter parts?

I wanna know too, as a fan of absurdly large ships but who lacks Whackjob's talent for doing it with stock stuff.

[dryer_lint]

3.75! The bigger the better! Woohoo!!

Joking aside, I guess I prefer 2.5 meter parts.

[Guest]

I use Procedural Parts to get tanks that big. I play on a 6.4:1 scale with RSS, though; if you're playing with RSS proper, which is about 10:1 scale, you end up using even bigger tanks.

[r4pt0r]

I use Procedural Parts to get tanks that big. I play on a 6.4:1 scale with RSS, though; if you're playing with RSS proper, which is about 10:1 scale, you end up using even bigger tanks.

you gotta post a screen of one of those monsters man

[asheft]

I use Procedural Parts to get tanks that big. I play on a 6.4:1 scale with RSS, though; if you're playing with RSS proper, which is about 10:1 scale, you end up using even bigger tanks.

I was going to say, I don't see how it is possible to have a payload in the stock game that would require that large of a rocket. By RSS proper, I assume that you mean real sized Earth, as opposed to just larger than stock Kerbin.

[Random Tank]

Why is 10m not in this poll? Disappointing...

[Taki117]

I use side boosters that are asthetically pleasing. My general guideline is one size smaller than the center stack. (i.e for a 2.5m core I would use 1.25m boosters)

[Guest]

you gotta post a screen of one of those monsters man

I lied, it's a 7.5m core with a 5m upper. Anyway, there are far more impressive things here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/57626-Realistic-Solar-System-Crafts-MEGATHREAD

[The Destroyer]

My first stages tend to be 3.75m, but general lifters and vehicles are 2.5m.

[ArcFurnace]

Heavy-lift subassemblies (150 ton and 100 ton payload) get 3.75m cores, with the 150 ton version using 3.75m boosters as well. Smaller stuff is generally a mix of 1.25m/2.5m parts as necessary. I haven't used 0.625m parts much at all in the past, although that might change now that I have Scansat for probes and EVE/Better Atmospheres to make me need said probes to tell where I'm landing on planets with atmospheres.

[Superfluous J]

I won't vote because there is no "all of the above" option. Every single size has its uses and places where it's not so useful.

[bigyihsuan]

I like everything that is not 0.625 meters. I almost never make probes, and even then I use 1.25 meter parts.

[Tortoise]

I usually use 3.75 to get me into orbit, then 2.5 for the rest of my trip.

And 1.25 for air/space planes.

[Jouni]

For me, 2.5 m is the default size. I use 3.75 m parts for launching payloads larger than about 50 tonnes, because big rockets look better than rockets with more than two boosters. My short-range fuel tankers also use 3.75 m parts. 1.25 m parts are reserved for special purposes, such as small boosters or attaching engines radially in landers and transfer stages.

[Dangerous_Beans]

I won't vote because there is no "all of the above" option. Every single size has its uses and places where it's not so useful.

yeah. i have built long range space probes using 0.625m parts only, giant fuel tankers that only use 5m parts other than the probe core, and weird contraptions that use all of them.

all parts are useful, except the radial mk55 engine

[Madrias]

0.625 for light-duty motor gliders and atmospheric craft, as well as super-light probes.

1.25 for heavy-duty motor gliders, atmospheric craft, spaceplanes, and early-stage space stations.

2.5 for heavy atmospheric craft, heavy spaceplanes, cargo-spaceplanes/ "shuttles", and late-stage space stations.

Needless to say, I've yet to come up with a 3.75 ship, but that's mostly because my designs tend to work reasonably well without needing even more delta-V.

[FleshJeb]

If I could weld 0.625m batteries together, I'd use that size almost exclusively for satellites. 1.25m for 1-3 man missions. 2.5m for stations and fuel tankers.

[cantab]

Near Future has bigger inline batteries, the .625m one having 2800 Ec.