Size names: get 'em right!

[Whirligig Girl]

I have noticed that a lot of modders use the terms "0.625 m" or 1.25 m". While it is true that the parts in KSP are 0.625, 1.25, 1.875*, 2.5, 3.75, 5**, and 7.25*** meters, in game they are never referred to as such. For a stockalike mod, listing the exact dimensions of a part really detracts from the authenticity.

The KSP Wiki uses the bland but still more authentic part sizes as "Tiny, Small, Large, Extra Large, Radial Mounted, Mk2, and Mk3"

Alternately, the wiki also uses "Size 0, Size 1, Size 2, Size 3, Radial, Mk2, and Mk3"

I personally like this naming scheme. It's a bit more Kerbal than these other ones.

"Mini, Small, Medium*, Jumbo, Gigantic, Humongous**, Side, Aircraft, Shuttle"

ClairaLyrae used the terms "Probe-Sized, Standard, and Jumbo" in KSPX

In-game, the sizes are usually referred to by their manufacturers

"Probodobodyne Sized, [they don't refer to any manufacturer as 1.25 size, so let's say 'Standard'], Rockomax Brand, and Kerbodyne Sized."

* Homegrown Rocket Parts and some FASA Gemini parts

** STX, NovaPunch, FASA

*** FASA Nova Pack.

[sal_vager]

In the very old days they were one meter parts, or more accurately one "unit" of Unity game space, and even engine thrust was measured in Newtons, not kilo-newtons, and mass in Kilograms not tons.

When Kerbals were added as distinct entities the parts had to be scaled up to keep the Kerbals large enough to avoid issues with Unity, so the old 1 meter, 3 Kerbal Mk1 pod became the single Kerbal 1.25 "unit" pod we know today.

We still have 1.25, 2.5 and the rest because that value is in the part.cfg's, so modders and others refer to them in this way

[Whirligig Girl]

I am aware of this. Also, there's a measuring device in the part mouseover in the VAB that suggests that they're still 1 meter, 2 meter, etc.

[NecroBones]

To me, "size 3" is a lot easier to say/type than "3.75 meter", so I like it from that standpoint.

[dryer_lint]

I kind of like "Tiny, Regular, Rockomax, Kerbodyne," and then the others...

[Red Iron Crown]

It's fairly arbitrary. Whether one says "Size 3", "3.75m", or "Kerbodyne sized" it doesn't really matter as long as other people understand which size you're talking about.

[T.C.]

As a new player, I can affirm that ambiguous and inconsistent size names cause confusion.

I prefer the 1.25m / 2.5m / 3.75m / etc. naming scheme which I have seen in mods. It is unambiguous, versatile, and descriptive. None of the other schemes share all those characteristics.

The problem with using the manufacturer name to describe size is that there is not a 1:1 correlation between manufacturer and size (nor is there any reason why there should be), so that naming scheme potentially leads to ambiguous or convoluted references. (e.g. "the Probodobodyne-sized Rockomax engine", "Steadler's Rockomax-sized command module", "the Rockomax-sized Kerbodyne liquid fuel booster", etc.)

-TC

[Pondafarr]

this is kinda like the Starschmucks "tall, grande, venti"...you know what it is, does it really matter what the technical term is?

[razark]

you know what it is, does it really matter what the technical term is?

Yes, if what I call it doesn't match what someone else calls it, there is potential for miscommunication.

[khyron42]

I was always amused by the different namings. One guy calls it size 3, one calls it 3.75m, one calls it Rockomax-sized...

It's kind of reminiscent of real world similar situations, where - for example, from my field, network engineering - You could call the most common modern fiber-optic network connector a "small fiber connector" because it's smaller than the old style ones, an "LC" connector (the actual connector specification - except when it's not but everyone calls it an "LC" anyway even though it's really LH or LX with the long range fibers), an "SFP" connector (the type of adapter that the connector plugs into), or a half-inch connector (roughly the width of it, with the old connectors being about 1 inch). And of course some would call it a 1 cm connector too.

People who directly work with the stuff all the time will recognize all of the names but think you're silly if you used one other than the one they usually choose - which is exactly where this thread's conversation is!

[James_Eh]

I just kind of stick them all together and get excited when I find two that seem to be about the same diameter.

[bsalis]

Oh man this again. It's almost like the KSP equivalent of Imperial verse Metric.

Personally I would prefer parts referred to by named sizes rather than the exact size as a decimal. Even if the name is an integer, as in size 1, 2, 3, 4.

[Khatharr]

I just kind of stick them all together and get excited when I find two that seem to be about the same diameter.

I know, right? The parts should have colored borders according to their group, or be sortable or something.

[kbatman]

Oh man this again. It's almost like the KSP equivalent of Imperial verse Metric.

As long as we can blame that for the loss a vessel .....

[Pixel of Life]

I simply refer to them as half-, one-, two-, three- or five-meter parts, reason being that it's nearly impossible to confuse them because no two sizes have the same integer.

[FleetAdmiralJ]

As a new player, I can affirm that ambiguous and inconsistent size names cause confusion.

I prefer the 1.25m / 2.5m / 3.75m / etc. naming scheme which I have seen in mods. It is unambiguous, versatile, and descriptive. None of the other schemes share all those characteristics.

I would agree with this. Having played the game for a year, my eyes still just glaze over when I start seeing terms like "size 2 parts." Just say they're 2.5m parts and I know exactly what other parts they fit with, even if the part size itself isn't exactly 2.5m in size, if it fits with those parts, call it a 2.5m part. I understand "size 2" part is supposed to encompass any part of any size in that size range, but to me, if I see "size 2" i'm always like "wait...are those parts for 1.25m parts or 2.5m parts?"

[Thomas988]

I refer to the parts' diameters as 1.25, 2.5, 3.25 and 3.75 meter parts. We don't talk about the 62.5 centimeter parts.

[Red Iron Crown]

I never refer to the smallest radial size as 62.5cm, always 0.625m to keep the units consistent with the others.

[merendel]

this is kinda like the Starschmucks "tall, grande, venti"...you know what it is, does it really matter what the technical term is?

Ya this kinda thinking/labeling is one reason I don't get coffee from that place (the other is I can make a weeks worth of coffee at home for the price of a single starbucks coffee) Tell me the size of the drink in ounces, milliliters or some other standard measurement and I'll be much happier. Oh and none of this "Cup" nonsense where you mean 5 or 6oz instead of the 8oz of every other fluid that is measured in cups.

So yes it really does mater what the technical term is as I dont actualy know what those coffee sizes stand for. One is taller than something, one is bigger than something, and one has more or less V than something. Considering I have no referance point as to what that something is all 3 terms mean exactly squat to me The same thing can apply to fuel tanks if your talking to someone that does not use same terms for the same thing everyday. For all the uninitiated knows size 0 through 3 could stand for the height of the tank and not the diameter (notice the FL-T and the rocomax series have 4 heights in them)

[rdfox]

For the record, I'm in favor of the part diameter convention; it's the same as is used in real life, where rocket parts are described by their diameter, since that's the critical measurement in two major concerns--mating them with other parts, and the roof height required in the building where they're constructed (since *every* rocket stage I've ever heard of was built horizontally, as it's easier and safer than trying to build it vertically, even if you don't consider that you'll have to tip it horizontal eventually to ship it to the launch site). Indeed, that last one is a limiting factor on the size of American space equipment to this day; the Michoud Assembly Facility at the Stennis Space Center is the only factory in the world that can handle building booster components up to 10 meters diameter--and that's ITS hard limit, since it was designed and built to assemble the 10-meter S-IC and S-II stages of the Saturn V. Any booster with a larger diameter than that would require an entirely new facility for stage assembly, which would cost an absolute FORTUNE and probably a decade's worth of regulatory red tape before you could even break ground on it.

I'll also note that there was a proposal in the late 60s to build future Saturn V-derived boosters that replaced the existing S-IC stage with a cluster of four "260-inch" solid rockets; those would be 260-inch diameter, roughly 22 feet and resulting in a somewhat thicker first stage. If memory serves, these motors ended up being the basis for the big ones used as SRBs on the later-model Titans, Deltas, and the Shuttle...