The Rockomax Decoupler is ridiculously large

[BudgetHedgehog]

So one thing that has annoyed me since literally forever is the 2.5m Rockomax Decoupler. It's just so darn big for what it is. Here are some pictures that explain my thoughts:

It's almost half the height of the Rockomax 16 fuel tank. I mean, seriously.. Putting that on a relatively small lander or something can almost double its height. Why must this be so?

Looking at the thing and comparing it to the other decouplers, it should be about as big as from the bottom light rim to the top right rim or roughly half as big as it is now. There's just no sense in it being so darn tall.. Yeah, I guess you can hide things like monoprop tanks and batteries inside it but you wouldn't need to if those things weren't so darn big to begin with as well. I've taken to using KWR's 2.5 decouplers because they're a sensible height and still look nice.

Aesthetics aside, I know a lot of people have trouble with landing - having such a tall object pushes the CoM higher which makes toppling more likely. Yeah, you could always just not have it but some people also like to play realistically, even if they're not forced to. That and the Mk1-2 ladder position doesn't allow for many useful parachute attachments so you have to use either a lot (which adds weight and cost) and not enough (to slow the pod, tank and engine down to safe landing speed).

My suggestion? Make the decoupler like half as tall. Preferably less, like 1/3 as tall. As it is, it looks too big, too tall and just plain ridiculous. Make it shorter please Squad

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

Or use the Stack Decoupler, the one thats 1/10 the size of the big one

[Murph]

My suggestion? Make the decoupler like half as tall. Preferably less, like 1/3 as tall. As it is, it looks too big, too tall and just plain ridiculous. Make it shorter please Squad

I could be wrong, but I believe that it's not possible to change the fundamental dimensions of it without breaking all existing craft which use it. It's been a while since I last poked around craft files in detail, so I could be wrong but I'm fairly certain that all parts use absolute positioning relative to the root part.

It's a very long way off doubling anything in practical usage, as you're going to have a pod and 16 tank pretty much as a useful minimum (yeah, there are a limited number of cases where you might want an 8 tank, but not that many really). Very roughly if you take it as half the height of a 16 and the pod as about the same as a 16, it's only increasing the height to 125% of the height with no decoupler, or representing 20% of the overall height. That's without factoring in an engine, and the Poodle is about the same as a 16, reducing it to only 14% of the total height.

In summary, yeah it's fairly big, but it's not a serious problem, certainly not enough to justify breaking vast numbers of persistent.sfs and .craft files. Reduce touchdown speed to less than 1 m/s and there's no serious toppling issues. If you need more parachutes, attach some to the decoupler or tank (as well as the pod); and/or use some engine braking to reduce touchdown speed.

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't mind its height so much as its width. 2.5m parts should be 2.5m, having the decoupler bulge out makes connecting things between stages needlessly difficult.

[Vaporo]

I always thought it seemed unnecessarily tall, considering the other decouplers. I don't really have any problems with using it in my rockets, the extra height doesn't bother me, but I agree that it should be shorter, if only for aesthetics. It would be kind of low on the priority list right now.

[dryer_lint]

Yeah, it always has seemed too big. You know what really bugs me? The decoupler is huge, the separator is short, and the separator weighs more than the decoupler. (!?)

[KerrMü]

For landers I typically use the sr. docking port instead. Smaller, lighter (half the weight) and... shibbyer. That big decoupler isn´t my favorite either.

[Murph]

I don't mind its height so much as its width. 2.5m parts should be 2.5m, having the decoupler bulge out makes connecting things between stages needlessly difficult.

I actually like that it's slightly wider, as it can be a useful place to attach struts. E.g. struts from decoupler to decoupler, to stiffen a stage against flexing.

[r4pt0r]

for landers i typically use the sr. Docking port instead. Smaller, lighter (half the weight) and... Shibbyer. That big decoupler isn´t my favorite either.

why do i always forget about using docking ports as decouplers? Its brilliant!

[thereaverofdarkness]

I like high-profile decouplers but it's nice to also have low-profile decouplers. The only stock example is the TT-70 and TT-38K radial decouplers. It would be nice if I could have a low profile inline decoupler (not a stack separator, BTW). The low profile variants should be lighter, cheaper, and have a lower ejection force.

[Capt Snuggler]

yup, i agree. always thought it was too big.

[Skyrunner27]

The ladder positioning is fine. A single parachute (except for maybe the MK-16) will allow to land. Just don't attempt to pysics-warp during reentry, and you will be fine. I have landed crafts coming back from minmus with only one of the radials. Also if you moved the position of the ladder it would get in the way of RCS ports and any engines you may have placed on the axis of your craft.

[weeble]

Yeah, never had a problem with the dimensions of the Rockomax. I actually really like the sizes of it. On 2.5m parts it's really handy to have it wider to help w/ strut placement. The height has never been a problem for me, just use a thinner tank or multiple tanks, or docking ports.

Just think of the dimensions as part of the fun of working with what you have. You have to be creative sometimes, heck that's one of my favorite parts.

Personally I'd be mad if they changed the dimensions. I think either B9 or NovaPunch 2 have a bunch of thin decouplers. Or you could of course use the stack separator. So you have a bunch of options...

[rkman]

My biggest issue with the 2.5m decoupler is that it is the only 2.5m decoupler, so when we need a 2.5m decoupler

to carry only a small mass, we are forced to use a needlessly heavy (and needlessly sturdy) decoupler.

[Hydrazine_Soup]

I agree, we should have a thinner version, I always use the XL thing instead of the rockomax just because of the looks, or even docking ports

[Sky_walker]

I don't mind its height so much as its width. 2.5m parts should be 2.5m, having the decoupler bulge out makes connecting things between stages needlessly difficult.

Strouts. Strouts and fuel pipes hate these decouplers.