Let's talk about the Rockomaxâ„¢ Brand Adapter

[Levelord]

This guy here

With the exception of the Kerbodyne ADTP-2-3 and the Fl A10 adapter, the Rockomaxâ„¢ Brand Adapter is one of the few adapters that does not carry fuel as an integral part of its design. It boggles my mind because there are so many possible designs that could have been had with this fairly mediocre piece of hardware. If you'd still want to use it as a nosecone, it'll be easy enough to simply drain all the fuel out instead. Compared to the MK3 adapters and C7 adapters which all have fuel, it feels like the odd one out.

I for one would like to see this little nosecone that could, get some fuel capacity. Would you?

Edit: Made some editing errors to the 'No' part of the poll. Is there a way I can edit it? If not, don't worry I will acknowledge the editing mistake as my own.

The proper list is "No, I would NOT like to see it have fuel capacity."

Edited January 9, 2015 by Levelord

[astropapi1]

I would rather have all these old parts given a revamp now that they're finally rebalancing them. It's funny that some of the stock parts haven't been updated since 0.15, and the stye has changed a lot.

Sorry for the rant, I just don't like current state of stock parts.

[Janos1986]

Since it's useless to reduce drag in stock KSP, they just might make it a fuel tank that makes the rocket look better.

Also, space potatoes.

[DBT85]

Since little of a spacecrafts outer shell is empty inside it seems odd that it has nothing inside.

[Bill Phil]

That is exactly why we have the C7 adapters now, though.

[Ziff]

Since it's useless to reduce drag in stock KSP, they just might make it a fuel tank that makes the rocket look better.

Also, space potatoes.

Are you not aware that the next update is a revamp of the stock drag system?

[KerbMav]

Are you not aware that the next update is a revamp of the stock drag system?

Of which we know nothing about yet.

[Janos1986]

Are you not aware that the next update is a revamp of the stock drag system?

No, in fact I am not.

[sal_vager]

Yeah I think it should, it's solid, the size3 adapter shouldn't though, you can see through it

[Capt Snuggler]

I would love if it was hollow so you could put cargo or the next stage engine inside it.

*edit: same goes for the other two.

[tater]

I would love if it was hollow so you could put cargo or the next stage engine inside it.

*edit: same goes for the other two.

This.

We need some inline fairings.

[Majorjim!]

Why cant I vote in the poll??

[Levelord]

Why cant I vote in the poll??

No idea. I'm pretty sure I disabled the timer on the poll. You're free to post your opinions here though!

[Laie]

For one thing, we do have a 2.5->1.25 adapter that also happens to be a fuel tank, it came as part of the Mk3 suite.

Also, the tank-adapters tend to be a lot heavier than the hollow adapters, even with their fuel drained. Sometimes I really only want the shape, with as little weight as possible.

In short, I'm quite happy with the current situation, where I can have either. I don's see why I should want two fuel-carrying adapters.

[tater]

I like the choice as well, but it would be nice if you could put stuff inside void areas, like the otherwise empty adaptors. Even just snapping mono tanks in there, or batteries, etc.

[vexx32]

Well, you can. It's just really difficult and requires a lot of camera trickery to get things to attach to the inside surface of a part.

[tater]

I always forget about that. I am fine with going inside with the camera, as long as it isn't clipping… I'll try that.

[CaptainKipard]

I vote yes