Jump to content

Let's talk about the Rockomaxâ„¢ Brand Adapter


Should the Rockomaxâ„¢ Brand Adapter have fuel capacity?  

33 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the Rockomaxââ??¢ Brand Adapter have fuel capacity?

    • Yes, I would like to see it have fuel capacity.
    • No, I would like to see it have fuel capacity.
    • I would be fine either way.
    • Space Potatoes.


Recommended Posts

This guy here 190px-Rockomax_adapter.PNG

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? :confused:

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 by Levelord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  Janos1986 said:
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...