Standard names for diameters of inline parts.

[moogoob]

One issue that bugs me from time to time is that there are several different names for the standard part diameters, and which makes discussion between people confusing.

As you likely know, there are four sizes. On this forum, people tend to give their names in meters with a decimal point. IE, 0.6m, 1m, 2.5m, 3m. I probably got them wrong, and that's my biggest problem. If they were an even number I'd remember it. What about the other names?

On the wiki, the sizes are called "Tiny", "Small", "Large" and "Huge". This is easier to remember, but still, what's bigger, tiny or small? (Hint, small).

In-game, there are no indications that I can recall, other than taking the part out in the VAB and comparing it visually. (If I missed something please let me know)

So, reason for bringing this up - why don't we have a standard? What might work better? I'm all for stripping the "meters" measurements of the values other than the ones column to give us Size 0, Size 1, Size 2 and Size 3. Would be quick to type, quick to say and tie in with their actual measurements somehow.

[NecroBones]

Yes, they're 0.625m (or 62.5cm), 1.25m, 2.5m, and 3.75m. They're technically all multiples of the "original" diameter (multiples being 0.5, 1, 2, 3).

The fact that these numbers are a bit strange is an artifact from the game's early development. Originally there was just one diameter, and it was 1m. When EVA was added (with fully animated Kerbals), they needed to scale things up a little to make 1-man pods make sense, so the primary diameter was increased by 25%. And additional diameters were added as multiples of that new scale.

But yes, I think the "tiny, small, large" nomenclature is confusing, especially when mods start adding new diameters.

So my favorite is to go with the "size 0" to "size 3" naming convention as well.

[Thomas988]

I always refer to the diameters as 1.25 meters, 2.5 meters, and 3.75 meters. I don't really use the 0.625 meter part enough to ever talk about them.

[Starhawk]

Size 0, Size 1, Size 2 and Size 3

This is a good idea. Much better than the way I currently think of them - probe, normal, Rockomax, and Kerbodyne.

[cantab]

I find the diameters good enough.

[dryer_lint]

This is a good idea. Much better than the way I currently think of them - probe, normal, Rockomax, and Kerbodyne.

Thank god I'm not the only one who does this

[Tank Buddy]

This is a good idea. Much better than the way I currently think of them - probe, normal, Rockomax, and Kerbodyne.

That's one way to think about it. Each size is (sort of) dominated by one brand of rocket parts: Probodobodyne, 1.25m, Rockomax, and Kerbodyne. Based off of the command pods, there are Mk1 (1.25m) , Mk2 (spaceplane and 2.5 M), and Mk3.

[moogoob]

At least the spaceplane parts are numbered already. If tiny, UAV parts were introed they could be Mk. 0 (which is silly but I find it funny for some reason.)

[Superfluous J]

I always think of them as "Small," Mk1, Mk2, and Mk3. I don't know why my brain doesn't like "Mk0"

[Brotoro]

I recognize all of these naming schemes when I see them:

- tiny, small, large, huge

- 0.625, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75 meter

- .5, 1, 2, 3 'meter' (â€Ârounded off versionâ€Â)

- (Mk0), Mk1, Mk2, Mk3

- probe, standard, large, huge

- size 0, size 1, size 2, size 3

Using "Rockomax" and "Kerbodyne" as sizes is fairly clear, but Rockomax does make engines in tiny size, so it is potentially confusing.

The "rounded off meter sizes" do become a problem when you get to size 4 (5 meter...or 4 meter?).

But I tend to use the actual meter measurement (the one with multiples of 1.25 meters).

[CalculusWarrior]

I'm with Brotoro, I've been playing long enough that I can picture the part's size no matter the naming scheme. I tend to switch between systems myself, sometimes calling a lifter 'huge', or a probe being built out of '0.625m parts'.

[Guest]

I prefer the diameter, especially since I use Procedural Parts and TweakScale, just makes more sense.

[Rithsom]

It always bugged me that the wiki calls 1.25m parts "small" instead of medium...

But yes, I always use the 0.625, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75 naming scheme, as confusing as it is.

[PB666]

Yes, they're 0.625m (or 62.5cm), 1.25m, 2.5m, and 3.75m. They're technically all multiples of the "original" diameter (multiples being 0.5, 1, 2, 3).

The fact that these numbers are a bit strange is an artifact from the game's early development. Originally there was just one diameter, and it was 1m. When EVA was added (with fully animated Kerbals), they needed to scale things up a little to make 1-man pods make sense, so the primary diameter was increased by 25%. And additional diameters were added as multiples of that new scale.

But yes, I think the "tiny, small, large" nomenclature is confusing, especially when mods start adding new diameters.

So my favorite is to go with the "size 0" to "size 3" naming convention as well.

I have 0.625, 0.884, 1.25, 1.767, 2.5, 3.75, 5.0, 7.0-7.5, 10.0 and I have a new size 14 tank that I am using for launch

I call these F-half, F-three-quaters, F1, F1.5, F2, F3, F4, F6, F8, F12

THese are scale factors and scale-factor 1 typically = 1.25 some it should be SF1/2, -3/4, -1, -1.5, -2, -3, -4, -6, -8, -12

I have all of the tanks and engines and most adapters. Basically I can make a tall rocket without reverting to high ISP engines that has dV in the 10,000s. (think 20 to 30k). The biggest problem is segmental flexibility.

[Xavven]

I recognize all of these naming schemes when I see them:

- tiny, small, large, huge

- 0.625, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75 meter

- .5, 1, 2, 3 'meter' (â€Ârounded off versionâ€Â)

- (Mk0), Mk1, Mk2, Mk3

- probe, standard, large, huge

- size 0, size 1, size 2, size 3

Using "Rockomax" and "Kerbodyne" as sizes is fairly clear, but Rockomax does make engines in tiny size, so it is potentially confusing.

The "rounded off meter sizes" do become a problem when you get to size 4 (5 meter...or 4 meter?).

But I tend to use the actual meter measurement (the one with multiples of 1.25 meters).

Same here. I tend to use "tiny - huge" the most often, followed by the meter versions. However, I generally understand what Brotoro listed.

[RoboRay]

Diameter in meters... So, 0.625m, 1.25m, 2.5m, 3.75m.

I like the Size 0, Size 1, Size 2 and so forth... but it becomes problematic with the next quantum jump to 5m mod parts as the "first digit" relationship fails. Do you call a 5m part Size 4 and break the size-diameter relationship or call it Size 5 and retain the relationship? And then let people who don't get it scratch their heads over the missing Size 4?

Physical dimensions is the least confusing.

[NecroBones]

Diameter in meters... So, 0.625m, 1.25m, 2.5m, 3.75m.

I like the Size 0, Size 1, Size 2 and so forth... but it becomes problematic with the next quantum jump to 5m mod parts as the "first digit" relationship fails. Do you call a 5m part Size 4 and break the size-diameter relationship or call it Size 5 and retain the relationship? And then let people who don't get it scratch their heads over the missing Size 4?

Physical dimensions is the least confusing.

From a part-modding perspective:

I call the 5m parts "size 4" in my head, and technically that's the node-size you use when creating the attachment nodes in the part CFG files.

However, since not everyone is on the same page, I always end up favoring the actual diameter measurements in the part descriptions.

[Odielthen]

Huh. I've never had any problems with using the metric diameter sizes. It is precise and in my opinion intuitive.

For strictly personal reasons, I disagree with going to a size 0 to size 4 scale.

[moogoob]

Huh. I've never had any problems with using the metric diameter sizes. It is precise and in my opinion intuitive.

For strictly personal reasons, I disagree with going to a size 0 to size 4 scale.

And for strictly personal reasons as well, I can never remember the numbers that come after the decimal point. Which leads to me getting them wrong. Which annoys everyone.

[Tex]

I always just use the diameters, myself. .625, 1.25, 2.5, and 3.75 are easy to remember.

[Vector-5]

This is a good idea. Much better than the way I currently think of them - probe, normal, Rockomax, and Kerbodyne.

I usually follow the same convention, although 'normal' is replaced with 'FL'. That's just for speech, though. If i'm typing, I just refer to them by their names or diameters (FL-400, 1.25 m, etc.)

[royying]

At least the spaceplane parts are numbered already. If tiny, UAV parts were introed they could be Mk. 0 (which is silly but I find it funny for some reason.)

The physic limit make some point for tiny craft

[Esme]

I just tend to think in terms of the diamters in metres, although I also like the Mk0,1,2,3 idea too. But here's a thought - try converting those sizes to non-metric units. They're pretty close to 2ft, 4ft, 8ft and 12ft. Hmmmn... NASA influence, maybe? ;-} Next size (roughly 16ft) up would be one rod, pole or perch.... <grin>

[metl]

The diameter size is the least confusing as to how big or small a part is and prevents any confusion when building. They can be quite a mouthful when explaining to someone else though. "Put a size zero point six two five meter tank onto one of the zero point six two five meter to one point two five meter adapters. Make sure the zero point six two five meter end is on the top side."

While clear and descriptive, is can really begin to bog down a conversation with numbers. I would like to see an actual naming convention standard used.

[sumghai]

I personally prefer referring to them by diameter in meters, since there's always the possibility of non-standard or intermediate sizes being added in the future.