Starbuckminsterfullerton

I'm all for this, except the Titan rockets aren't called Tekto, so it wouldn't match... A vote isn't necessary, @CobaltWolf & @VenomousRequiem can just pick something, and take the suggestions into consideration if they want. That said... anyone for #TeamSarnusAndRenameTitanToTekto ? Edit: Scratch that, I just realized that Jupiter isn't called Jool either. So really, you can name it after anything but a planet, based on the precedent set by the rest of the pack.

Wow, that was fast! That's very generous of you to allow the community to use your assets like that, and I may take you up on it. LK scale I just meant in terms of texture real estate, the model is the right size. Icon disappearing may be result of .cfg file missing vessel type tag, you know that thing that defines whether the icon is a base, rover, ship, etc. Can you not see forward well enough out of the hatch window? If not, you could do an HGR-style periscope where you double click on some part of the IVA and it links to a camera outside the pod.

I'll bite. I'd love some non stock radials, even kw never had those, but if you do them even at all prototypically, they'll be terrible gameplay wise. Real decouplers usually have struts at the top and the bottom, but in KSP that'd either have to be one really long part with an invisible midsection, or only attached on one end. They'd be limited to one type of booster, and would probably be hard to balance in terms of keeping stages spinning away and not into the stack. If you just want to do it then awesome, it'll be really cool when you use the intended boosters, but to me it wouldn't be worth the development effort.

Cool! I always liked proton. Interesting approach to textures, I could never get my .cfgs to reference anything that wasn't in the same directory as the model. Ugh whenever someone posts a texture like yours I wish I could just cut bits out of it and use them instead of painting my own crummy color-block ones. Is it just me or is LK's star antenna really big even compared tot he other LK parts?

You mean I missed the chance to weigh in on my favorite Tantares pod? That's ok though, because it looks like you're going with the module I liked anyway. I know it isn't prototypical, but any chance Fuji gets a proper cylindrical fuel tank, I guess kinda like the green one? I never liked the spheres.

This would be so cool, I love those landing legs! I've never heard much about a direct descent gemini; what engines would it use? Probably would have had the worst ground visibility of any lander...

I haven't seen much about it, how does it handle 3rd party?

Cool! How very Atomic Age of you, looking forward to seeing the emissives. Edit: My puns are always intended.

Aw, really? I was planning to use that for hydrogen compatibility when I eventually finish my own engines. What do you plan to replace it with?

Don't tease us like that! I know we're still a long way out, but do you have any plans on sourcing an Apollo capsule? The stock pod would probably do, unless you want to make one, or outsource it to @Beale. Certainly turned out well this time.

Just saw @NecroBones using this in the modeling forum and was wishing it were released. Cool!

@Beale Isn't there a 'placeholder' IVA that gives you crew portraits in a black background for parts with unmodeled internals? Might be a good place for it.

Legacy I think is just the .23 part tools included in case anyone wants them so they only have one download to maintain. But I would also like to know how to use the new part tools; I read that readMe and came here hoping someone else had already found the answer, you're not the only one @Beale

Oh, cool! Pardon my ignorance, but how do I add that label, is it a Unity thing? The only attach setting I know of is the cfg file attachRules setting. My thoughts exactly, I'm glad you're on board because I love your engines and it's always bugged me how you can land on an engine bell in ksp, wiggle the gimbal around, and not fall over.

I disagree, 12 sided colliders allow for even placement of both 3x and 6x symmetry. 8x results in some attachments on corners, but still remains symmetrical. 16 sides removes the possibility of attaching 3 or 6 parts symmetrically, since some will be placed at sub-normal angles to the faces. I had never really thought about multiple colliders though, so that brings up some questions; is it possible to have different attach rules for different colliders? Could I say, model an engine with a collider for the base and another collider for the nozzle that moves with the gimbal, and allow surface attach for the base but not the nozzle? Also, are multiple colliders what people use for cargo bays? I never figured out how a convex collider could also be hollow.

True, and for a historical pack using an off size is perfectly acceptable, since you're aiming for correct scale and providing all of the necessary parts in that size. I never thought about how well .9375 fits in though; seeing how well it lines up with existing diameters in Beale's illuminating diagram, I may just have to make some .9375m tanks... This is the best explanation of the stack size paradigm and why 1.875 belongs in it that I have seen.

I don't, but I can see why it's a tough sell. 1.875 is ok because it is exactly between 1.25 & 2.5, it equals exactly three .625, and half of 3.75, it should almost be stock, the gap between sizes 1 and 2 is double any of the other stack diameters, and plus you have the precedent set by HGR, Tantares, etc. making it even more supported than the 5m and above diameters. 1.5 and .9375 have none of that. They barely exist outside of BDB (and Tantares? @Beale verify me because I haven't run the mod recently), and they aren't evenly divisible by any other sizes. It's like introducing a new MkX spaceplane profile; cool, but you're limited to the parts in the mod.

Update v 1.0.3 Added interstage structural adapters. This update has been too long coming, but it's finally done. There are some bugs, but I am currently unable to fix them and so am releasing what I have for now. Engines are on hold until I know what has changed in 1.1 / Unity 5. Edit: @MrMeeb Yes, all parts within the same category share a texture. Regarding Firespitter, the goal right now is to avoid introducing any plugin dependencies, but when ISFS integration happens I may re-evaluate that stance. @redbeard Thanks! And nothing wrong with improving on stock.

@VenomousRequiem huh, I guess I'm just use to pre reboot EVE. Thanks! Thanks for such an in depth response! I'm glad you're going for completeness in the Saturn range, but I definitely agree not all of them are as interesting, certainly wouldn't miss some of those all-solid first stages. I do the same thing you do; the more variety the better, and I always see how far I can push the parts I have, although I do that regardless of size smaller craft can be much more fun. The reason I'm glad Saturn is somewhere in the future is that eventually BDB might become a more stockalike and less outdated KW replacement. I've been trying but I can't quite do it myself yet, and I hate having to use the stock tanks/engines. Definitely interested in learning proper texturing techniques, I did read some of those guides that were on the old forums but without photoshop or any knowledge of how to use it there's only so far they can get me.

That sounds exciting, I've been wishing for larger parts in your style. (One day I will learn to texture like that!) When you do P-B & Saturn, will you do a range of tanks like KW did, or just the exact sizes needed? What atmosphere / visual mod are you running? I like it, but it isn't anything I recognize.

Whoa. That is an incredible amount of work, but it definitely shows!

Congratulations on moving out of the dev forum and into release! Edit: I have a habit of building rovers with station parts, maybe it will inspire you...

The UI looks good, will it be visible in the VAB? It would make it easier to take radiation into account during construction. Why does one fuel tank have a different color ray passing through it than the other, is it empty? I see in the mockup the two engines next to each other don't interact in terms of radiation. I know real NTR plans usually involve a neutron shield to separate reactors if there are two or more on the same vessel, perhaps a given dose of radiation could decrease core life? Although then you would need to add the shields so that there was something we could actually do about the core life, which might be getting out of scope...

Thanks for giving us an update Porkjet! And another mod hosted on SpaceDock is always good!

You sure did, that looks great! Especially how you lit up the neutralizer. Having seen it, I have one other suggestion, and I might even do it for you if I have time; an MM config to prevent Near Future from overwriting the ion FX if installed, since it will still think it is the old one and give it donut-shaped particles.