Krzeszny

Some bugs in 1.11: All the EPL non-Science parts (but 3) are in the "Utility" part category and in the "EL Items" category (they should only be in EL Items) The 3 exceptions that aren't in the Utility category (because they're in other categories) are the KS Mallet, Launch Pad 2 and KS-LP Landing Pad and Kerbal Rocket Workbench The EL Items category icon is always fully black if the category isn't selected The mallet can't be used in the stock inventory system By the way, the expanded parts mod is dead but maybe the models could be incorporated? They all loaded in KSP 1.11, just the functions aren't working. All of them are much more detailed. The orbital workshop makes more sense than an orbital dock, the rocket building workshop looks like a real facility and the smelters... still not pretty but better than the placeholder smelters. Please?

@RoverDude TBD It would be nice to have the OP updated, too.

Is there a chance for this mod to get simple retextures or remodels for the fuel snack tanks?

No. My point is that there's no explanation what... ...in 1.11. What does it do that the stock system doesn't? In my opinion, the mod's description should describe that.

Not really. I thought my point was obvious, but I'll elaborate. "new gameplay mechanics" - such as? "brand new inventory system" - what makes it brand new? "EVA usable items and tools" - what items and tools? "want to build a rover on Duna on scratch or attach a solar panel to planetary stations?" - you can do it in stock KSP, can't you? "The mod offers container parts of various size to deliver spare parts to the orbit or at the construction site." - stock KSP already adds part containers. That's possible in stock KSP, except for the goggles, hats etc. Stock KSP also has special tools used in EVA construction. Usually OP's advertise the functions of mods in a way that makes players want to download them. OP's at least list the things mods add. This mod seems to add... stock things? Imagine a generic mod called "Revamped mechanics and New Parts for KSP 1.11" with a description saying "This mod revamps some mechanics, adds fuel tanks and cargo containers" with no further details. I'm interested in how this mod allows more parts to be placed in inventories and what makes its EVA construction system better.

I'm sure someone has already asked about it, maybe even me in the past, but I went through at least 5 last pages in this thread and couldn't find the answer. Can the OP be updated to answer at least the most basic question? Namely, what is this mod? It's not meant to sound sarcastic but I don't know how to make it not sound sarcastic

Most likely in need of a recompile. It seems to work in the VAB, however some buttons on the context menu are sometimes doubled, such as Remove All Tanks and Show Tank UI. Nothing major but I haven't tested it extensively.

No, you misunderstood. I didn't mean that the Stratus-V tank was too big. In fact, I calculated the volumes of the FL-R10 cylinder and the Stratus-V sphere and they're equal, so it makes perfect sense in stock KSP. I meant that the spherical tank modeled inside the ReStock's FL-R10 is too small for FL-R10's volume. Based on the remodeled FL-R10 and mathematics, the ReStock volume (assuming the ReStock's inside sphere's diameter being about 89% of the FL-R10's height) would be 21% of the stock FL-R10. ReStock FL-R10's visible volume is 5 times smaller than the vanilla FL-R10's visible volume. (It's similar with bigger FL-R tanks but it's not obvious due to no bigger Stratus-V tanks.)

Volume vs size problem

Could you officially fork it so that it can be archived on CKAN (with your permission)? It needs a new thread and optionally SpaceDock. Plus, you could take over@Ser who hasn't visited the forums for at least a few months. Based on my benchmark (several posts back) the beta didn't impact the performance in a measurable way.

Not sure if you've realised it yet but the values in the spreadsheet are the ACTUAL values with FTP installed. I included realistic values in the comments when you hover over red cells. Red means big problems and yellow means smaller problems with the values in the spreadsheet.

See if the extra-large 2.5m tanks have broken masses like I mentioned in my previous posts.

I solved the puzzle. My bad, I was just reading the wrong values because your fuel tanks have the Oxidiser above the Liquid Fuel when you right-click a tank. All stock tanks have LF above and Ox below (the green bars.)

I had this idea that CE or an optional patch could add the need to keep all LOx-containing tanks cooled, as liquid oxygen is cryogenic. (By the way, the Restock patch could be added to CKAN.)

Uhm... Speaking of NFLV, in my last post I mentioned that S4 and S5 fuel tanks from NFLV have wrong volumes not compensated by the mass (22.(2)% too much volume.) Can you comment on that?

This reminds me of my parachutes breaking (while trying to slow down a 7.5m reusable booster) and on deployment, sending the booster flying at TWICE THE SPEED OF LIGHT into the void. Yes, this was today.

TL;DR this mod has the potential to become the ultimate parts mod, perhaps the most popular one on CKAN, being an alternative for several of the big parts mods. The customizable fuel tank(s) beats procedural parts and is the most useful part I've ever seen! With a better UI that's how it could work in KSP 2. One part replaces a few hundred - no jokes - and the mod also has a myriad of other highly-detailed, multi-function parts and habitats. I can't stress how much I wish this mod was being actively developed to become one mod to rule them all. It could use a custom UI and procedural replacements for even more parts (although it replaces most.) I'm not a fan of TweakScale because scaling engines defeats the purpose of having more than 1 of each type - SSTU doesn't scale them. It clusters them automatically with customizable mount types. Unfortunately, it doesn't completely work in 1.10, as some parts are broken or invisible, and even the OP is outdated with the screenshots missing. Most features work correctly. This one-part fuel tank is just an example of what you could customize a fuel tank into (not that you want to make something that looks like this.) But don't forget the rest of SSTU parts which may not be in the KSP art style (like the real engines) but look great nonetheless. Bug: the node at the top of this contraption is backwards. SSTU is an alternative to many of the popular mods, allowing you to have 1 parts mod instead of 10 (if you want to have the same functionality but less parts): ReStock+, Fuel Tanks Plus, KW Rocketry, Near Future Launch Vehicles, SpaceY Heavy Lifters&Expanded, RLA - essentially any mod that adds fuel tanks, normal rocket engines and boosters but also adapters, and makes engine clusters using really well-modelled real-life engines with thrust up to 3300 kN. SSTU also rivals Near Future Solar, the 3rd most downloaded parts pack on CKAN, Kerbal Planetary Base System, Stockalike Station Parts (adding parts with the same functions) and other mods that add bigger lander and command modules to a degree, station parts and parts for bases. I wish more of the parts were grouped into single parts using the B9 parts switch, such as the solar panels, habitats, etc. This is a must-have in a future update. Why is this masterpiece of a mod no longer developed to the point that it's not even on CKAN and the screenshots from the OP are missing?

Now I get it. For those who don't know yet, storable propellants are a category that excludes chemicals which require cooling or heating. It contains no cryogenic chemicals – no liquid oxygen. A storable propellant may be a mono/bi/tripropellant or even a solid propellant. LFO doesn't require cooling in KSP even though it's semi-cryogenic IRL, so I can't call it non-storable as opposed to storable monopropellant, as neither LFO nor monopropellant evaporate in KSP. We can have our own opinions, not a problem. However, it gives me an idea for a realistic Cryogenic Engines addon patch - making the stock LFO propellant require cooling, although much less than LH2/Ox. What do you think? I'd like to end these arguments as well, but you skipped my question about why you consider the LFO patch for the orbital engines to be completely OP. I'm just curious, that's all. Edit: By the way, I noticed that the S4 and S5 fuel tanks from NFLV aren't stock-balanced, as they hold 22.(2)% more fuel than they should, with the stock mass and cost (they should at least weigh more.) Is it intentional? The S4 to Rockomax ratio should be 4 (2 times the radius = 4 times the volume) but in NFLV it's 4.88888 and so on – almost 5 times the volume. The S5 to S3 ratio should also be 4 but it's also 4.(8) The liquid fuel and oxygen bars are switched, so I read them wrong.

Hi. Sorry for reviving but I wanted to share how this mod looks like nowadays. It's been over 3 years since the mod died but I like the models (especially the solar panels and the 3.75m pod), so I tested it in KSP 1.10. I conclude that it's 100% playable in 1.10.1, except for a few small bugs, visual problems and overpowered (some brokenly overpowered) parts, most of which must have been there originally. Rocket Factory/Lebeau Space Industries has some unique parts - a non-standard 2m command pod, a 3.75m command pod, really nice fuel tanks and animated solar panels, to name a few. Unfortunately, the mod is based on some cheaty, some overpowered and some unbalanced parts - especially fuel replicators and... energy replicators (remember the Taurusfecalium resource from the KSP mod Space Opera? that's basically what these generators/replicators use, but it has a different name and is noncorporeal.) Not only those. Notably: some command pods hold more fuel and monopropellant than could fit in their total volume. All of them have insane batteries. The radial engines have 11 times more thrust than the stock Twitch, while having the same size. This trend continues to a smaller extent, skipping only the somewhat balanced (but still OP) top engine. There are 2 monopropellant-based LFO engine copies with the same Isp. There's an LFO-powered RCS thruster copied from a normal one. And finally, the solar panels are bugged and measure the sun from the attachment point, while the stock panels measure it from the top (his leads to a constantly blocked line of sight.) The only balanced parts are... the structural ones. The models, especially the animated solar panels look great but I think that the problems should be fixed with a new release, if that happens. Here are all the problems, if anyone's interested in rebalancing and fixing this mod: I'd rather see the AVALON mod finished - the biggest fuel tanks have 20m in diameter! *insert "That's an academy record!" meme here*

I could be (or even should be) doing it like that but then I wouldn't be able to play the Steam instance with mods. Copying the modded Steam instance and uninstalling all the mods isn't so bad with an SSD, though, especially that KSP updates are so rare. You're right, the feature isn't worth the time of the CKAN developers.

There's no way to copy a game instance while skipping the mods, is there? This could be a useful feature.

Dude! The patch converts monopropellant engines from NF Spacecraft to LFO. I guess it's my fault I didn't explain this time what patch I was talking about.

The CryoEnginesRestock patch makes the LH2 Rhino completely OP if Etna is the baseline. Patched LH2 Rhino compared to Etna has higher TWR , 1.5x higher thrust, half the cost, higher Isp (and a smaller size if I recall?)

I still don't see the equivalence... nor the TWR (again, more on that below). Ocelot costs as much as 6 Skippers, having over twice the thrust and and almost twice the mass. At best, ignoring the costs, Ocelot is like 2 Skippers (with better Isp). Not ignoring the costs, Skipper is a budget option while Ocelot is very much the opposite. They're different engines for different-mass rockets (650 kN vs 1400 kN) and I don't see them as equivalents. At the same time, Walrus has about Skipper's thrust, better TWR and is even smaller - all the advantages at once (it only costs twice as much, not 6 times). 1 Walrus can replace 1 Skipper. Seems like the equivalent. 2 Walruses can easily replace 1 Ocelot, having a better TWR (not worse as it usually is when clustering) and at a lesser cost, just worse Isp. TWR is much different for me: Walrus has 750 kN of thrust and weighs 2.4 t. The TWR seems to be 312.5 = the ratio of 750 thrust to 2.5 weight, no? Skipper would have 217 TWR and Ocelot would have 262 TWR. Hence, Ocelot would have the best TWR. TWR for each stage is vital, but I choose the engines depending on their thrust and ISP (and sometimes cost), while the TWR is a minor consideration. There must be a reason neither stock KSP nor mods display it in the engine stats. It's important for DeltaV, but not as much as the Isp. Is TWR so important as to balance the engines around TWR and size instead of thrust, Isp and size? I'm just curious, as I'm not very experienced. "Monopropellant is storable bipropellant" ?????? Saying that orbital engines have no purpose is like saying that there's no reason for them to exist. R.I.P. orbital engines Normally they have a role - to be cheap and light, so don't you think they should have significantly lower costs and higher TWR's than bipropellant orbital engines? Edit: there's no special plumbing necessary in monopropellant engines, so no special valves, heavy turbines, etc., so they should be incomparably lighter and simpler to manufacture. This is what I've referred to in my previous post. How is it OP at all? Edit 2: I'm replying to Nertea's comment that the patch converting the monopropellant NFSC orbital engines to LFO is OP (the engines don't become OP IMO, as they're still less efficient than the stock vacuum engines. Before, as well as after the patch.) One last thing: it's not possible to find the NF engines by typing their nicknames in the search bar. Maybe that's something you could work on if you feel like it, but I've no idea how tagging works in KSP. Just an idea, not a request.

Are you sure it's the corrected version? In my last post I wrote that FTP tanks had broken mass values. Well, it turns out that they were mostly fine, but it's your patch that breaks the mass values for tanks such as the 2.5m extra-large ones - all the huge 2.5 tanks have 1.667t dry mass, and it makes LH2 tanks weigh 0. Also, most but not all of the FTP tanks spawned with your patch installed aren't full of fuel by default (if you go through the parts list, look for ones with a value and (max: X) in the description.) The tanks seen in the screenshot are partially empty by default: Here's a spreadsheet that shows the dry mass ratios and fuel mass ratios for the non-patched FTP tanks and stock tanks and the suggested changes: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vRB7qTuA5QGTE47vcz3xpQ8tIlWJob7G_5aIiyVpigQSpXya1GpmAB5TgQdWDMTez87m47_af30XxFU/pubhtml Conclusion: Only 7 FTP tanks are somewhat unbalanced or have unrealistic volumes (although not by very much): Oscar-Cap (too large volume) Oscar-C (too heavy) FL-T50 (too heavy) FL-T100-FTP Dome (too large volume) Rockomax FTP-8 Dome (slightly too large volume) S3-12000-FTP Dome (too little volume) S3-2400-FTP Nose Cone (too little volume) It's not as bad as I thought it was (I had thought all FTP Oscar-size tanks were OP before I realized it was because of ReStock+ which balances the Oscar tanks) The v3 patch unbalances some of the tanks way more than the problems listed above. Since the Oscar tanks are incompatible with ReStock+'s 0.625 tanks rebalance, I suggest making it so that the extra 0.625 FTP tanks are hidden if MM detects that ReStock+ is installed.