• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gryphorim

  1. Don't suppose you'd consider making a smaller, 2 seat rover cab? Maybe mk2 formfactor? Also, will the stock-alike opaque glass continue to be supported?
  2. Just want to add my support for this. Ven's revamp is great quality, but a little removed from stock aesthetics, but Hoojiwana's RLA pack retains that stock feel. I can't wait to see more of this. Hoojiwana, please don't be shy with the WIP shots.
  3. Fair enough, I frequently find myself crashing KSP due to too many mods eating up my memory, so I tend to try and trim parts down to what I'm going to use, and to use packs that share texture files across as many parts as possible.
  4. Will there be any mk2 intakes or engines in the next release? Quiztech and Mk2 Expansion both have linear Aerospikes, and Mk2 Expansion has a combined-cycle engine (ie: SABRE/RAPIER, it's version is ESTOC, I think.) I'd love to see B9 versions of these.
  5. I'd like to see someone do a Mk2 Cockpit for rovers and SEVs
  6. I'm sorry, I'd have to disagree on this one, it throws the look of the whole craft off.
  7. Hi Ven, I'd like to request a few parts to be added to the next pack, if only because they seem like they should have been in stock anyways, Mk2 Intake and Mk2 Nosecone. I use other mods for these at the moment, but I figured you might add these in an upcoming version.
  8. I too would like to know how to enable expansion effects.
  9. any chance of getting the 1.0 stock air intakes retained. No offence Ven, yours look amazing, but i prefer the aesthetic of the 1.0 intakes. I'd like 2.5m resized versions of Ven intakes tho.
  10. Please say the new version has exhaust plumes scale with ambient pressure!
  11. I was thinking of using the firespitter mesh switching, so if selecting from a fixed range of prefabbed options to make your cluster or optimised single engine fits your definition of "procedural" than, yeah, procedural engines. Caveats:- I do NOT plan on making a "make-your-own engine nozzle", options will be constrained to pure vacuum optimised, atmo optimised and a mid-range bell. - I plan on sticking to the stock aesthetic, so core engine elements are going to strongly resemble stock engines, nozzle bells are going to resemble stock bells, and so on. If successful, I may expand the concept to a "Ven-alike" version later - I have never done plugin work before, so this project may take time to get underway.
  12. Unless I missed an update, procedural fairings allows for custom interstage fairings, but does not offer adjustable engine performance, part count reduction, or the inherent stability of a single-part engine. I've also found that stock now does acceptable interstage fairings as well.
  13. So I'm looking for feedback on the concept, with the general idea (from a player's perspective) going as follows: Step one grab your engine, let's say an LV-T45, for example. This is a 1.25m mounting (tank-but) normally, and has what looks like a general-purpose nozzle. Step two, tweak it's mounting size. Mounting plate can be scaled up to a 2.5m or a 3.75m base, each with differing options stemming from those. Note, this doesn't scale the engine itself. Step three, tweak no. of engines in cluster. In our example, going up to 2.5m would allow, say, a cluster of 4 engines with bottom node (and interstage fairings) retained, or up to 9 engines with no bottom node. Final step, tweak nozzles. So long as you don't go for maximum number of engines for size of base, it may be possible to select "balanced performance" or "vacuum tuned" nozzles for your cluster, which adjust the base engine isp values in atmo and vacuum. Note, maximised engine numbers for a mounting size default to "booster tuned" nozzles, which a physically the smallest. As these typically don't have a bottom node, they are typically 1st stage anyway. The focus in this mod would be to replace the 1.25m and 2.5m engines (excluding the KR-1x2) with modular engine assemblies with the above tweakable parameters. I could use some feedback from modders here, particularly those with plugin experience.
  14. I heard mention of 2.5m intakes, but I cannot find anything to substantiate this claim. Is there any info on 2.5m intakes?
  15. I think experimental phase usually lasts about a week. Seeing as how they said they want to take longer in experimentals for 1.0, i wouldn't expect 1.0 for 2 weeks from tomorrow, at least.
  16. I have a request for you, Ven. The "Vernor" LFO RCS units use an existing texture that implies a 45 degree offset to the thrust direction, could your revamp of this engine have this 45 deg offset? Additionally, could a rounder unit designed for straight thrust and a 4-way thruster using LFO be added?
  17. Looks pretty good! "Cheek" windows look a little awkward, but other than that, fantastic.
  18. fantastic work, inspirational! Can't wait to try it out. Actually glad you are looking to weld a stock docking port, personally prefer the stock feel.
  19. I like option 2, but I like how the NASA SEV has common windows (or at least, similar windows) to the existing cupola module.
  20. Specifically Hooligan Labs lighter than air parts. Lets you try one of these:
  21. +1 do want to see these parts released. Also would like matching Mk2 hypersonic intake and RAPIER or aerospike engine.
  22. I've asked this a lot on the forums of late, but would you consider making a docking port with flip-top nosecone-cover. Like the Dragon V2.
  23. Thanks, i'll check SXT out. As for SABRE compatible, i meant having an air-breathing and a pure rocket mode. My reasoning being that from the look of Reaction Engines' cutaways of the SABRE prototype/mock-up, it uses traditional rocket nozzles and combustion chamber. Thus I figured it should be possible to make a SABRE aerospike.