hemeac

@Cloakedwand72, the parts were balanced with a 2.5x system in mind, but that's similar to all the other mods including Tundra, BDB.

@Fraktal, Linuxgurugamer has recently released the KSP DataDump which may help with creating your tree: https://spacedock.info/mod/2566/KSP DataDump

@siimav, those nodes are in the stock tech tree.

@vardicd, think it is important to have the I in brackets, this was working for me: 2^([N]+1) / 86400 * sign(-[I])

@flart, The issue is that you have KerbalAtomicsLH2NTRModSupport which has a ReStockPlus patch that is functionally similar to KerbalAtomics/Patches/NTR/hydrogenNTRsRestockPlus.cfg. Think I would rather have the solution set up on Nertea's end as that is something that can be fixed with a more targeted NEEDS in the MM patches.

@flart, The config cache is interesting. You have a mod somewhere that is adding a duplicate ModuleEnginesFX with the engineID = LF to the Cherenkov. That is not showing up in any of my nine KSP installations that have Kerbal Atomics and ReStockPlus with KTT, so I honestly don't know what mod modifies the Cherenkov in that manner. While I do modify engine performance in some cases, I have only added dual mode engines for some very specific cases and not with the Cherenkov. In this case, the B9 error on mine is a symptom, but not a cause of the issue. Happy to help track down that mod if you want to also post your ModuleManager.log in KSP/Logs/ModuleManager.log so I can see which other mods you have installed and what is patching it. In particular, I suspect that someone saw the KerbalAtomics patch for the Cherenkov and lowered the vacuum ISP from 620 to 605 and copied the entire moduleenginesFX to make the change and didn't delete the old one. Here is what is added by Kerbal Atomics And this is what the mystery mod is adding:

The Aerobee project will be shelved for now. I think sounding rockets are in much safer hands with @Vals_Aerospace. Will keep this open if I see any scope to differentiate the mod, but think it may be good for me to find another niche. Open to suggestions.

@Vals_Aerospace, just saw this, looks really great! Fantastic texturing work

@Vals_Aerospace, thanks! At the moment, just thinking about the Aerobees to keep the scope small enough to make sure I can finish. I really do like the Black Brant's colors though, they feel very Kerbal. If I am still looking for more parts to model after this, may take a look at creating a new separate mod for the Black Brant. For the Aerobee's, I am adding some color variants for the parts, currently have the SRB and wings setup with stock white and dark themes and am working on a red theme. I may look to add a yellow as well so one can emulate the black brant style to a degree even if it is ahistorical.

While I said in my previous post I wouldn't post everything, but the SRB is functionally complete, complete with a glowing red nozzle and plume. Just showing a pre-plume version to show some detail on the model. Also pictured is Jeb and Valentina volunteering to show scale. This is still full real-world scale.

Thanks!. Was able to get my SRB together without much hassle as well. Really saving me a lot of hours of frustration. For the emissive, I used a couple of different modules that I took out of TantaresLV part configs that seems to be used in some newer engines (guessing they are new?). That seemed to work well and didn't require the use of the color animation tool, but need to play around with the settings a bit more. By any chance, do you have a good resource that documents the different shaders?

Thanks, that's really a great idea for a mod!

@Caerfinon, what do you use to pull altitude and position with your screenshots?

@wasml, thanks for these, they have been really helpful to poke around to see how things work as well as your notes.

I won't post a photo for every time I create/alter a part, but I solved the issue of the "charred" fins. Turned out that Unity was modifying the normal map when exporting and making it pink, which I suspect is stripping out height information, but not an expert. Using the normal maps that I have used in Blender seems to have fixed this issue. Will need to do more testing when I convert these to DDS. I've also simplified the texture and think it is starting to look more stockalike. I have been digging around and looking at textures from CobaltWolf, Well and Beale for some inspiration. I cannot emulate their style or quality, but hoping to get something that matches relatively close.

@JadeOfMaar and @Captain Sierra, there is a patch in the Extras, Mk33CryoEnginesCRP.txt (and a corresponding ClassicStock) that converts the Aerospike to LH2/O, but it doesn't have a switch

Congrats on the release! I stumbled on your Github of this last week and was really looking forward to these parts, especially the 0.625m cockpit, that was really missing in the game. They pair really nicely with CRE and really great for early careers.

@linuxgurugamer, think the rule is that whoever writes "first" on posts volunteers to do part testing :-) The big modelling of the 150A is now done: @Stone Blue, thanks for the tip! I didn't realize that you could do a whole workflow in Blender with Taniwha's plugin, thought one could just do some editing and re-export. I did end up getting a part imported correctly through Part Tools. Will explore a bit to see how things go, especially when it comes to a parachute. I've yet to attempt animations in Blender ever, so will see. Despite choosing a grey as a base color for the "white", the textures look pretty white in the VAB and most angles during the day. The parts also seem to turn a crispy black when re-entering the atmosphere. A bit more fiddling around is obviously necessary, but happy that I was able to get these to work otherwise in the game without too much trouble. These parts are in real world scale which really highlight how small the Aerobee is compared to even the Mite Solid Rocket Booster.

@Clamp-o-Tron was lamenting about some early career rockets recently and that gave me a bit of inspiration to open up Blender for the first time in a while. Still could end up as vaporware as I don't have experience with Unity . At the moment, I am thinking of modelling the Aerobee 150A (Pictured without the solid rocket booster), Aerobee 300A, and Aerobee 350. That should provide some early game rockets. I think I will avoid modelling the 3-fin variants: 150 and 300, but will look at the 100. I will try and allow some modularity in the parts as well. Right now, my plan is to scale the 150A to around 0.2344m in diameter with the 350 at 0.3125m (Size00 bulkhead) to correspond to BDB's scaling. Here's a couple of detailed shots of the WIP engine modelling of the AJ11-6 engine:

@Morphisor, In regards to those parts, I put a PR through to BDB a couple weeks ago that was meant to stop B9 errors with those parts when BDB was installed alongside Kerbalism. By any chance did you also update?

@-ctn-, Think you want to check out Luciole, think Well figured it out.

@darthgently, should be Alt+p

@toric5, ignore the earlier comment, didn't read the entire patch

@Majk, thanks for the feedback. It should be fairly straightforward to add what is the name of the upgrades for some of the structural parts and fuel tanks within the part description of the parts. Engines are generally straightforward as they appear two tiers later in the same branch and the description already informs you on what upgrade node the upgrade can be found. However, you should only have upgrades for mods that exist. The partupgrade code all have a NEEDS tag set so they run only if the mod is found. Agree that Hydroponics is one of the nodes that is a bit under utilized. It is placed there as that is it's location from the Community Tech Tree, but it is too early in the tech tree for station parts from the stock game. It is there for mods that have smaller diameter station parts as you saw, SSPX. You should not have any issues with Making History and planet packs. I am using both expansions alongside several planet packs in my career and have never run into an issue specific that I could tie specifically to Making History. If you do, that is something that you may want to raise on the Kopernicus thread, R-T-B is pretty good at looking at any issues.

@Strych74, I had been looking for something similar, but had not come across anything obvious. Given that @magico13 notes that there should be a way to do it, will give it another pass and see if I can come across anything in the formulas. @Clamp-o-Tron, that's a really great idea!