[1.1] RLA Stockalike 13.4 [25 Apr]

[Astrofox]

Hoojiwana, I am excited about the release (now out) of KSP and can't wait for an update from a skillful modder like you! I am very Hyped about those new probe cores.

[Harusee]

hooray! this is one of my favorite packs I'm glad to see you are still kicking hoojiwana

Obviously this is a reply to a very old post. The RLA package has been central to many saves for me for a while. However I must confess that the only reason it was a must have was the Linear Aerospike. I use that engine on so many vtol and SSTO designs that it has become somewhat an identifier for me.

As you can see, the trail of colorful fire and concept of this engine inspires me in so many ways. I have only the vaguest notion of how the new engine system has created a headache for you. I will be waiting for my beloved aerospike, however long it takes.

You can catch me on Twitch TV at twitch.tv/1stghostlive.

Let me know when its updated please and Thank you! Your work is sincerely appreciated.

[curtquarquesso]

Think I may be running into trouble with RLA working in (1.0)

I haven't really delved into the causes, but .crafts with RLA dependencies crash the game it seems. There could be a host of other causes, but any of my .crafts that use RLA won't load, and all others will. Just a heads-up. I'm sure you'll get it worked out.

[Gobur]

I think is node problem as with all parts mods, node definition change in 1.0.

Edit - I edit bottom none and i think it work - solution is in KW thread

Edited April 29, 2015 by Gobur

[vardicd]

One of my must have mods, hope to see it working in 1.0 soon.

[Z-Key Aerospace]

So, is anyone working on it yet?

I just updated TurboNisuReloaded and it isn't a hard job but there are only 15 parts to fix in that pack.

All you do is fix "node_stack_bottom" and then add some "bulkheadProfiles"

There are what - 50 parts to deal with in RLA. That would take me a while longer. I don't want to start if someone else is already working on it.

Is anyone working on this yet?

[Poodmund]

Refer to Hoojiwana's post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116916-Comprehensive-Mod-Compatibility-List-for-KSP-1-0?p=1870220&viewfull=1#post1870220

He knows it is incompatible (to some extent) and is aware. I am sure when he has some spare time he will get round to updating the mods.

[hoojiwana]

Hoojiwana, I am excited about the release (now out) of KSP and can't wait for an update from a skillful modder like you! I am very Hyped about those new probe cores.

Those will be coming out eventually! Right now my priorities are elsewhere, such as updating AB Launchers and this pack for 1.0. I don't have a timeframe for when those probes will be released, sorry.

Obviously this is a reply to a very old post. The RLA package has been central to many saves for me for a while. However I must confess that the only reason it was a must have was the Linear Aerospike. I use that engine on so many vtol and SSTO designs that it has become somewhat an identifier for me.

As you can see, the trail of colorful fire and concept of this engine inspires me in so many ways. I have only the vaguest notion of how the new engine system has created a headache for you. I will be waiting for my beloved aerospike, however long it takes.

You can catch me on Twitch TV at twitch.tv/1stghostlive.

Let me know when its updated please and Thank you! Your work is sincerely appreciated.

Wow those look amazing! If you've any suggestions on how the Cutter might be balanced for 1.0, I would absolutely love to hear them.

Think I may be running into trouble with RLA working in (1.0)

I haven't really delved into the causes, but .crafts with RLA dependencies crash the game it seems. There could be a host of other causes, but any of my .crafts that use RLA won't load, and all others will. Just a heads-up. I'm sure you'll get it worked out.

I think is node problem as with all parts mods, node definition change in 1.0.

Edit - I edit bottom none and i think it work - solution is in KW thread

Yep the nodes are probably what is causing that. This won't be fixed by me just yet (sorry!) but if you're capable then cook up a Module Manager patch to fix that issue. There's a lot more than just that to be done for proper compatibility which is why I've not done it yet myself.

One of my must have mods, hope to see it working in 1.0 soon.

It will be soonish, with new parts!

So, is anyone working on it yet?

I just updated TurboNisuReloaded and it isn't a hard job but there are only 15 parts to fix in that pack.

All you do is fix "node_stack_bottom" and then add some "bulkheadProfiles"

There are what - 50 parts to deal with in RLA. That would take me a while longer. I don't want to start if someone else is already working on it.

Is anyone working on this yet?

As said above, I won't be doing this one thing myself just yet since I'm doing a total rebalance and change of folders and stuff, there's a lot more to come than just a few simple config changes.

Refer to Hoojiwana's post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/116916-Comprehensive-Mod-Compatibility-List-for-KSP-1-0?p=1870220&viewfull=1#post1870220

He knows it is incompatible (to some extent) and is aware. I am sure when he has some spare time he will get round to updating the mods.

It's being worked on! There are other things going on behind the scenes that take priority over updating mods right now, but when that's sorted I'll be working on this again.

Thankyou all for being patient!

[Ironitaly]

If I fix the node thingy will the micro RCS thrusters work fine?

[MinimumSky5]

If I fix the node thingy will the micro RCS thrusters work fine?

As understand, yes, but they either wouldn't burn up or would burn up too easily with the new thermal system.

[frencrs]

As understand, yes, but they either wouldn't burn up or would burn up too easily with the new thermal system.

I think if you add bulkheadProfile = srf or add bulkheadProfile = srf, size0 and adjust the max temp, they should burn up correctly.

[JeanTheDragon]

Hey Hooj,

Do take as much time as you need, but is it possible for you give us a loose ETA as to when the new release for this mod will roll on in?

KSP, for me, just hasn't been the same without it!

[Poodmund]

Hey Hooj,

Do take as much time as you need, but is it possible for you give us a loose ETA as to when the new release for this mod will roll on in?

KSP, for me, just hasn't been the same without it!

It will be soonish... there are other things going on behind the scenes that take priority over updating mods right now, but when that's sorted I'll be working on this again.

Thankyou all for being patient!

At some point in the future, he is obviously busy and we should respect that and eagerly await an update when it comes.

[Nurph]

Putting together a MM patch at the moment, will throw up a link when it's done.

Edit:

RLA Quickfix: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ubujk2f8wk2ko7/RLA%20Quickfix.cfg?dl=0

Fixed the attach nodes and did a rough balance pass on the engines (ISP's mainly) and tree placement. Mini LV-N is LF only. Only thing is I'm not sure how to edit the ISP values for the two dual mode electric engines. There are two engine modules for each part and I don't know how to make MM know the difference, could use a hand.

Yell if anything else looks wrong. You can do whatever you want with the file.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Nurph

[COL_Rolf_Crane]

Putting together a MM patch at the moment, will throw up a link when it's done.

Edit:

RLA Quickfix: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ubujk2f8wk2ko7/RLA%20Quickfix.cfg?dl=0

Fixed the attach nodes and did a rough balance pass on the engines (ISP's mainly) and tree placement. Mini LV-N is LF only. Only thing is I'm not sure how to edit the ISP values for the two dual mode electric engines. There are two engine modules for each part and I don't know how to make MM know the difference, could use a hand.

Yell if anything else looks wrong. You can do whatever you want with the file.

How do I apply the quickfix?

[somnambulist]

How do I apply the quickfix?

Ensure you have ModuleManager installed. Put the patch CFG anywhere in GameData.

[COL_Rolf_Crane]

Ensure you have ModuleManager installed. Put the patch CFG anywhere in GameData.

Thanks!

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

Putting together a MM patch at the moment, will throw up a link when it's done.

Edit:

RLA Quickfix: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ubujk2f8wk2ko7/RLA%20Quickfix.cfg?dl=0

Fixed the attach nodes and did a rough balance pass on the engines (ISP's mainly) and tree placement. Mini LV-N is LF only. Only thing is I'm not sure how to edit the ISP values for the two dual mode electric engines. There are two engine modules for each part and I don't know how to make MM know the difference, could use a hand.

Yell if anything else looks wrong. You can do whatever you want with the file.

To distinguish engine modes, you can give it something like "@MODULE[whatever],0" for the first and "@MODULE[whatever],1" for the second.

EDIT: Looking at your config more closely, the proper way to do what you're trying to do is "HAS[#engineID[Monopropellant]]" and "HAS[#engineID[Xenon]]". That works for me.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Kerbas_ad_astra

[hoojiwana]

Interesting MM config! Fairly in line with what I had in mind, but I'll also be changing some engine thrust and mass values as well as ISP. In fact the whole 0.625m LFO lineup is being redone entirely since they were made to replace the poorly balanced stock parts in those sizes. A quick run down of the changes;

• All the LFO tanks are being replaced with new art and new stats since the Oscar-B has significantly more capacity, better dry mass and is surface attachable now.
  
• The LV-T5 is being completely overhauled and replaced with a totally new pair of engines to fill the gap between the LV-1 and 48-7S. This may also come with a new radial atmospheric-optimised version for use as verniers.
  
• Since the 48-7S is now in the same niche, the Kingfisher is likely to end up being removed.
  
• The Spinnaker is getting an art update and will remain the high-thrust option for the 0.625m size.
  
• Due to the downright awkward way stock treats LF fuel tanks, I'm considering removing the LV-Nc (little nuclear engine). Until stock gets proper tank management like how Atomic Age functions, the very high-efficiency engines for 0.625m will be the electric ones.
  
• And of course some folder changes, all the other engine updates, attachment node fixes, tech tree alterations (I'd love to hear suggestions!), dds textures and everything else that needs changing.

Some of the 0.625m LFO tanks, sporting a new checker pattern to help differentiate them in the editor thumbnails:

For reference the Oscar-B is slightly shorter than the smallest one pictured.

Once again, thanks for being patient guys and girls, sorry the update hasn't been as quick to arrive as in the past.

[snekposter]

probe parts when?

[passinglurker]

All the LFO tanks are being replaced with new art and new stats since the Oscar-B has significantly more capacity, better dry mass and is surface attachable now.

would size adapters fueled or otherwise be considered on account of the fact that how stream lined you are now matters a little more and that squad still puts useful structural pieces to far back in the tree?

The LV-T5 is being completely overhauled and replaced with a totally new pair of engines to fill the gap between the LV-1 and 48-7S. This may also come with a new radial atmospheric-optimised version for use as verniers.

Will the lv-t5 still have some thing reminiscent of that round mini poodle look?

Since the 48-7S is now in the same niche, the Kingfisher is likely to end up being removed.

Would the ole kingfisher still look decent if it was scaled up to 1.25m and dropped between the lv-t's and the 909 balance wise? Perhaps some where in the 100-120 thrust range with an emphasis on being an atmospheric stage?

Due to the downright awkward way stock treats LF fuel tanks, I'm considering removing the LV-Nc (little nuclear engine). Until stock gets proper tank management like how Atomic Age functions, the very high-efficiency engines for 0.625m will be the electric ones.

You know the lv-nc might be just the right size to pair up with the lone stock 1.25 LF fuselage efficiently. Alternately Have you considered making a set of .625 aircraft parts including fuel fuselages? (Basically single resource and high crash tolerance?) Stock is still rather lacking in terms of small/early aircraft parts. between those two things there might be enough tank options to let the LV-Nc continue to exist

And of course some folder changes, all the other engine updates, attachment node fixes, tech tree alterations (I'd love to hear suggestions!), dds textures and everything else that needs changing.

oh boy the tech tree is gonna be a doosy considering the way it lumps parts related to rla all together in mid to later nodes the fact that stack monoprop tanks are now on the north end of the tree instead of leading up to ion propulsion is one such surface scratching example of the problems that will be faced it might be best to either drop dual mode or drop Lfo fuel flow seeing since you can't be sure people will have decent inline mono tanks by the time the get ions

The new tanks look good glad to see you are keeping you fans in the loop

Edited May 20, 2015 by passinglurker

[wiviking]

I would hate to see the LV-Nc go away since it is one of my favorite long range probe parts. Please consider leaving it in as an optional part for those of use who use a fuel switching mod since the stock fuel configuration isn't a major issue if you use one of those mods.

[hoojiwana]

would size adapters fueled or otherwise be considered on account of the fact that how stream lined you are now matters a little more and that squad still puts useful structural pieces to far back in the tree?

Possibly! Whether I add them for the next update or not is another matter since I want to focus on revamping the 0.625m parts and fixing everything up for 1.0.X before adding new toys.

Will the lv-t5 still have some thing reminiscent of that round mini poodle look?

Nope, it's being completely changed to something like these.

Would the ole kingfisher still look decent if it was scaled up to 1.25m and dropped between the lv-t's and the 909 balance wise? Perhaps some where in the 100-120 thrust range with an emphasis on being an atmospheric stage?

I've thought about something like that, sort of an in-line Mk55, though I'm not sure if there's really a niche at that thrust range.

oh boy the tech tree is gonna be a doosy considering the way it lumps parts related to rla all together in mid to later nodes the fact that stack monoprop tanks are now on the north end of the tree instead of leading up to ion propulsion is one such surface scratching example of the problems that will be faced it might be best to either drop dual mode or drop Lfo fuel flow seeing since you can't be sure people will have decent inline mono tanks by the time the get ions

Yeah that's why I'm open to suggestions for things. What are peoples thoughts on the way stock splits up fuel tanks and engines into separate research nodes later on in the tree? The Resistojet+Arcjet will remain bimodal though with the Xenon tanks in the same node so at least I know the player will have access to those.

The new tanks look good glad to see you are keeping you fans in the loop

Thanks! And no problem. I love talking to those who use my mods and seeing what they think about all sorts of things, especially new stuff! Even simple screenshots of craft is great because I get to see how people are (or are not) using certain things. Not that I'm hinting for the future.

You know the lv-nc might be just the right size to pair up with the lone stock 1.25 LF fuselage efficiently. Alternately Have you considered making a set of .625 aircraft parts including fuel fuselages? (Basically single resource and high crash tolerance?) Stock is still rather lacking in terms of small/early aircraft parts. between those two things there might be enough tank options to let the LV-Nc continue to exist

I would hate to see the LV-Nc go away since it is one of my favorite long range probe parts. Please consider leaving it in as an optional part for those of use who use a fuel switching mod since the stock fuel configuration isn't a major issue if you use one of those mods.

Between discussion here and elsewhere the LV-Nc will stick around, and will get a revamped model as well (with a much bigger nozzle). As for small plane parts, I'm not super into aircraft so I won't be doing those.

[Streetwind]

Due to the downright awkward way stock treats LF fuel tanks, I'm considering removing the LV-Nc (little nuclear engine). Until stock gets proper tank management like how Atomic Age functions, the very high-efficiency engines for 0.625m will be the electric ones.

Pure curiosity on my part: what exactly is awkward in stock, what exactly does Atomic Age do different?

Yeah that's why I'm open to suggestions for things. What are peoples thoughts on the way stock splits up fuel tanks and engines into separate research nodes later on in the tree? The Resistojet+Arcjet will remain bimodal though with the Xenon tanks in the same node so at least I know the player will have access to those.

I don't personally have much of an issue with splitting tanks and engines. On one hand, it may lead to a situation where you research an engine first and then have no way to attach it without looking awkward... but on the other hand, part test contracts already do this to the player anyway. Plus, it makes for more interesting choices in the tech tree. So it's a fair tradeoff as far as I'm concerned.

[passinglurker]

Possibly! Whether I add them for the next update or not is another matter since I want to focus on revamping the 0.625m parts and fixing everything up for 1.0.X before adding new toys.

fair enough

Nope, it's being completely changed to something like these.

broken link. in that case I'd also like to propose the old lv-t5's consideration for other sizes as well (one can never have enough 1.875m engines )

I've thought about something like that, sort of an in-line Mk55, though I'm not sure if there's really a niche at that thrust range.

there most certainly is you see the lv-t30/45 are too powerful and need multiple fl-t800's to weight them down for optimal use (I hate stacking tanks it looks ugly and contributes to rocket flipping in the new aero cause it shifts the center of mass back) if used with less tanks then they are too heavy and best used with replaced with lighter engines (the old conundrum that an engine with less isp like the 48-7s beats a more efficient one simply because its lighter) so something that falls between the lv-t's and the 909 would be just right.

Yeah that's why I'm open to suggestions for things. What are peoples thoughts on the way stock splits up fuel tanks and engines into separate research nodes later on in the tree? The Resistojet+Arcjet will remain bimodal though with the Xenon tanks in the same node so at least I know the player will have access to those.

I hate the practice though I would consider it acceptable if they at least gave one of each first before branching off. fortunately the two mingle in the early stages of the tree where most of the rla parts have traditionally been. alternately with the ability to mod the tech tree giving some rla parts thei own branches and nodes might be an option to consider when not wanting to over crowd a stock node because its the only place the parts thematically fit.